www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`18/018,769
`
`01/30/2023
`
`Christopher Brian LOCKE
`
`PA001901US05
`
`7098
`
`60402
`
`7590
`
`02/27/2025
`
`KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC.
`c/o Harness Dickey & Pierce
`5445 Corporate Drive
`Suite 20
`Troy, MI 48098
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ARBLE,JESSICA R
`
`Para NONE
`
`3781
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/27/2025
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`IPDocketing @ Solventum.com
`dgodzisz@hdp.com
`troymailroom @hdp.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1,9-11,13-18 21-22 25-29 ,37 and 44-45 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 25 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`() Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1,9-11,13-18,21-22,26-29,37 and 44-45 is/are rejected.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s) filed on 01/30/2023 is/are: a)¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)2) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20250222
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`18/018, 769
`LOCKE etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`Jessica Arble
`3781
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02/13/2025.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined
`
`underthefirst inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`Applicant's election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 02/13/2025
`
`is acknowledged.
`
`Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
`
`being drawn to anonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
`
`Election was made withouttraversein the reply filed on 02/13/2025.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 9-11 are objected to because they depend upon Claim 7, which has
`
`been cancelled. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these claims are interpreted
`
`as depending upon Claim 1.
`
`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 ora jointinventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing outand distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claims 9 and 11 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 inventoror a joint inventor (or for
`
`applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim 9 recites the limitation "the un-felted foam"in line 3. There is insufficient
`
`antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution,
`
`this limitation is interpreted as the foam beforefelting.
`
`Claim 11 recites the limitation “a density of rubber.” This is indefinite as there are
`
`many types of rubber and manydifferent associated densities. Additionally, the
`
`specification does not provide clarification as to which type of rubber, or what specific
`
`numerical density,
`
`is intended.
`
`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-AlA) for the rejection will
`
`not be considered a new groundofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale
`
`supporting the rejection, would be the same undereither status.
`
`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 madein this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, orin public use,
`on sale, or otherwise available to the public beforethe effectivefiling date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 13, 15, 18, 22, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
`
`being anticipated by Robinsonet al (US 2010/0160874).
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Robinson discloses a tissue interface (manifold 212, Figs.
`
`1
`
`and 4A)for treating a tissue site ({ [0051]), the tissue interface (212, Figs.
`
`1 and 4a)
`
`comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 4
`
`a plurality of shapes (shaped projections 226, Fig. 4a); and
`
`a plurality of ribs (members 236, Fig. 4a), each rib (236, Fig. 4a) of the plurality of
`
`ribs (236, Fig. 4a) having a first end coupled to a respective shape (226, Fig. 4a) and a
`
`second end coupled to at least one otherrib (236, Fig. 4a) of the plurality of ribs (236,
`
`Fig. 4a; the second end of each rib is coupled to the other ribs through a different shape
`
`than the shape coupled to thefirst end).
`
`Regarding Claim 13, Robinson discloses thetissue interface (212, Figs.
`
`1 and
`
`4a) is configured to collapse laterally in response to an application of negative-pressure
`
`to the tissue interface (4 [0052)).
`
`Regarding Claim 15, Robinson discloses the first end of each rib (236, Fig. 4a) of
`
`the plurality of ribs (236, Fig. 4a) is tangentially coupled to a surface of the respective
`
`shape (226, Fig. 4a) of the plurality of shapes (226, Fig. 4a).
`
`Regarding Claim 18, Robinson discloses a plurality of holes (flow channels 240,
`
`Fig. 4a) formed betweentheplurality of ribs (236, Fig. 4a), each hole (240, Fig. 4a) of
`
`the plurality of holes (240, Fig. 4a) bounded byat least one respective rib (236, Fig. 4a)
`
`of the plurality of ribs (236, Fig. 4a).
`
`Regarding Claim 22, Robinson discloses the plurality of shapes (226, Fig. 4a)
`
`are perforated (¥ [0034, 0051]; the shaped projections can be cylindrical with a distal
`
`recess, which can beinterpreted as a perforation).
`
`Regarding Claim 26, Robinson discloses a system fortreating a tissue site with
`
`negative pressure (Fig. 1), the system comprising:
`
`a manifold (212, Figs.
`
`1 and 4a; ¢ [0051]) configured to be disposed adjacent to
`
`the tissue site, the manifold (212, Figs.
`
`1 and 4a) having:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 5
`
`a plurality of nodules (shaped projections 226, Fig. 4a); and
`
`a plurality of webs (members 236, Fig. 4a), each web (236, Fig. 4a) of the
`
`plurality of webs (236, Fig. 4a) having a first end coupled to a respective nodule
`
`(226, Fig. 4a) and a second end coupledto at least one other web (236, Fig. 4a)
`
`of the plurality of webs (236, Fig. 4a; the second end of each webis coupled to
`
`the other webs through a different nodule than the nodule coupled to thefirst
`
`end).
`
`a sealing member(110, Fig. 1) configured to be disposed over the manifold (212,
`
`Figs.
`
`1 and 4a) and to seal to tissue surrounding the tissue site (§ [0028-0029]); and
`
`a negative-pressure source (142, Fig. 1) configured to be fluidly coupled to the
`
`manifold (212, Figs.
`
`1 and 4a) and operable to draw fluid through the manifold (212,
`
`Figs.
`
`1 and 4a; ¢ [0045)).
`
`Regarding Claims 27-29, Robinson discloses each nodule of the plurality of
`
`nodules can be spherical, conical, or polyhedral ({ [0034, 0051]).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis forall
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent fora claimed invention may notbe obtained, notwithstanding thatthe claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior artare such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious beforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall notbe
`negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized asfollows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 6
`
`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.
`
`This application currently namesjoint inventors.
`
`In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly ownedasof the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidenceto 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
`
`ownedas of the effectivefiling 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.
`
`Claim(s) 9-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Robinson et al (US 2010/0160874) in view of Locke et al (US
`
`2018/0353334).
`
`Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Robinson further discloses the tissue interfaceis
`
`formed of a foam (4 [0032]).
`
`Robinson is silent whether each shapeof the plurality of shapes comprises a
`
`felted open-cell foam and a density of the felted foam is between 5 times and 7 times
`
`the density of the un-felted foam, and wherein each shape ofthe plurality of shapes has
`
`a firmness factor between about 5 and 7.
`
`Locke teaches a wound dressing, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with
`
`a layer formed of a felted open cell foam with a firmness factor of 5, indicating that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 7
`
`felted foam is 5 times more dense than the un-felted foam ( [0045, 0100]). Felting a
`
`foam increases thestiffness of the foam in the direction parallel to the thickness, which
`
`can be beneficial in a wound dressing (4 [0100)).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tissue interface of Robinson to
`
`be madeof a felted open-cell foam with a firmness factor between about 5 and 7 anda
`
`density between 5 times and 7 times the density of the un-felted foam, as taught by
`
`Locke (4 [0045, 0100]). This increases the stiffness of the foam in the direction parallel
`
`to the thickness, which can be beneficial in a wound dressing (as motivated by Locke 4
`
`[0100)).
`
`Regarding Claim 11, Robinson further discloses the tissue interface is formed of
`
`a foam (¢ [0032]).
`
`Robinson is silent whether each shapeof the plurality of shapes comprises a
`
`felted open-cell foam and each shape ofthe plurality of shapes has a density of rubber.
`
`Locke teaches a wound dressing with a layer formed of a felted open cell foam (4
`
`[0045, 0100]). Felting a foam increases thestiffness of the foam in the direction parallel
`
`to the thickness, which can be beneficial in a wound dressing (4 [0100)).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the tissue interface of Robinson
`
`to be madeof a felted open-cell foam, as taught by Locke (4 [0045, 0100]). This
`
`increases the stiffness of the foam in the direction parallel to the thickness, which can
`
`be beneficial in a wound dressing (as motivated by Locke § [0100)).
`
`Robinson/Lockeis silent whether each shape of the plurality of shapes has a
`
`density of rubber.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 8
`
`However, it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the
`
`art, discovering the optimum or workable rangesinvolvesonly routine skill
`
`in the art. In
`
`re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05). One of ordinary skill would have found
`
`it obvious to optimize the density of the felted open-cell foam of Robinson/Locketo
`
`obtain the optimum stiffness for the dressing layer based on type and depth of wound,
`
`as well as other factors that a physician would take into account. Therefore, it would
`
`have been obvious to oneofordinary skill in the art to have each shapeofthe plurality
`
`of shapes have a density of rubber.
`
`Regarding Claim 17, Robinson further discloses the tissue interface is formed of
`
`a foam (¢ [0032]).
`
`Robinsonis silent whether each rib of the plurality of ribs comprises a felted
`
`foam.
`
`Locke teaches a wound dressing with a layer formed of a felted foam ({ [0100)).
`
`Felting a foam increases the stiffness of the foam in the direction parallel to the
`
`thickness, which can be beneficial in a wound dressing (| [0100)).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the tissue interface of Robinson
`
`to be made of a felted foam, as taught by Locke ( [0100]). This increases the stiffness
`
`of the foam in the direction parallel to the thickness, which can be beneficial in a wound
`
`dressing (as motivated by Locke ¢ [0100)).
`
`Claim(s) 14, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Robinson et al (US 2010/0160874).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding Claim 14, Robinson further discloses the tissue interface (212, Figs.
`
`1
`
`and 4a) has a surface area, and that the tissue interface (212, Figs.
`
`1 and 4a) collapses
`
`in response to application of negative-pressure (| [0052]).
`
`Robinsonis silent whether the surface area decreases by about 30%in response
`
`to an application of negative-pressure to the tissue interface.
`
`However, it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the
`
`art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill
`
`in the art. In
`
`re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05). One of ordinary skill would have found
`
`it obvious to optimize the decrease in surface area of Robinson to obtain the optimum
`
`collapse/contraction for the dressing layer based on type and depth of wound, as well
`
`as other factors that a physician would take into account. Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art to have the surface area decrease by about
`
`30% in response to an application of negative-pressure to the tissue interface.
`
`Regarding Claim 16, Robinsonis silent whether eachrib of the plurality of ribs
`
`may have a width between about 1mm and about 4 mm, a thickness up to about 3 mm,
`
`and a length between about 1 mm and about 10 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 cause the device of Robinson to have
`
`each of the plurality of ribs have a width between about 1 mm and about 4mm, a
`
`thickness up to about 3 mm, and a length between about 1 mm and about 10 mm since
`
`it has been held that “where the only difference betweenthe prior art and the claims
`
`was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the
`
`claimedrelative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 10
`
`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 device of Robinson would not operate
`
`differently with ribs with the claimed width, thickness, and length and since changing
`
`these dimensions would merely adjust the collapsibility and stiffness of the device, the
`
`device would function appropriately as a wound manifold with the claimed width,
`
`thickness, and length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed,
`
`indicating simply that the width, thickness, and length “may” be within the claimed
`
`ranges ( [0010] of published specification).
`
`Regarding Claim 21, Robinson further discloses the tissue interface is formed of
`
`a foam (¢ [0032]).
`
`Robinsonis silent whether the plurality of shapes and theplurality of rips are
`
`formed from a closed-cell foam.
`
`However, oneof ordinary skill in the art would have foundit obviousto utilize a
`
`closed-cell foam for the tissue interface foam, as one of ordinary skill would recognize a
`
`closed-cell foam is one solution chosen from a finite number (two) of identified,
`
`predictable solutions (utilizing either an open-cell foam or a closed-cell foam) with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success (open-cell foams and closed-cell foams are knownto
`
`be used for various wound dressing layers, and would be expected to function properly
`
`as a wounddressing layer).
`
`Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Robinsonet al (US 2010/0160874) in view of Dagger et al (US 2015/0150729).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding Claim 37, Robinsonis silent whether each nodule of the plurality of
`
`nodules has an average effective diameter between about 5 mm and about 20 mm.
`
`Dagger teaches a wound dressing, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with
`
`a woundfiller comprising rigid columns of felted foam to resist vertical collapse of the
`
`dressing ({ [0064-0065]), where the columns have an average effective diameter
`
`between about 5mm and about 20 mm ({ [0065] indicates the diameters can be from 5
`
`mm to 10 mm) to resist vertical collapse of the dressing while allowing horizontal
`
`collapse, thus assisting with wound closure ( [0064}).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify each nodule of the plurality of
`
`nodule to have an average effective diameter between about 5mm and about 20 mm,
`
`as taught by Dagger ({ [0064-0065]) to resist vertical collapse of the dressing while
`
`allowing horizontal collapse, thus assisting with wound closure (as motivated by Dagger
`
`{ [0064)).
`
`Claim(s) 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Robinson et al (US 2010/0160874) in view of Robinson et al (US
`
`2016/0158068).
`
`Regarding Claims 44 and 45, Robinson ‘874 is silent whether the plurality of
`
`nodules are formedfromafilm, and the plurality of webs are formed from a polymeric
`
`film.
`
`Robinson ‘068 teaches a foam wound dressing,
`
`thus being in the same field of
`
`endeavor, where the wound insert is made of a compressed foam that has been felted
`
`to have a porous polymericfilm layer on one surface (4 [0008-0009, 0039, 0042-0043)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 12
`
`Thefilm layer has substantially smaller pores than the rest of the foam which may help
`
`prevent wound ingrowth (q [0043]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the manifold of Robinson ‘874 to
`
`be madeof a felted foam that has a porous polymeric film layer on one surface, as
`
`taught by Robinson ‘068. Thefilm layer has substantially smaller pores than the rest of
`
`the foam which may help prevent wound ingrowth (as motivated by Robinson ‘068 J
`
`[0043)).
`
`Conclusion
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone numberis (571)272-
`
`0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri9 AM- 5 PM.
`
`Examinerinterviews 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:/Avwww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on 571-272-7159. 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 Centeris
`
`available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center,
`
`visit: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/018,769
`Art Unit: 3781
`
`Page 13
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling 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.
`
`/JESSICA ARBLE/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
`
`