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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 5/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 16 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. Previously, claims 1, 12, and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Manzo. Now, based on amendments to the claim language, claims 1, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Morley.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 1-2, 5-10, 12-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al., US 20200107894, herein referred to as “Wallace”, in view of Morley et al., US 6840938, herein referred to as “Morley”.
Regarding claim 1, Wallace discloses a robotic surgical tool (Figure 21: surgical instrument 200), comprising: an elongate shaft (Figure 21: elongate shaft 202); an end effector (Figure 21: surgical effector 208) arranged at a distal end of the shaft (Figure 21: surgical effector 208 is at the distal end of elongate shaft 202) and including opposing first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C: first jaw half 208a and second jaw half 208b), the first jaw providing a first jaw extension and the second jaw providing a second jaw extension (Figure 22A and see Figure 1 below); an articulable wrist (Figures 22A-C: wrist 206) that interposes the end effector and the distal end (Figures 22A-C) and includes a distal articulation joint (Figures 22A-C: proximal joints 220) and a linkage mounted to the first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C: distal clevis 260); an electrical conductor extending through the wrist and to an electrode forming part of at least one of the first and second jaws ([0159]); a distal wedge (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210) positioned distal to the distal articulation joint (Figure 23B: blade container 210 is distal to proximal joints 220) and arranged within the linkage (Figures 23A and 23C: part of blade container 210 is arranged within distal clevis 260) between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210 is between the first and second jaw extensions [also see Figure 1 below]); a mid-articulation insert (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218) arranged in series with the distal wedge (Figure 23C: the language “in series with” does not specify a direction, blade conduit is arranged in series with blade container 210 in the width direction) within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218 is within proximal joints 220 and first and second jaw extension [also see Figure 1 below]); and a drive rod (Figure 23C: push shaft 286) extending though and supported by the mid-articulation insert (Figure 23C: push shaft 286 and blade conduit 218 and [0164]: “The blade conduit 218 may receive a push shaft 286 and blade 270a.”) and terminating at a knife (Figure 23C: blade 270a). Wallace does not explicitly disclose a robotic surgical tool comprising a mid-articulation insert housed entirely within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions, wherein the mid-articulation insert defines a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor.
However, Morley teaches a robotic surgical tool (Figure 4A) comprising a mid-articulation insert (Figures 12A-12B: pivot bodies 112 and 116) housed entirely within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 16A-B: pivot bodies 112 and 116 are housed entirely within clevis 74, in combination with Wallace, this would be between first and second jaw extensions [see Figure 1 below]), wherein the mid-articulation insert defines a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod (Figure 12A: yaw cable 86 is in a groove, which corresponds to a first passageway) and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor (Figure 12B: conductor 84 travels through opening 120).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robotic surgical tool disclosed by Wallace so that the mid-articulation insert is housed entirely within the distal articulation joint, wherein the mid-articulation insert defines a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: annotated Figure 22A of Wallace
Regarding claim 2, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 1, and Wallace further discloses a robotic surgical tool further comprising a handle (Figure 21: handle 204) through which the shaft extends (Figure 21: elongate shaft extends through handle 204), wherein the handle is matable with an instrument driver arranged at an end of a robotic arm (Figure 17: handle is matable with an instrument driver 80 at the end of robotic arm 82), the instrument driver providing a plurality of drive outputs (Figure 17: drive outputs 81) matable with a plurality of drive inputs provided by the handle (Figure 17: drive inputs 89), and wherein the shaft extends through the instrument driver via a central aperture defined longitudinally through the instrument driver (Figure 17: instrument shaft 88 extends through a central aperture along instrument drive axis 85 and [0115]: “Since the instrument shaft 88 is positioned at the center of instrument base 87, the instrument shaft 88 is coaxial with instrument driver axis 85 when attached.”).
Regarding claim 5, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 4, and Wallace further discloses a robotic surgical tool wherein an exit opening to at least one of the first and second passageways is flared outward (Figure 23B: exit opening of blade container 210 is flared outward).
Regarding claim 6, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 1, and Wallace further discloses a robotic surgical tool wherein the distal wedge (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210) defines a drive rod channel and a knife housing (Figure 23C: blade container 210 surrounds the drive rod and the knife), and wherein the drive rod channel extends to the knife housing (Figure 23C: blade container 210 extends to blade conduit 218) and the knife is housed within the knife housing (Figure 23C: blade conduit 218 and blade 270a and [0164]: “The blade conduit 218 may receive a push shaft 286 and blade 270a.”).
Regarding claim 7, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 6, and Wallace further discloses a robotic surgical tool wherein an opening to the drive rod channel is flared outward (Figure 23B: exit opening of blade container 210 is flared outward)
Regarding claim 8, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 6, and Wallace further discloses a robotic surgical tool further comprising an electrical conductor ([0159]: “The electrode may be connected to a conducting wire that carries energy to the electrode from a power source, such as a generator.”) extending through the wrist and to an electrode (Figure 23A-C: face 214 and [0157]: “In some embodiments, each of the jaw halves 208a, 208b includes a set of one or more electrically isolated bipolar electrodes… The first and second jaw halves 208a, 208b may include conducting material positioned on the face 214 of the first and second jaw halves 208a, 208b to form the electrodes.”). Morley teaches a robotic surgical tool (Figure 4A) wherein the distal wedge (Figure 13: retainer clip 128) further defines a channel (Figure 13: aperture 120) that receives and guides the electrical conductor (Col. 13, lines 2-8) to the electrode (Col. 13, lines 2-9).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robotic surgical tool disclosed by Wallace so that it includes a channel that receives and guides electrical conductor to the electrode as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 9, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 1, and Wallace further discloses a robotic surgical tool wherein the distal articulation joint (Figures 22A-C: proximal joints 220) includes opposing first and second distal articulation joint portions (Figures 22A-C: proximal joints 220 and [0139]), and wherein joining the first and second joint portions at a joint interface secures the mid-articulation insert (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218) within the wrist (Figures 22A-C: wrist 206 and [0139]).
Regarding claim 10, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 1, and Wallace further discloses a robotic surgical tool wherein the mid-articulation insert (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218) forms an integral part of the distal articulation joint (Figures 22A-C: proximal joints 220 and [0139]).
Regarding claim 12, Wallace discloses method of operating a robotic surgical tool (Figure 1), comprising: locating a robotic surgical tool adjacent a patient (Figure 1 and [0064]: “With continued reference to FIG. 1, once the cart 11 is properly positioned, the robotic arms 12 may insert the steerable endoscope 13 into the patient robotically, manually, or a combination thereof.”), the robotic surgical tool (Figure 21: surgical instrument 200) including an end effector (Figure 21: surgical effector 208) arranged at a distal end of an elongate shaft (Figure 21: elongate shaft 202) and including opposing first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C: first jaw half 208a and second jaw half 208b) providing first and second jaw extensions, respectively (Figure 22A and see Figure 1 above); an articulable wrist (Figures 22A-C: wrist 206) interposing the end effector and the distal end (Figures 22A-C), and including a distal articulation joint (Figures 22A-C: proximal joints 220) and a linkage mounted to the first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C: distal clevis 260); an electrical conductor extending through the wrist and to an electrode forming part of at least one of the first and second jaws ([0159]); a distal wedge (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210) positioned distal to the distal articulation joint (Figure 23B: blade container 210 is distal to proximal joints 220) and arranged within the linkage (Figures 23A and 23C: part of blade container 210 is arranged within distal clevis 260) between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210 is between the first and second jaw extensions [also see Figure 1 below]); a mid-articulation insert (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218) arranged in series with the distal wedge (Figure 23C: the language “in series with” does not specify a direction, blade conduit is arranged in series with blade container 210 in the width direction) within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218 is within proximal joints 220 and first and second jaw extension [also see Figure 1 above]); supporting a drive rod (Figure 23C: push shaft 286) within the wrist with the mid-articulation insert and the distal wedge (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210 and blade conduit 218 is arranged within a central portion of wrist 206), the drive rod terminating at a knife (Figure 23C: blade 270a); and increasing a bend radius of the drive rod with the mid-articulation insert and the distal wedge as the end effector articulates (Figures 23A-C push shaft 286 is within wrist 206 at the pitch axis 290 and yaw axis 292 and [0145]). Wallace does not explicitly disclose a method comprising a mid-articulation insert housed entirely within the distal articulation join between the first and second jaw extensions, wherein the mid-articulation insert defines a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor.
However, Morley teaches a method of operating a robotic surgical tool (Figure 4A) comprising a mid-articulation insert (Figures 12A-12B: pivot bodies 112 and 116) housed entirely within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 16A-B: pivot bodies 112 and 116 are housed entirely within clevis 74, in combination with Wallace, this would be between first and second jaw extensions [see Figure 1 above]), wherein the mid-articulation insert defines a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod (Figure 12A: yaw cable 86 is in a groove, which corresponds to a first passageway) and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor (Figure 12B: conductor 84 travels through opening 120).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Wallace so that the mid-articulation insert is housed entirely within the distal articulation joint, wherein the mid-articulation insert defines a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 13, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the method of claim 12, and Morley further discloses a method wherein supporting the drive rod (Figure 12A: yaw cable 86) within the wrist with the mid-articulation insert and the distal wedge comprises supporting the drive rod within the first passageway defined by the mid-articulation insert (Figure 12A: yaw cable 86 is in a groove, which corresponds to a first passageway defined by pivot bodies 112 and 116), the method further comprising supporting the electrical conductor (Figure 12B: conductor 84) within the second passageway defined by the mid-articulation insert (Figure 12B: conductor 84 travels through opening 120).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Wallace so that it includes supporting the drive rod within the first passageway defined by the mid-articulation insert and supporting the electrical conductor within the second passageway defined by the mid-articulation as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 14, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the method of claim 12, and Wallace further discloses a method wherein supporting the drive rod within the wrist with the mid-articulation insert and the distal wedge comprises supporting the drive rod within a drive rod channel defined in the distal wedge (Figure 23C: push shaft 286 and blade conduit 218 and [0164]: “The blade conduit 218 may receive a push shaft 286 and blade 270a.”), the drive rod channel extending to a knife housing (Figure 23C: blade container 210) defined in the mid-articulation insert and the distal wedge and housing the knife (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210 and blade conduit 218 house blade 270a and [163]-[0164]). Morley teaches a method comprising supporting the drive rod within the first passageway (Figure 12A: yaw cable 86 is in a groove, which corresponds to a first passageway defined by pivot bodies 112 and 116).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Wallace so that it includes supporting the drive rod within the first passageway as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 15, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising supporting an electrical conductor ([0159]: “The electrode may be connected to a conducting wire that carries energy to the electrode from a power source, such as a generator.”) extending through the wrist ([0159]: “The electrode may be connected to a conducting wire that carries energy to the electrode from a power source, such as a generator.” And [0158]: “The electrodes each extend around a perimeter of a slot 212 that provides clearance for a blade or wire.”) within a channel defined by the distal wedge (Figures 23A-C: a conductor to power electrodes on interior faces 214 must pass through blade container 210). Morley teaches a method (Figure 1: minimally invasive surgical instrument 100 and [0046]: “In an exemplary embodiment, the instrument 100 is configured to be mounted on and used with a minimally invasive surgical robotic system,”) comprising supporting an electrical conductor (Figure 12B: conductor 84) extending through the wrist within a channel defined by the second passageway (Figure 12B: opening 120).
(Figure 12A: yaw cable 86 is in a groove, which corresponds to a first passageway defined by pivot bodies 112 and 116).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Wallace so that it includes supporting the conductor within the second passageway as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 21, Wallace in view of Morley discloses the robotic surgical tool of claim 1, and Morley further discloses a robotic surgical tool wherein the first and second passageways are separated by a central member (Figures 12A-B: groove that holds yaw cable 86 and opening 120 are separated by the walls of pivot bodies 112 and 116).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robotic surgical tool disclosed by Wallace so that the first and second passageways are separated by a central member as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
Claims 16-17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Worrell et al., US 20190314107, herein referred to as “Worrell”, further in view of Morley.
Regarding claim 16, Wallace discloses an end effector for a robotic surgical tool (Figure 21: surgical effector 208 and surgical instrument 200), comprising: opposing first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C: first jaw half 208a and second jaw half 208b), the first jaw providing a first jaw extension and the second jaw providing a second jaw extension (Figure 22A and see Figure 1 above); an articulable wrist (Figures 22A-C: wrist 206) operatively coupled to the first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C) and including a distal articulation joint (Figures 22A-C: proximal joints 220) and a linkage mounted to the first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C: distal clevis 260); an electrical conductor extending through the wrist and to an electrode forming part of at least one of the first and second jaws ([0159]); a distal wedge (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210) positioned distal to the distal articulation joint (Figure 23B: blade container 210 is distal to proximal joints 220) and arranged within the linkage (Figures 23A and 23C: part of blade container 210 is arranged within distal clevis 260) between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 23A-C: blade container 210 is between the first and second jaw extensions [also see Figure 1 below]); a mid-articulation insert (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218) arranged in series with the distal wedge (Figure 23C: the language “in series with” does not specify a direction, blade conduit is arranged in series with blade container 210 in the width direction) within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 23A-C: blade conduit 218 is within proximal joints 220 and first and second jaw extension [also see Figure 1 below]); and a drive rod (Figure 23C: push shaft 286) extending though the wrist and supported within the wrist with the distal wedge and the mid-articulation insert (Figure 23C: push shaft 286 and blade conduit 218 and blade container 210 and [0164]: “The blade conduit 218 may receive a push shaft 286 and blade 270a.”), wherein the drive rod terminates at a knife (Figure 23C: blade 270a). Wallace does not explicitly disclose an end effector comprising a distal articulation joint including a first pulley mated to the first jaw extension and a second pulley mated to the second jaw extension; or a mid-articulation insert housed entirely within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions, the mid -articulation insert defining a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod and a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor.
However, Worrell teaches an end effector (Figure 4) comprising a distal articulation joint including a first pulley mated to the first jaw extension and a second pulley mated to the second jaw extension (Figure 4: pulleys 412a and 412b and [0071]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Wallace so that the distal articulation joint includes a first pulley mated to the first jaw extension and a second pulley mated to the second jaw extension as taught by Worrell so that rotation of one element results in rotation of another element for the end effector (Worrell [0075]).
Further, Morley teaches a robotic surgical tool (Figure 4A) comprising a mid-articulation insert (Figures 12A-12B: pivot bodies 112 and 116) housed entirely within the distal articulation joint between the first and second jaw extensions (Figures 16A-B: pivot bodies 112 and 116 are housed entirely within clevis 74, in combination with Wallace, this would be between first and second jaw extensions [see Figure 1 below]), the mid-articulation insert defining a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod (Figure 12A: yaw cable 86 is in a groove, which corresponds to a first passageway) and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor (Figure 12B: conductor 84 travels through opening 120).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the robotic surgical tool disclosed by Wallace so that the mid-articulation insert is housed entirely within the distal articulation joint, the mid-articulation insert defining a first passageway sized to receive and support the drive rod and further defines a second passageway sized to receive and support the electrical conductor as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
Regarding claim 17, Wallace in view of Worrell and Morley discloses the end effector of claim 16, and Wallace further discloses an end effector wherein the first and second jaws (Figures 22A-C: first jaw half 208a and second jaw half 208b) are bifurcating jaws that simultaneously move between open and closed positions ([0147] and [0156]).
Regarding claim 19, Wallace in view of Worrell and Morley discloses the end effector of claim 16, and Wallace further discloses an end effector further comprising a flexible tube that covers at least a portion of the drive rod ([0164]: “The blade conduit 218 may be flexible or rigid. The blade conduit 218 may receive a push shaft 286 and blade 270a.”).
Regarding claim 20, Wallace in view of Worrell and Morley discloses the end effector of claim 16, and Wallace further discloses an end effector wherein the mid-articulation insert is detached from any portion of the first and second jaws and the wrist (Figure 23C: blade conduit 218 is detached from any portion of first and second jaw halves 208a and 208b and wrist 206 and [0164]: “the blade conduit 218 may be positioned within the working lumen of the surgical instrument 200.”).
Regarding claim 22, Wallace in view of Worrell and Morley discloses the end effector of claim 16, and Morley further discloses an end effector wherein the mid-articulation insert provides: a central member that separates the first and second passageways (Figures 12A-B: groove that holds yaw cable 86 and opening 120 are separated by the walls of pivot bodies 112 and 116).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end effector disclosed by Wallace so that the mid-articulation insert provides: a central member that separates the first and second passageways as taught by Morley so that the device can rotate while the electrode receives energy from the conductor (Morley Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 12).
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 Nora W Rhodes whose telephone number is (571)272-8126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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 on 3032974276. 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.
/N.W.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794