DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1, 3-19 & 21-22 are pending and rejected.
Claims 2 & 20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The objection to Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 13-19 & 21-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 13-19 & 21-22 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 of Claims 1, 3-19 & 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-19 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites the limitation “an outer facing wall of each side channel” on Line 11. It is unclear whether this “outer facing wall of each side channel” is the same as the “outer wall [defined in each side channel]” previously recited on Lines 8-9 of Claim 13, or a separate, different outer wall. For the purpose of examination, “an outer facing wall of each side channel” is being interpreted as “the outer wall of each side channel”.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites the limitation “an inner facing wall of each side channel” on Line 12. It is unclear whether this “inner facing wall of each side channel” is the same as the “inner-facing wall [defined in each side channel]” previously recited on Line 8 of Claim 13, or a separate, different inner facing wall. For the purpose of examination, “an inner facing wall of each side channel” is being interpreted as “the inner-facing wall of each side channel”.
Regarding Claims 14-19 & 21-22, Claims 14-19 & 21-22 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, 15 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (hereinafter "Ding") (US 2023/0165452).
Regarding Claim 1, Ding discloses a surgical access port (Fig. 1, 400; [0023]), comprising:
(a) a support flange configured to be positioned exterior to a patient (Fig. 4, 420; [0041]);
(b) an elongated body configured to extend through an incision in the patient towards a surgical site (Fig. 1, 402; [0041]);
(c) a multi-instrument hollow working channel (Fig. 8, 412; [0041]) extending from the support flange through the elongated body (see Figs. 5 & 8), the working channel comprising an open proximal end in the support flange (see Fig. 5) and an open distal end (see Fig. 8) at a distal end of the elongated body (Fig. 8, 416; [0041]);
(d) a plurality of side channels (Fig. 8, 432 and 442; [0043]) extending through the elongated body alongside the working channel (see Fig. 8), wherein the plurality of side channels are at least partially separated from the working channel (see Figs. 8-10), wherein the side channels merge with the working channel proximate to the open distal end (Fig. 10, 432 merges with 412 at 434 and 442 merges with 412 at 444; [0043]) such that an outer facing wall of each side channel extends all of the way to the open distal end of the elongated body (see Fig. 10) and such that an inner facing wall of each side channel does not extend all of the way to the open distal end of the elongated body (see Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 1. Ding further discloses wherein the working channel is wider distal to where the side channels merge with the working channel (see Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 4, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 1. Ding further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of side channels comprises an open proximal end in the support flange (Fig. 8, 432 has 430 and 442 has 440; [0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 4. Ding further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of side channels comprises a proximal port extending through a side wall of the elongated body (Fig. 8, 430; [0043]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 5. Ding further discloses wherein the proximal port comprises an irrigation port (Fig. 8, 430 is a fluid port; [0043] & [0045]) configured to connect to a water source (Fig. 1, 310 wherein 310 is a water jet; [0028]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 1. Ding further discloses wherein the working channel has a diameter that is at least twice a diameter of each of the side channels (see Figs. 8-10).
Regarding Claim 9, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 7. Ding further discloses wherein a diameter of a first side channel of the plurality of side channels is the same as a diameter of a second side channel of the plurality of side channels (see Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 10, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 1. Ding further discloses wherein the working channel is configured to allow visualization of the surgical site from the open proximal end (Fig. 8, 212 is an endoscope and inserted through 412; [0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 1. Ding further discloses a sealing cap configured to seal at least the open proximal end of the working channel from an ambient environment external to the patient (Fig 5, 422; [0041]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ding discloses a surgical access port (Fig. 1, 400; [0023]), comprising:
an elongated working channel (Fig. 8, 412; [0041]) with a lower distal end opening positionable near an internal surgical site (see Fig. 8) and an upper proximal opening (see Fig. 5) that receives surgical instruments in use (see Fig. 8), the working channel defining an internal hollow cavity with a diameter (Fig. 8, 412; [0041]) configured to receive more than one surgical instrument of the surgical instruments at a time and that allows the surgical instruments to be inserted at varying angles (412 is capable of receiving more than one surgical instrument of the surgical instruments at a time and allows the surgical instruments of being inserted at various angles); and
a plurality of side channels (Fig. 8, 432 and 442; [0043]) extending alongside an outer perimeter of the working channel (see Fig. 8), each side channel defined by an inner-facing wall (see Fig. 10) and an outer wall (see Fig. 10);
wherein the plurality of side channels merge with the working channel proximate to the lower distal end opening (Fig. 10, 432 merges with 412 at 434 and 442 merges with 412 at 444; [0043]) such that an outer facing wall of each side channel extends all of the way to the lower distal end opening (see Fig. 10) and such that an inner facing wall of each side channel does not extend all of the way to the lower distal end opening (see Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 15, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 13. Ding further discloses wherein an irrigation channel of the plurality of side channels (Fig. 8, 432 is a fluid channel; [0043] & [0045]) further comprises an irrigation port (Fig. 8, 430; [0043]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 13. Ding further discloses a rigid material that does not bend or flex in use ([0047]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (hereinafter "Ding") (US 2023/0165452).
Regarding Claim 17, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 13. Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the internal hollow cavity has a diameter of 8-35 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the diameter of the internal hollow cavity of Ding to be 8-35 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the internal hollow cavity would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “the internal hollow cavity may have a diameter of about 8-35 mm” (see Para. [0005] of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 18, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 13. Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the internal hollow cavity has a diameter of up to 60 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the diameter of the internal hollow cavity of Ding to be up to 60 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the internal hollow cavity would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “the internal hollow cavity may have a diameter of up to about 60mm” (see Para. [0005] of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 19, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 13. Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the elongated working channel has a length of 35-130 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the length of the elongated working channel of Ding to be 35-130 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the elongated working channel would not operate differently with the claimed length. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “the length of the working channel may range from about 35 mm to about 130 mm” (see Para. [0021] of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 8, 12, 14 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (hereinafter "Ding") (US 2023/0165452) in view of Ko (U.S. 5,354,302).
Regarding Claim 8, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 7. Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of a first side channel of the plurality of side channels is different from a diameter of a second side channel of the plurality of side channels.
However, Ko teaches a surgical access port (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 5, Lines 31-33), comprising:
a support flange (Fig. 1, 42; Col. 6, Line 25) configured to be positioned exterior to a patient (see Figs. 7 & 8);
an elongated body (Fig. 1, 12; Col. 5, Lines 32-34) configured to extend through an incision (Fig. 7, 90; Col. 8, Lines 32-34) in the patient towards a surgical site (Fig. 7, 94; Col. 8, Lines 35-37);
a multi-instrument hollow working channel (Fig. 5, 70; Col. 7, Lines 41-43) extending from the support flange (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) through the elongated body (Col. 7, Lines 37-46), the working channel comprising an open proximal end in the support flange (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) and an open distal end at a distal end of the elongated body (Col. 7, Lines 37-46);
a plurality of side channels (Fig. 4, 28, 32, 34, 51, 52 and 56; Col. 5, Line 67 – Col. 6 Line 10 & Lines 40-67) extending through the elongated body at least partially along the working channel (see Fig. 5), wherein the plurality of side channels are at least partially separated from the working channel (see Fig. 5); and
wherein a diameter of a first side channel (Fig. 5, 52; Col. 6, Lines 51-54) of the plurality of side channels is different from a diameter of a second side channel (Fig. 5, 56; Col. 6, Lines 61-67) of the plurality of side channels (Col. 6, Lines 61-67).
The advantage of the differently sized side channels is to permit instruments of varying sizes to be inserted into the side channels (Ko; Col. 6, Lines 50-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the side channels as disclosed by Ding, to have the diameters be different sizes as taught by Ko, to permit instruments of varying sizes to be inserted into the side channels (Ko; Col. 6, Lines 50-67).
Regarding Claim 12, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 1. Ding fails to explicitly disclose a seal configured to form a seal between at least one of the flange and the body with the patient.
However, Ko teaches a surgical access port (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 5, Lines 31-33), comprising:
a support flange (Fig. 1, 42; Col. 6, Line 25) configured to be positioned exterior to a patient (see Figs. 7 & 8);
an elongated body (Fig. 1, 12; Col. 5, Lines 32-34) configured to extend through an incision (Fig. 7, 90; Col. 8, Lines 32-34) in the patient towards a surgical site (Fig. 7, 94; Col. 8, Lines 35-37);
a multi-instrument hollow working channel (Fig. 5, 70; Col. 7, Lines 41-43) extending from the support flange (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) through the elongated body (Col. 7, Lines 37-46), the working channel comprising an open proximal end in the support flange (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) and an open distal end at a distal end of the elongated body (Col. 7, Lines 37-46);
a plurality of side channels (Fig. 4, 28, 32, 34 and 51; Col. 5, Line 67 – Col. 6 Line 10 & Lines 40-48) extending through the elongated body at least partially along the working channel (see Fig. 5), wherein the plurality of side channels are at least partially separated from the working channel (see Fig. 5); and
a seal (Fig. 8, 20; Col. 5, Lines 35-38) configured to form a seal between at least one of the flange and the body with the patient (Col. 9, Lines 2-7).
The advantage of the adjustable prong device is to form an airtight seal between the surgical access port and the patient (Ko; Col. 9, Lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical access port as disclosed by Ding, to include the adjustable prong device taught by Ko, to form an airtight seal between the surgical access port and the patient (Ko; Col. 9, Lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 14, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 13. Ding further discloses wherein the plurality of side channels comprises a suction channel (Fig. 8, 442 is a vacuum channel; [0043] & [0046]) and an irrigation channel (Fig. 8, 432 is a fluid channel; [0043] & [0045]).
Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of side channels comprise at least three side channels, wherein the at least three side channels comprises the suction channel, the irrigation channel, and a camera channel.
However, Ko teaches a surgical access port (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 5, Lines 31-33), comprising:
an elongated working channel (Fig. 5, 70; Col. 7, Lines 41-43) with a lower distal end opening (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) positionable near an internal surgical site (Fig. 7, 94; Col. 8, Lines 35-37) and an upper proximal opening (Fig. 5, 70; Col. 7, Lines 41-43) that receives surgical instruments in use (Fig. 5, 54 and grasping forceps; Col. 6 Lines 51-55 & Lines 61-64), the working channel defining an internal hollow cavity (70 defines a hollow cavity) with a diameter configured to receive more than one surgical instrument at a time (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) and that allows surgical instruments to be inserted at varying angles (Col. 7, Lines 37-46); and
a plurality of side channels (Fig. 4, 28, 32, 34 and 51; Col. 5, Line 67 – Col. 6 Line 10 & Lines 40-48) extending along an outer perimeter of the working channel (see Fig. 5), each side channel defined by an inner-facing wall (see Fig. 5) and an outer wall (see Fig. 5); and
wherein the plurality of side channels comprise at least three side channels (Fig. 5, 28, 32 and 51; Col. 5, Line 67 – Col. 6 Line 10 & Lines 40-48), comprising a suction channel (Fig. 5, 51; Col. 6, Lines 46-48), an irrigation channel (Fig. 5, 32; Col. 6, Lines 4-7), and a camera channel (Fig. 5, 28; Col. 5, Lines 64-68).
The advantage of the dedicated camera channel is to permit flexibility in the size and/or number of surgical instruments inserted into the working channel (Ko; Col. 7, Lines 43-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical access port as disclosed by Ding, to include the dedicated camera channel taught by Ko, to permit flexibility in the size and/or number of surgical instruments inserted into the working channel (Ko; Col. 7, Lines 43-46).
Regarding Claim 22, Ding discloses a method for accessing an internal surgical site ([0022]), comprising:
(a) providing the surgical access port of claim 13 (FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THE REJECTION OF CLAIM 13 IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN);
(b) inserting the lower distal end opening through an incision to a position at or near the internal surgical site ([0021]);
(c) inserting the surgical instruments through the elongated working channel ([0018]);
(d) delivering suction ([0046]) through a first side channel of the plurality of side channels (Fig. 8, 442; [0043]);
(e) delivering irrigation ([0045]) through a second side channel of the plurality of side channels (Fig. 8, 432; [0043]).
Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of side channels of the surgical access port comprises at least three side channels; wherein more than one instrument of the surgical instruments insertable at a time; and delivering an endoscope camera through a third side channel of the at least three side channels of the plurality of side channels.
However, Ko teaches a method for accessing an internal surgical site (Col. 4, Lines 38-39), comprising:
providing a surgical access port (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 5, Lines 31-33), comprising:
an elongated working channel (Fig. 5, 70; Col. 7, Lines 41-43) with a lower distal end opening (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) positionable near an internal surgical site (Fig. 7, 94; Col. 8, Lines 35-37) and an upper proximal opening (Fig. 5, 70; Col. 7, Lines 41-43) that receives surgical instruments in use (Fig. 5, 54 and grasping forceps; Col. 6 Lines 51-55 & Lines 61-64), the working channel defining an internal hollow cavity (70 defines a hollow cavity) with a diameter configured to receive more than one surgical instrument at a time (Col. 7, Lines 37-46) and that allows surgical instruments to be inserted at varying angles (Col. 7, Lines 37-46); and
a plurality of side channels (Fig. 4, 28, 32, 34 and 51; Col. 5, Line 67 – Col. 6 Line 10 & Lines 40-48) extending along an outer perimeter of the working channel (see Fig. 5), each side channel defined by an inner-facing wall (see Fig. 5) and an outer wall (see Fig. 5)
wherein the plurality of side channels of the surgical access port comprises at least three side channels (Fig. 5, 28, 32 and 51; Col. 5, Line 67 – Col. 6 Line 10 & Lines 40-48);
inserting the lower distal end opening through an incision to a position at or near the internal surgical site (Col. 4, Lines 39-41);
inserting the surgical instruments through the elongated working channel (Col. 6, Lines 54-65), with more than one instrument of the surgical instruments insertable at a time (Col. 7, Lines 1-5);
delivering suction through a first side channel of the at least three side channels of the plurality of side channels (Fig. 5, 51; Col. 6, Lines 46-48);
delivering irrigation through a second side channel of the at least three side channels of the plurality of side channels (Fig. 5, 32; Col. 6, Lines 4-7); and
delivering an endoscope camera through a third side channel of the at least three side channels of the plurality of side channels (Fig. 5, 28; Col. 5, Lines 64-68).
The advantage of the dedicated camera channel and delivering an endoscope camera therethrough is to permit flexibility in the size and/or number of surgical instruments inserted into the working channel (Ko; Col. 7, Lines 43-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as disclosed by Ding, to include the dedicated camera channel and delivering an endoscope camera therethrough, as taught by Ko, to permit flexibility in the size and/or number of surgical instruments inserted into the working channel (Ko; Col. 7, Lines 43-46).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (hereinafter "Ding") (US 2023/0165452) in view of del Nido et al. (hereinafter "Nido") (US 2017/0231477).
Regarding Claim 16, Ding discloses the surgical access port of Claim 13. Ding fails to explicitly disclose a built-in camera.
However, Nido teaches a surgical access port (Fig. 3, 300; [0058]), comprising:
an elongated body (Fig. 3, 301; [0058]);
a hollow working channel (Fig. 3, 302; [0058]);
a side channel (Fig. 3, 335; [0059]); and
a built-in camera (Fig. 3, 321; [0059]).
The advantage of the built-in camera is to not require a separate imaging channel thereby providing a more compact design (Nido; [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical access port as disclosed by Ding, to include the built-in camera taught by Nido, to not require a separate imaging channel thereby providing a more compact design (Nido; [0056]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
