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 .
Priority
It is noted that the limitations of claim 5 including the magnetic component includes a housing, magnetic component and lid (par. 59 and fig. 10 of PCT), claim 9 including the rear opening (par. 55, fig. 9 of PCT), claim 14 including the spine between the magnetic components being less than ¾ of a width of the magnetic component (see par. 67 of published PCT), claim 19 including the alternative of in-line and lateral fixation holes so that the magnetic component is surrounded by a quadrant of fixation screw holes (see fig. 1 of PCT) and the limitations of claim 24 including the spine being scored between the implant magnetic components (see fig. 5 of PCT) are given the date of the PCT which is 2/15/2023. It is noted that those limitations are not provided support in AU20222900367.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the claim “ or palatal implant magnetic component and wherein the magnetic insert is installed rearwardly through a rear opening into the housing” is believed to be in error for -or wherein the magnetic insert is installed rearwardly through a rear opening into the housing-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
With respect to claim 9, it is noted that in claim 5, which claim 9 depends from, the applicant has further limited the magnetic component to comprise a housing, lid and magnetic insert. Therefore, with respect to the limitation in claim 9 ”the palatal implant magnetic component defines a rear opening through an attachment surface” it is unclear if the applicant is trying to further limit the structure of the claimed housing or another portion of the magnetic component. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the housing, as claimed in claim 5 has the claimed rear opening. Such that the claimed lid of claim 5 covers the rear opening on the housing. However, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 12, 14, 16, 24, 30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgado (WO 2014/013114) in view of Li (CN 102058440) in view of Andreen (2015/0257860).
Salgado teaches a dental prosthesis comprising a palatal implant 1 (such that the implant is capable of being placed on the palate and therefore is a palatal implant) configured to be implanted subperiosteally and attached to a palatal process by a fixation screw (see par. 12 regarding the fixation screw extending through ring 4, par. 26 regarding the implant being implanted subperiosteally). It is noted that Salgado does not specifically teach the implant is attached to a palatal process, however, it is noted that the limitation is functional and therefore, the prior art only has to be capable of functioning as claimed in order for the claimed limitation to be met. It is noted that the implant taught by Salgado is disclosed as being used on either the upper or lower jaw (see par. 11 of translation). It is noted that the implant is of a size and material that can be inserted into the mouth, therefore, the implant taught by Salgado is configured to be attached to the palatal process as claimed and therefore, the claimed limitation is met by Salgado. Salgado further teaches a spine (see annotated figure below, the spline being the bottom surface that is shaded) provided on the palatal implant, a hole defined by the palatal implant (see figs. 1-2, such that the hole is defined by ring 4), wherein the hole is adapted to receive the fixation screw (see par. 25 of translation), implant magnetic components (see annotated figure, such that magnetic components are enclosed in the housing 3, pars. 23, 25 of translation) provided along the spine (see annotated figure below, such that the spine is the bottom surface and the magnetic components are disclosed on the surface), and a maxilla denture (see fig. 4, par. 26, such that the implants can be installed on the mandible or maxilla and therefore when installed on the maxilla, the denture would be a maxilla denture) having an alveolar ridge engaging periphery provided on the maxilla denture, false teeth installed on the maxilla denture, wherein the maxilla denture is configured to be placed in a mouth to engage a maxilla, wherein the alveolar ridge engaging periphery of the maxilla denture engages an alveolar ridge of the maxilla (see fig. 4), a plurality of denture magnetic components 1 provided on the maxilla denture, wherein the plurality of denture magnetic components are configured to align with the implant magnetic components of the palatal implant so that the maxilla denture is magnetically retained in the mouth by magnetic attraction force between the implant magnetic components and the plurality of denture magnetic components (see fig. 4, par. 26 of translation). Salgado teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically the palatal implant being attached with a plurality of fixation screw, having holes adapted to receive the fixation screws and the maxilla denture comprises a palatal base plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li teaches a dental implant prosthesis comprising a palatal implant 1 (such that the implant is capable of being installed on the palate) configured to be implanted subperiosteally and attached to a palatal process by a plurality of fixation screws 2 (see figs. 1-2, par. 13 of translation such that it is affixed to the bone). It is noted that Li does not specifically teach the implant is attached to a palatal process, however, it is noted that the limitation is functional and therefore, the prior art only has to be capable of functioning as claimed in order for the claimed limitation to be met. It is noted that the implant is of a size and material that can be inserted into the mouth, therefore, the implant taught by Li is configured to be attached to the palatal process as claimed and therefore, the claimed limitation is met by Li. Li further teaches a spine provided on the palatal implant (see annotated figure), an implant magnetic component 3 (par. 14, such that the components allows attached of the denture 4 through a magnetic force) provided along the spine, wherein the implant magnetic component defines holes (see fig. 1, such that screws 2 are in the holes) therein which are adapted to receive the fixation screws 2, and a denture, a denture magnetic component 5, wherein the denture magnetic component is configured to align with the implant magnetic component of the palatal implant so that the denture is magnetically retained in the mouth by magnetic attraction force between the implant magnetic component and the denture magnetic component (par. 14 of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the implant of Salgado to include a plurality of holes, such that the implant of Salgado have been modified to teach holes on each end, in addition to the centrally located hole, in order to ensure the implant is properly affixed in the mouth and prevent dislodgment of the implant. Such that by providing fixation screws on the ends of the implant, the implant will not be able to twist about the central hole. Salgado/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the maxilla denture having a palatal base plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Andreen teaches a dental prosthesis comprising a palatal implant 24 configured to be implanted subperiosteally and attached to the palatal process (see fig. 53, figs. 4a-4c), the palatal implant further comprising a magnetic component (par. 53), and a maxilla denture 40 (see fig. 5c ), a palatal base plate 42 and an alveolar ridge engaging periphery provided on the maxilla denture (see fig. 5c, par. 54, such that it fits on the upper jaw and would therefore engage the alveolar ridge, see par. 55 regarding how the shape wraps around the ridges and the shape of the denture in fig. 5C is the same with the addition of the palatal element and therefore it would have the engaging periphery as claimed), false teeth 44 installed on the maxilla denture, wherein the maxilla denture is configured to be placed in the mouth to engage a maxilla, wherein the alveolar ridge engaging periphery of the maxilla denture engages an alveolar ridge of the maxilla (par. 55 regarding how it would fit in the mouth with or without the palatal element, explanation above), a plurality of denture magnetic components 20 provided on the maxilla denture, wherein the plurality of denture magnetic components are configured to align with the implant magnetic component of the palatal implant so that the maxilla denture is magnetically retained in the mouth by magnetic attraction force between the implant magnetic components and the denture magnetic components (par. 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the generic denture of Salgado/Li with a specific maxillary denture including a palatal plate as taught by Andreen in order to provide an upper denture with a comfortable fit without any edges along the roof of the mouth. It is further noted that Andreen teaches upper dentures with a complete palate base plate and a partial base plate are known equivalents (see figs. 5c-5d, pars. 54-55), therefore, it is further noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the desired maxilla denture having a full palate element or a partial palate element.
With respect to claim 2, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the palatal implant is less than 4mm thick or the palatal implant is approximately 1 mm thick. It is noted that Li teaches that the length of the screws are 3-5 mm (see par. 7 of translation). It is noted that as illustrated in fig. 1 of Li the screws are longer than the thickness of the implant. Therefore, it is noted that Li teaches palatal implant is less than 4 mm thick since it is thinner than the implant screws which could be 3mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the thickness of the implant taught by Salgado with the thickness taught by Li in order to provide a comfortable implant for patient.
With respect to claim 10, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Li further teaching the palatal implant defines a planar surface facing the maxilla denture and the palatal implant magnetic component defines planar faces (see figs. 1-2 of Li which show planar surfaces). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the surfaces of the implant taught by Salgado to be planar as taught by Li in order to provide the implant with a lower profile. Such that by providing the surfaces being planar, the implant can be smaller and less intrusive to the patient.
With respect to claim 12, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salgado further teaching wherein the implant magnetic components are spaced apart at interval along the spine (see annotated figure above, such that they are space apart an in interval) and the spine is configured to bend between the implant magnetic components (par. 26 of translation “through that area where the ring (4) is, will bend slightly”).
With respect to claim 14, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Li further teaching the spine is narrower between the implant magnetic component than the implant magnetic components (see annotated figure below). It is noted that the combination teaches the magnetic components on either side of the hole so that the annotated portions would be between magnetic components. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the width of the spine between the magnetic components as taught by Li in order to easily control the bending as desired. It is noted that Salgado teaches bending between the magnetic components as discussed above in detail (see par. 26 of translation). It is noted that Salgado/Li/Andreen does not specifically teach the spine between the implant magnetic components being less than 3/4 of a width of one of the implant magnetic components, however, teaching them being less as discussed above in detail. It is noted that the applicant does not specifically teach the ratio provides an advantage or unexpected result or any advantage. It is noted that par. 67 of the specification simply states that the spine may have a width less than the magnetic components. Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify with width of the spine between the magnetic components to be less than 3/4 of the width of the magnetic component as a matter of obvious design choice in order to control the bending as disused above in detail.
With respect to claim 16, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salgado further teaching wherein the spine is configured to bend sideways along a length thereof in a plane parallel with an attachment surface plane or the spine is configured to bend up and down along a ledge thereof in a plane orthogonal to the attachment surface plane or the spine is configured to bend sideways and up and down along a length thereof in a plane parallel with the attachment surface plane (par. 26 of translation “through that area where the ring (4) is, will bend slightly”, such that it reads on the limitation in bold as the limitations are claimed in the alternative and only one is required).
With respect to claim 24, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salgado further teaching wherein the spine is scored between the implant magnetic components (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
294
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 30, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salgado further teaching the palatal implant defines a planar attachment surface or the palatal implant define opposite planar surfaces (see fig. 2, par. 26 of translation such that attachment surface 5 or is planar and elements 7 extend from the planar surface).
With respect to claim 32, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salgado further teaching the dental prosthesis comprises a pair of palatal implants (see fig. 4) and wherein the maxilla denture has corresponding denture magnetic components for the pair of palatal implants (see fig. 4). Andreen further teaches the palatal base plate of the maxilla denture has the corresponding denture magnetic components (see fig. 5c).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgado (WO 2014/013114) in view of Li (CN 102058440) in view of Andreen (2015/0257860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erlich-Deguemp (4,202,097).
Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the maxilla denture is configured to allow a gap between the palatal base plate and the oral mucosa covering the palatal process.
Erlich-Deguemp teaches a dental prosthesis comprising a palatal implant configured to be implanted subperiosteally and attached to a palatal process (see detailed discussion above regarding the functional limitation), the implant comprising a magnetic component 6 and a maxilla denture, a palatal base plate (see fig. 1, such that portion of base plate 3 extending across the palate is the claimed palatal base plate) and an alveolar ridge engaging periphery provided on the maxilla denture (see fig. 1), false teeth 4 installed on the maxilla denture, wherein the maxilla denture is configure to be placed in a mouth to engage a maxilla, wherein the alveolar ridge engaging periphery of the maxilla denture engages an alveolar ridge of the maxilla (see fig. 1), a denture magnetic component 8 provided on the maxilla denture, wherein the denture magnetic component is configured to align with the implant magnetic component of the palatal implant so that the maxilla denture is magnetically retained in the mouth by magnetic attraction force between the implant magnetic components and the denture magnetic component (see fig. 1, col. 3, ll.67-68, col. 4, ll. 1-10). With respect to claim 4, Erlich-Deguemp further teaches wherein the maxilla denture is configure to allow a gap between the palatal base plate and oral mucosa covering the palatal process (see fig. 1 such that there is a gap between the mucosa 2 and base plate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide a gap between the denture plate and oral mucosa in order to prevent sore spots.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgado (WO 2014/013114) in view of Li (CN 102058440) in view of Andreen (2015/0257860) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada (5,254,006)
Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the magnetic components being sealed and each palatal implant component comprising a housing 3 and a respective magnetic insert 2 installed therein (see fig. 3), wherein the magnetic insert defines a planar face (see fig. 3 such that the planar face is the bottom face of the magnetic insert) , however, does not specifically teach a lid is configured to retain the magnetic insert in the housing and the palatal implant magnetic component defines a rear opening through an attachment surface of the palatal implant or palatal implant magnetic component and wherein the magnetic insert is installed rearwardly through a rear opening into the housing.
Yamada teaches a dental prosthesis comprising an implant 10 with a magnetic component 1 wherein the implant magnetic component is hermetically sealed (col. 5, ll. 3-6), wherein the magnetic component comprises a housing 2 and the magnetic insert 1 installed therein, wherein the magnetic insert defines a planar face (see fig. 1) and further with respect to claim 5, wherein a lid 5 is configured to retain the magnetic insert in the house.
Yamada further teaches with respect to claim 9, wherein the magnetic component defines a rear opening (the opening when element 5 is not placed yet) through an attachment surface if the implant (such that something is attached to the surface) or the magnetic component and the magnetic insert is installed rearwardly through a rear opening into the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the integral housing containing the magnetic element taught by Salgado/Li/Andreen with the housing with a lid taught by Yamada since it has been held that making a once integral element into separate elements involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 V, C). It is further noted that the applicant does not disclose any advantage to the two part housing over the single housing and teaches both alternatives.
Claim(s) 19, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgado (WO 2014/013114) in view of Li (CN 102058440) in view of Andreen (2015/0257860) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Gibson (WO 03/092326).
With respect to claim 19, Salgado/Li/Andreen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salgado further teaching wherein Li further teaches the plurality of holes includes in-line holes located along a length of the spine, however, does not specifically teach the plurality of holes further includes lateral holes located laterally adjacent the spine and wherein each implant magnetic component is surrounded by a quadrant of the plurality of holes.
Gibson teaches an implant configured to be implanted and attached by a plurality of fixation screw 29, a spine provided on the implant, a plurality of holes defined by the implant (such that the holes are filled with screw 29), an implant magnetic component 22 provided along the spine.
With respect to claim 19, Gibson further teaches the plurality of holes includes in-line holes located along a length of the spine and lateral holes located laterally adjacent the spine and wherein each implant magnetic component is surrounded by a quadrant of the plurality of holes (see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Salgado/Li/Andreen to include lateral holes as taught by Gibson in order to secure the implant in a desired secure manner. Such that by providing more hole for securing the implant, it will be more secure.
PNG
media_image4.png
186
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 23, Salgado/Li/Andreen/Gibson teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salgado further teaching wherein the in-line fixation screw holes are provided on the spine between the implant magnetic components (see annaoted figure above, fig. 1). It is noted that the combination of Salgado/Li teaches the plurality of holes.
With respect to claim 25, Salgado/Li/Andreen/Gibson teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Li teaching the palatal implant includes side wings defining the lateral fixation screw holes, each side wing comprises a stem and a distal end, wherein the distal end defines a fixation screw aperture therethrough, the distal end being wider than the stem, and wherein each side wing is configured to bend up and down in a plane orthogonal to an attachment surface plane or the implant further comprises end wings which extend in alignment with the spine and each end wing defines a respective in-line fixature aperture therethrough. It is noted that Li teaches end wings as claimed illustrated in fig. 2. It is noted that the combination teaches the in-line aperture (the aperture of Salgado) with the end wings with the in-line apertures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding priority, it is noted that the cited section regarding the magnetic insert being encased in a housing for support of the limitations of claim 5 are not persuasive. It is noted that the housing does not provide support for the claimed housing with a lid, such that the housing can be an integral housing that completely encases the magnetic element.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding priority of the limitations of claim 14, specifically teach spine having a width ¾ less than the magnetic component. While it is agreed that the figures show the width of the spine being less, the figures are not to scale and therefore cannot be relied upon for a specific range, therefore, support in the foreign application is not provided for claim 14.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding support for claim 19, specifically the holes surrounding the magnetic component by a quadrant, the applicant points to figure 2 that shows both inline and lateral holes. While it is noted that support for both inline and lateral holes is provided for in the foreign application, the figure does not provide support for the claimed magnetic component being surrounded by a quadrant of holes as claimed. Therefore, the claim get the date of the PCT application.
The applicant argues that the amendments overcome all the 112 rejections, however, claim 9 was not amended and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art, the applicant argues that current invention is designed to be bend and be cut to fit more accurately the patient’s anatomy, unlike Salgado which can only bend at a single central location. The applicant also argues that Salgado does not teach the claimed multiple screw holes. However, it is noted that the claimed method of use is not being claimed and the applicant has not claimed the device functioning as claimed (i.e. bending or being cut at multiple locations in the independent claim), therefore, the applicants’ arguments regarding the functionally of the device are moot as they are not being claimed. With respect to the applicant’s arguments of Salgado not teaching multiple holes, it is noted that the prior art of Li was cited to teach the plurality of holes and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Li does not teach multiple magnets, however, it is noted that the prior art of Salgado was used to teach the limitation of multiple magnets and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot. Further the applicant argues the method of use of Li, including that the implant is disclosed as being submucosal, however, as pointed out above, the applicant is not claiming the method of use and therefore, the arguments related to the method of use being different are moot. Further the prior art of Salgado does teach the implant being subperiosteally located and is being modified with Li to teach a plurality of holes. The applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the above response.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Andreen is a magnet embedded in a rigid case and cannot be bent as taught by the current invention. However, as discussed above, the applicant is not claiming the method of use. Further Andreen is only being used to teach a denture with a palatal base. Such that denture of Salgado is being modified to have the base as taught by Andreen. Andreen is not being used to teach any of the limitations of the magnetic element with the spine. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Erlich-Deguemp and Yamada do not teach the dental prosthesis as claimed, however, as discussed above in detail, the art is being used to modify the main reference to teach some limitations. It is noted that a single prior art does not in whole have to teach all of the claimed limitations but can teach some of the limitations and be modified by other art to teach other limitations.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 3/31/2026
Prosecution Insights