DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to amendments received on 6/11/2026. Claims 1-19 were previously pending with claims 2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-19 being withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3-4, 12 have been amended, claims 9-11 canceled and new claims 20-25 added. A complete action on the merits of claims 1, 3-4, 8, 12 and 20-25 follows below.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 20-23 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a computational control system configured to compute a distance of a lethal isotherm (dL) as a function of time based on a first temperature (To) associated with the cryo-ablation balloon and a second temperature (Ti) measured by the deployable temperature probe at the known distance from the cryo-ablation balloon, to compare the computed distance (dL) with a target treatment depth (dt), and to automatically terminate delivery of the cryogenic energy when the computed distance (dL) reaches the target treatment depth (dt)”. First, it is unclear how computing a distance of a lethal isotherm (dL) which is a target distance in which a target temperature is reached is computed as a function of time. Second, it is unclear how a first temperature (To) associated with the cryo-ablation balloon is measured without introducing a sensor to sense and/or measure such temperature, the only temperature sensor means introduced is associated with a deployable temperature probe configured to be advanced from the cryo-ablation catheter through the wall of the renal artery into the perivascular space. It is unclear how that temperature sensor can measure a first temperature (To) associated with the cryo-ablation balloon.
Claims 21-22 are rejected due to dependency over claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lafontaine (US Pub. No. 2003/0114843).
Regarding Claim 1, Lafontaine teaches a cryo-ablation system (Fig. 1) for treating resistant hypertension by ablating renal sympathetic nerves (the balloon system is configured to treat hypertension by placing it in the target area and ablating the target tissue, thus it is configured to be used to treat resistant hypertension by ablating renal sympathetic nerves), comprising:
a cryo-ablation catheter comprising a cryo-ablation balloon 12 configured to be placed within a renal artery, to occlude the renal artery, and to deliver cryogenic energy to ablate renal sympathetic nerves located in a perivascular space outside a wall of the renal artery (“The area of interest may be, for example, an artery including the pulmonary artery, a vein including the pulmonary vein, a blood vessel, the heart, trabeculae within the heart, a body organ, or other areas where cryoplasty may prove beneficial . Cryo therapy apparatus 12 may be used to cool the area of interest while temperature monitoring member 20 may be used to quantify temperature by inserting distal point 26 into tissue at the area of interest” [0030] and “cryo balloon therapy may be used for ablation techniques. For example, cryo balloon therapy may be efficacious in varicose vein treatment of incompetent valves, valvular disease, mitral valve regurgitation therapy, atrial fibrillation, gastric reflux disease, gastro esophageal reflux disease, GURD, esophageal disease, cancer treatment including stomach or uterine cancer, etc.” [0009]; therefore, it is configured to be placed within a renal artery, to occlude the renal artery, and to deliver cryogenic energy to ablate renal sympathetic nerves located in a perivascular space outside a wall of the renal artery); and
a deployable temperature probe 20 configured to be advanced from the cryo-ablation catheter through the wall of the renal artery into the perivascular space, (“Retractable needle 22 may include a sharpened distal point 26 and at least one marker band 28. Distal point 26 may be adapted to penetrate and/or cut into tissue during a medical procedure” [0026], also see [0030] and Fig. 1), to perform direct temperature measurement of tissue at a target nerve location, at a known distance from the cryo-ablation balloon ([0010], [0026]-[0030]).
Regarding Claim 8, Lafontaine teaches further comprising an ultrasound imaging system to visualize progression of tissue freezing, measure a diameter of frozen tissue volume, and calculate a position of a lethal isotherm to provide real-time feedback during a cryo-ablation procedure ([0036]).
Regarding Claim 24, Lafontaine teaches wherein the deployable temperature probe is advanceable through the wall of the renal artery a distance of 1-10 mm ([0030]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 12 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryba (US Pub. No. 2012/0089047) in view of Lafontaine.
Regarding Claim 1, Ryba teaches a cryo-ablation system (Figs. 1, 13A-13B) for treating resistant hypertension by ablating renal sympathetic nerves ([0004], [0054]), comprising:
a cryo-ablation catheter comprising a cryo-ablation balloon 124 configured to be placed within a renal artery to occlude the renal artery, and to deliver cryogenic energy to ablate renal sympathetic nerves located in a perivascular space outside a wall of the renal artery ([0005], [0054], [0101]-[0104], [0109], [0150], [0181]-[0184] and Figs. 13A-17B);
Although Ryba teaches “objective of the present approaches is to apply a structure at cryogenic temperatures to the inner surface of a renal artery wall such that contacted tissue is effectively cooled to a depth where sympathetic renal nerves reside” in [0102] and “a temperature sensor can be mounted in, on or proximate to the cryoapplicator to measure the interface/contact temperature between the cryoapplicator and tissue” [0307], does not teach a deployable temperature probe configured to be advanced from the cryo-ablation catheter through the wall of the renal artery into the perivascular space, to perform direct temperature measurement of tissue at a target nerve location, at a known distance from the cryo-ablation balloon.
In the same field of invention, Lafontaine teaches “Retractable needle 22 may include a sharpened distal point 26 and at least one marker band 28. Distal point 26 may be adapted to penetrate and/or cut into tissue during a medical procedure” [0026] and “Cryo therapy apparatus 12 may be used to cool the area of interest while temperature monitoring member 20 may be used to quantify temperature by inserting distal point 26 into tissue at the area of interest. In an embodiment, distal point 26 may contact the surface of the tissue at the area of interest or it may penetrate and/or cut into the tissue to measure temperature below the surface” [0030].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add a retractable temperature monitoring member to the invention of Ryba in order to penetrate the target region and measure the temperature at the target area through the wall of the renal artery at a depth where sympathetic renal nerves reside in order to make certain the target area is cooled to the precise temperature required to be ablated as required by the procedure for more successful results.
Regarding Claim 3, Ryba teaches wherein the cryo-ablation catheter is an over-the-wire, rapid exchange, deflectable, or shapable configuration ([0121], [0201], [0241]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ryba teaches further comprising a shapeable structure including a metallic core wire encapsulated in an atraumatic polymer body, allowing manual shaping of the cryo-ablation catheter at a desired angle or curvature ([0131], [0134], [0149], [0205]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ryba in view of Lafontaine teaches further comprising an ultrasound imaging system to visualize progression of tissue freezing, measure a diameter of frozen tissue volume, and calculate a position of a lethal isotherm to provide real-time feedback during a cryo- ablation procedure (Ryba teaches “Radio-opaque markers and/or contrast can be visualized with fluoroscopy or other suitable radiographic techniques. Alternatively, a cryo-catheter with a cryo-balloon can be made to be compatible with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology so a procedure can be done using MRI to visualize placement of the cryo-catheter as well as tissue changes and ice formation” [0188] and Lafontaine teaches “in order to monitor or otherwise visualize ice or ice ball formation, optical sensing may be used. Optic sensing may be looking at the ice ball visually by color change or appearance of ice. Other methods may be used as described herein to monitor ice formation as well as methods known to those in the art” in [0033] such as ultrasonic imaging in [0036]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ryba teaches wherein the cryo-ablation balloon has a deployed diameter sufficient to completely occlude the renal artery (Figs. 11A-16B and [0076], [0109], [0170], [0181]-[0186]).
Regarding Claim 24, Ryba in view of Lafontaine teaches wherein the deployable temperature probe is advanceable through the wall of the renal artery a distance of 1-10 mm ([0030] of Lafontaine).
Regarding Claim 25, Ryba teaches wherein the cryo-ablation balloon is configured to create a continuous, circumferential cryogenic treatment region of at least 5 mm in length ([0104], [0152]-[0154]), the system further comprising a pressure sensing system configured to detect occlusion of the renal artery distal to the cryo-ablation balloon ([0092], [0170], [0306]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafontaine as applied above in view of Deem (US Pub. No. 2010/0125266).
Regarding Claim 3, Lafontaine teaches the invention as applied above, but does not specifically teach wherein the cryo-ablation catheter is an over-the-wire, rapid exchange, deflectable, or shapable configuration.
In the same field of cryoablation, Deem teaches “shaft 58, made of a biocompatible polymer or metal, may be rigid or flexible, resilient or malleable, or any combination thereof at various points along the length of the shaft, depending upon the procedure in which it is to be used and the location of the target tissue. The shaft 58 may also be shapable, deflectable or steerable by means of any of various known catheter steering mechanisms” [0063].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the catheter of Lafontaine shapable, deflectable or steerable in order to better guide and position the treatment element at the target area in view of the teachings of Deem.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafontaine as applied above in view of Deem and further in view of Wellman (US Pub. No. 2003/0069572).
Regarding Claim 4, Lafontaine the invention as applied above, but does not specifically teach further comprising a shapeable structure including a metallic core wire encapsulated in an atraumatic polymer body, allowing manual shaping of the cryo-ablation catheter at a desired angle or curvature.
In the same field of cryoablation, Deem teaches “shaft 58, made of a biocompatible polymer or metal, may be rigid or flexible, resilient or malleable, or any combination thereof at various points along the length of the shaft, depending upon the procedure in which it is to be used and the location of the target tissue. The shaft 58 may also be shapable, deflectable or steerable by means of any of various known catheter steering mechanisms” [0063].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the catheter of Lafontaine shapable, deflectable or steerable in order to allow manual shaping of the catheter at a desired angle or curvature to better guide and position the treatment element at the target area in view of the teachings of Deem.
Although Deem teaches “shaft 58, made of a biocompatible polymer or metal” [0063], does not specifically teach shapeable structure including a metallic core wire encapsulated in an atraumatic polymer body.
In the same field of malleable shafts, Wellman teaches “The malleable shaft or body 30 could also be made from the same materials, or may be constructed with suitable hybrid structure such as a polymer with embedded malleable metal cable” in [0038].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the malleable catheter including a metallic core wire encapsulated in an atraumatic polymer body as this is a known design for constructing malleable catheters in view of the teachings of Wellman.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafontaine as applied above in view of Jung (US Pub. No. 2020/0197067).
Regarding Claim 12, Lafontaine teaches “temperature monitoring device 10 may be advanced to an area of interest. The area of interest may be, for example, an artery including the pulmonary artery, a vein including the pulmonary vein, a blood vessel, the heart, trabeculae within the heart, a body organ, or other areas where cryoplasty may prove beneficial. Cryo therapy apparatus 12 may be used to cool the area of interest while temperature monitoring member 20 may be used to quantify temperature by inserting distal point 26 into tissue at the area of interest” in [0030]; therefore although teaches positioning the balloon within a blood vessel (area of interest) and due to the fact that the balloon is configured to inflate and thereby occlude the blood vessel, Lafontaine does not specifically teach wherein the cryo-ablation balloon has a deployed diameter sufficient to completely occlude the renal artery.
In the same field of cryotherapy, Jung teaches in using cryoballoon for treating atrial fibrillation “it is understood that complete occlusion of each pulmonary vein with the cryogenic balloon is required for adequate antral ablation and electrical isolation. Without pulmonary vein occlusion, blood flow over the balloon during ablation decreases the likelihood of sufficient lesion formation. In order to achieve pulmonary vein occlusion with a balloon, the balloon outer diameter (also sometimes referred to herein as the “balloon diameter” or the “outer diameter”) should ideally be a little larger than the opening, or ostium, of the pulmonary vein” [0005] and Fig. 2. Since Lafontaine teaches the cryoballoon can be used to create lesions and also to treat atrial fibrillation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to make the balloon outer diameter a little larger than the opening of the target area to make sure complete occlusion occurs in order to ensure sufficient lesion formation at the area in view of the teachings of Jung “an outer surface 238B of the outer balloon 238 can then be positioned within the circulatory system 240 of the patient 212 to abut and/or substantially form a seal with the ostium 244 of the pulmonary vein 242 to be treated” [0047].
Claims 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryba in view of Lafontaine as applied above in view of Nedlin (US Pub. No. 2024/0225714).
Regarding Claim 20, Ryba in view of Lafontaine teaches the invention as applied above, but not further comprising a computational control system configured to compute a distance of a lethal isotherm (dL) as a function of time based on a first temperature (To) associated with the cryo-ablation balloon and a second temperature (Ti) measured by the deployable temperature probe at the known distance from the cryo-ablation balloon, to compare the computed distance (dL) with a target treatment depth (dt), and to automatically terminate delivery of the cryogenic energy when the computed distance (dL) reaches the target treatment depth (dt).
As best understood in view of the 112 rejection above, Nedlin teaches “Embodiments may comprise control software, for example embedded in the User Interface and/or in the control module, to evaluate ablation depth and the overall chance of a successful procedure, by evaluation of an amount of energy released at the tip, and its comparison to the energy required to change the temperature of the targeted volume of tissue to the desired level, say −20° C., which is considered as the lethal temperature required for ablation” in [0037] and “present embodiments may use mass flux sensing to evaluate the real-time evaporation rate of the coolant and adapt it for the lesion depth or volume using an algorithm implemented in the software, as described hereinbelow. The software thus provides real-time feedback that may support clinical decision making” [0065] as well as “procedure may be stopped at any time by the user. The procedure may be considered complete at some point in time as decided by the operator and the decision may be based on imaging techniques such as Fluoroscopy, and/or decision-supporting software integrated in the cryoablation device, described herein” in [0068].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to add an algorithm to the controller of Ryba in order to evaluate ablation depth and the overall chance of a successful procedure based on real-time feedback of the lesion being formed and to compute a distance of a lethal isotherm based on the temperature of the target area at the specific depth and to automatically terminate delivery of the cryogenic energy when the computed distance (dL) reaches the target treatment depth based on decision-supporting software integrated in the cryoablation device as Nedlin teaches.
Regarding Claim 22, Ryba in view of Nedlin teaches wherein the lethal isotherm corresponds to a lethal temperature threshold in a range of -20 °C to -40 °C ([0037] of Nedlin).
Regarding Claim 23, Ryba in view of Nedlin teaches wherein the computational control system is further configured to display the computed distance of the lethal isotherm (dL) to an operator during a cryo-ablation procedure (user interface [0037] and “the display may be set to show total procedure time, LN2 tank level, Calculated ablation volume/depth, etc” [0072]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryba in view of Lafontaine and Nedlin as applied above and further in view of Blezek (US Pub. No. 2011/0191082).
Regarding Claim 21, Ryba in view of Lafontaine and Nedlin teaches the invention as applied above, but not, wherein the computational control system is configured to compute the distance of the lethal isotherm using a heat-transfer model and a database of thermal properties of renal artery tissue and perivascular tissue.
In the same field of invention Blezek teaches “Based on the plan configured with the user interface 30, the processor 14 solves heat transfer equations to simulate the response of the tumor T and surrounding tissue 38 to the virtual cryoprobes 32. The simulation determines tissue properties for each voxel in the three-dimensional image shown in the user interface 30 (or each pixel in a two-dimensional image) and boundary conditions for a partial differential equation system. The simulation incorporates models of physical properties of the virtual cryoprobes 32, as well as intrinsic tissue properties such as thermal conductivity, specific heat, blood perfusion, and so on. Using the properties of the virtual cryoprobes 32 and the tissue properties as inputs, the bioheat model computes the temperature gradient (e.g., formation of lethal ice) and time course of temperature change that will be produced by the selected cryoprobe configuration” [0026].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the current invention to program the algorithm implemented in the software of Nedlin to include means to solve the heat transfer equations to simulate the response to the surrounding tissue based on the tissue property to compute the distance of the lethal isotherm using a heat-transfer model and a database of thermal properties of renal artery tissue and perivascular tissue as Blezek teaches in order to ensure a successful procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lafontaine is directed to a general cryotherapy/cryoplasty temperature-monitoring device and is silent as to hypertension, renal denervation, nerve ablation, the renal artery, and the kidneys. The reference accordingly cannot disclose a system "for treating resistant hypertension by ablating renal sympathetic nerves," as now recited in claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Lafontaine teaches the claimed invention as the claims are directed to apparatus with the treatment of “hypertension, renal denervation, nerve ablation, the renal artery, and the kidneys” are functional recitation of the usage of the device. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) (“where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on”).
Since the apparatus of Lafontaine is for cryotherapy/cryoplasty with an advanceable temperature-monitoring device configured such that the balloon is inflated at the area of interest to cool/cryotherapy the area while the needle of the temperature-measuring device is advanced through the wall to read the temperature of the area of interest as the therapy is taking place “The area of interest may be, for example, an artery including the pulmonary artery, a vein including the pulmonary vein, a blood vessel, the heart, trabeculae within the heart, a body organ, or other areas where cryoplasty may prove beneficial . Cryo therapy apparatus 12 may be used to cool the area of interest while temperature monitoring member 20 may be used to quantify temperature by inserting distal point 26 into tissue at the area of interest” [0030] and “cryo balloon therapy may be used for ablation techniques. For example, cryo balloon therapy may be efficacious in varicose vein treatment of incompetent valves, valvular disease, mitral valve regurgitation therapy, atrial fibrillation, gastric reflux disease, gastro esophageal reflux disease, GURD, esophageal disease, cancer treatment including stomach or uterine cancer, etc.” [0009]; therefore, it is sized, shaped and configured to be placed within a renal artery, to occlude the renal artery, and to deliver cryogenic energy to ablate renal sympathetic nerves located in a perivascular space outside a wall of the renal artery); and “Retractable needle 22 may include a sharpened distal point 26 and at least one marker band 28. Distal point 26 may be adapted to penetrate and/or cut into tissue during a medical procedure” [0026], also see [0030] and Fig. 1), to perform direct temperature measurement of tissue at a target nerve location, at a known distance from the cryo-ablation balloon ([0010], [0026]-[0030]). Therefore, applicant’s arguments directed to Lafontaine are not found persuasive.
Upon further searching the claimed invention in view of the amendments a new reference Ryba has been found, made of record and applied as above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KHADIJEH A VAHDAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/KHADIJEH A VAHDAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights