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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 6-18, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
In regards to claims 1-4, 6-13, 6-18, 20-22, and 24, the claims directed towards “A method” that claims that recites “receiving, by a computing device, intraoral scan data”; “determining, by the computing device, one or more treatment plans”; “modifying, by the computing device, the virtual maxillary arch and virtual mandibular arch”; “virtually articulating, by the computing device”; “computing, by the computing device, for each intermediate state and the final state and for each mandibular pose”; “automatically modifying, by the computing device”; “outputting, by the computing device”; and “generating, by the computing device”. The claims “method” is within the 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory category of a process (MPEP 2106.0.3), but falls into the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2A:
In regards to claims 1-4, 6-13, 6-18, 20-22, and 24, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “receiving, by a computing device, intraoral scan data”; “determining, by the computing device, one or more treatment plans”; “modifying, by the computing device, the virtual maxillary arch and virtual mandibular arch”; “virtually articulating, by the computing device”; “computing, by the computing device, for each intermediate state and the final state and for each mandibular pose”; “automatically modifying, by the computing device”; “outputting, by the computing device”; and “generating, by the computing device”.
The claims recite abstract ideas that include data manipulation to determine the treatment plans which would result in minimal occlusion interactions that would provide discomfort. The abstract ideas are as such drawn to a mental process.
In practice, an orthodontist looking at scans of the patient’s maxillary arch and mandibular arch to determine the correct appliance over a period of time to develop a treatment plan. Furthermore, an orthodontist can make multiple treatment plans based on contact points of the maxillary arch and mandibular arch. In addition, an orthodontist can determine a dynamic collision quality metric based on such contact points and present the data for each treatment plans developed. Further, an orthodontist can determine a dynamic occlusion quality metric which relates to how much the teeth are in contact with one another and how many collisions would be present. This can be done by simulating the occlusal interactions in their mind. In addition, an orthodontic can produce treatment plans and a treatment report to reduce the undesirable occlusal contacts and discomfort. An orthodontist can as such develop an image as to how the appliance should be to reposition the teeth based on the treatment plan. As the implementation can be done mentally, the limitations are found to be abstract.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is found the method implements computer elements wherein the recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea as it would simply be implementing such abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B:
In regards to claims 1-4, 6-13, 6-18, 20-22, and 24, the computing device is the additional element that are significantly more than the mental process. However, it is not significantly more than the judicial exception as it does not provide meaningful limitation as it provides no improvement to the technology.
The claimed invention is found to disclose the intended use of a general-purpose computer or data processing device (such as evidenced in claims 1, 16, and 24), however, there is no disclosure in the written description that the processing unit or computer is anything more than a generic component, nor is there any disclosure that the method improves in which the processing unit operates. It is found that a computer or processing unit that is used in a conventional manner to perform convention computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The claim itself does not go beyond numerical values based on mathematical algorithms with a general-purpose computer. With regards to claim 16 it is found that the memory and processor are the additional element that are significantly more than the mental process. However, it is not significantly more than the judicial exception as it does not provide meaningful limitation as it provides no improvement to the technology.
In regards to claims 1-4, 6-13, 6-18, 20-22, and 24, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed method is directed to a mental process, concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements.
In practice, an orthodontist looking at scans of the patient’s maxillary arch and mandibular arch to determine the correct appliance over a period of time to develop a treatment plan. Furthermore, an orthodontist can make multiple treatment plans based on contact points of the maxillary arch and mandibular arch. In addition, an orthodontist can determine a dynamic collision quality metric based on such contact points and present the data for each treatment plans developed. Further, an orthodontist can determine a dynamic occlusion quality metric which relates to how much the teeth are in contact with one another and how many collisions would be present. This can be done by simulating the occlusal interactions in their mind. In addition, an orthodontic can produce treatment plans and a treatment report to reduce the undesirable occlusal contacts and discomfort. An orthodontist can as such develop an image as to how the appliance should be to reposition the teeth based on the treatment plan. As the implementation can be done mentally, the limitations are found to be abstract.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20190290408 A1) in view of Matov (US 20150142400 A1).
Re. Claims 1 and 16, Fisker discloses a method and an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a memory configured to store data indicative of intraoral scan data representing a digital three-dimensional (3D) model of a virtual maxillary arch representing a maxillary arch of a patient in an initial maloccluded state and a virtual mandibular arch representing a mandibular arch of the patient in an initial maloccluded state (Abstract; Par. 513); and
a processor in communication with the memory (Par. 513), the processor configured to:
determine one or more treatment plans for the patient based on the initial maloccluded state of the virtual maxillary arch and the initial maloccluded state of the virtual mandibular arch, wherein each treatment plan defines incremental tooth movement states leading to a final state (Par. 251, 253, 263, 497; Abstract);
modify the virtual maxillary arch and the virtual mandibular arch to generate at least one intermediate state and the final state for each of the one or more treatment plans (Par. 253, 263, 267 and 274-276 where par 276 discloses that one or more appliance are being modified indicative of intermediate state can be present and is modified), wherein each intermediate state and the final state includes a modified virtual maxillary arch and a modified virtual mandibular arch (Par. 263 discloses that in a treatment plan, the intermediate steps and final steps would be simulated and as such indicate that there would present a modified virtual maxillary arch and a modified virtual mandibular arch; Par. 274-275 also discloses the designed appliances are modified based on the occlusion simulations);
virtually articulate the modified virtual maxillary arch and the modified virtual mandibular arch through a sequence of mandibular poses, the sequence including lateral, protrusive, and retrusive excursions, each pose representing a relative jaw position for evaluating occlusal interaction between opposing teeth (Par. 250-253);
compute, for each mandibular pose, and for each intermediate state and the final state, a dynamic occlusion quality metric based on a spatial relationship between the virtual maxillary arch and the virtual mandibular arch, the dynamic occlusion quality metric (Par. 3, 280, and 406-409; Abstract); and
automatically modify, by the processor, at least one incremental tooth movement state of at least one treatment plan of the one or more treatment plans to optimize the at least one treatment plan for reduced undesirable occlusal contacts and predicted discomfort (Par. 253-255); and
output, by the processor and based at least in part on the automatically modified at least one treatment plan (Par. 263, 267, 409 and 487-498 discloses using the detected contact points or collisions points to determine a treatment planning to be performed).
However, Fisker is silent to the dynamic occlusion quality metric comprising numerical values that indicate contact penetration depth and collision count between teeth, wherein the contact penetration depth is determined based on three-dimensional overlap between tooth geometries at each pose. Further, Fisker is silent to automatically modify, by the processor, at least one incremental tooth movement state of at least one treatment plan of the one or more treatment plans based on the computed dynamic occlusion quality metric.
Fisker does disclose that the colors indicate different collision depth in the depth mapping which would need to be determined by the amount of collisions in Par. 3, 280 and 406-409.
Matov discloses in the same field of endeavor of dental treatment planning and further discloses using color maps and numerical values to display information regarding the depth of the occlusions- indicating the occlusion degree (Par. 96). Further, Matov is found to disclose the multiple point of contact on a tooth is determined for a single tooth and the number of occlusion on a single tooth is mapped (Par. 98). Matov as such provides different means to display information regarding depth values.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method/apparatus of Fisker to use the teaching of Matov to teach the dynamic occlusion quality metric comprising numerical values that indicate contact penetration depth and collision count between teeth, wherein the contact penetration depth is determined based on three-dimensional overlap between tooth geometries at each pose by using the general teaching of displaying the depth values in varying ways which includes both color mapping and numerical values.
The combination as such would teach automatically modify, by the processor, at least one incremental tooth movement state of at least one treatment plan of the one or more treatment plans based on the computed dynamic occlusion quality metric.
Re. Claims 2 and 17, Fisker and Matov discloses the method and the apparatus of claim 1/16 and Matov further discloses determining, by the computing device, a discomfort score based on the dynamic occlusion quality metric, wherein the discomfort score indicates a level of predicted discomfort in the patient; and outputting, by the computing device, data indicative of the discomfort score for each of the one or more treatment plans (Par. 120 discloses during each intermediate stage of the treatment plan to check the occlusal relationship and determined they are in a predetermined threshold. If it exceeds the threshold, it would result in modification of the one or more teeth’s position. As such, the discomfort score claimed is the predetermined threshold and it would indicate the level of predicted discomfort when the occlusal relationship exceeds the predetermined threshold. It would output the data for each of treatment stages of the treatment plan to then adjust the teeth position as needed).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method/apparatus of Fisker and Matov to include determining, by the computing device, a discomfort score based on the dynamic occlusion quality metric, wherein the discomfort score indicates a level of predicted discomfort in the patient; and outputting, by the computing device, data indicative of the discomfort score for each of the one or more treatment plans as taught by Matov to provide further means to adjust the treatment plan to the user.
Re. Claim 3, Fisker and Matov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Fisker discloses the initial state of the virtual mandibular arch is in a maloccluded state (Par. 497).
Re. Claim 6, Fisker and Matov discloses the method and the apparatus of claim 1, Fisker further comprising: determining, by the computing device, whether proper canine guidance is achieved based on the virtual articulation (Par. 83, 317, and 436).
Re. Claim 7, Fisker and Matov discloses the method of claim 1, Fisker further comprising: determining, by the computing device, whether proper anterior guidance is achieved based on the virtual articulation (Par. 436).
Re. Claims 8 and 20, Fisker and Matov discloses the method and the apparatus of claim 1/16, Fisker further discloses the sequence of mandibular poses further includes a maximum intercuspation (Par. 331-333 where because a maximum number of teeth must be in contact as a criterion, it would read upon the limitation of a maximum intercuspation. This is because it provides the teeth to be in position in which they are in maximum contact).
Re. Claim 9, Fisker and Matov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein Fisker discloses computing, by the computing device, the dynamic occlusion quality metric based on the contact points comprises: computing, by the computing device, the dynamic occlusion quality metric based on the contact points at the maximum intercuspation (Fisker provides teaching mapping the different depths of the collisions where the greater depth results in greater severity in collision/discomfort. And as such the discomfort score would be outputted based on the on the treatment plan produced; Par. 253; Abstract).
Re. Claim 11, Fisker, and Matov discloses the method of claim 2, wherein Fisker discloses the one or more treatment plans comprise a plurality of treatment plans, the method further comprising: selecting one of the plurality of treatment plans based on at least one of the dynamic occlusion quality metric or the discomfort score (It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to pick the treatment plan based on the plan with the lowest amount of collisions present; Par. 253-254).
Re. Claim 12, Fisker and Matov discloses the method of claim 11, Fisker further comprising: determining a static collision metric of the virtual mandibular arch and the virtual maxillary arch; and selecting one of the plurality of treatment plans based on the dynamic occlusion quality metric and the static collision metric (Par. 132, 141-143, 170, 343 and 413).
Re. Claim 13, Fisker and Matov discloses the method of claim 11, Matov further comprising: modifying one of the plurality of treatment plans based on at least one of the dynamic occlusion quality metric or the discomfort score (Par. 96. 98 and 120-121; Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Fisker and Matov to include modifying one of the plurality of treatment plans based on at least one of the dynamic occlusion quality metric or the discomfort score to aid in determining the ideal treatment plan for the user.
Re. Claim 21, Fisker and Matov discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein Fisker discloses computing the dynamic occlusion quality metric comprises identifying contact regions across occlusal surfaces based on simulated three-dimensional movement trajectories between teeth during each mandibular pose (Par. 138, 284-294 and 468 where par 293 specifically discloses different movement directions being different colors).
Re. Claim 22, Fisker and Matov discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein Fisker discloses the processor is further configured to modify at least one of the incremental tooth movement states based on computed values of the dynamic occlusion quality metric (Par. 406-409).
Re. Claim 23, Fisker and Matov discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Fisker further comprising: fabricating, based at least in part on the selected treatment plan, a physical dental appliance configured to reposition one or more teeth of the patient according to the treatment plan (Par. 356 discloses that the method is used to make the orthodontic appliance in an orthodontic treatment planning. As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Fisker to include generating, by the computing device, a digital file comprising data configured for use in fabricating, based at least in part on the selected treatment plan, a physical dental appliance configured to reposition one or more teeth of the patient according to the treatment plan to fabricate the ideal aligner for the patient).
Re. Claim 24, Fisker discloses a method and an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, intraoral scan data representing a digital three-dimensional (3D) model of a virtual maxillary arch representing a maxillary arch of a patient in an initial maloccluded state and a virtual mandibular arch representing a mandibular arch of the patient in an initial maloccluded state (Abstract; Par. 513); and
determine one or more treatment plans for the patient based on the initial maloccluded state of the virtual maxillary arch and the initial maloccluded state of the virtual mandibular arch, wherein each treatment plan defines incremental tooth movement states leading to a final state (Par. 251, 253, 263, 497; Abstract);
modify the virtual maxillary arch and the virtual mandibular arch to generate at least one intermediate state and the final state for each of the one or more treatment plans (Par. 253, 263, 267 and 274-276 where par 276 discloses that one or more appliance are being modified indicative of intermediate state can be present and is modified), wherein each intermediate state and the final state includes a modified virtual maxillary arch and a modified virtual mandibular arch (Par. 263 discloses that in a treatment plan, the intermediate steps and final steps would be simulated and as such indicate that there would present a modified virtual maxillary arch and a modified virtual mandibular arch; Par. 274-275 also discloses the designed appliances are modified based on the occlusion simulations);
virtually articulate the modified virtual maxillary arch and the modified virtual mandibular arch through a sequence of mandibular poses, the sequence including lateral, protrusive, and retrusive excursions, each pose representing a relative jaw position for evaluating occlusal interaction between opposing teeth (Par. 250-253);
compute, for each mandibular pose, and for each intermediate state and the final state, a dynamic occlusion quality metric based on a spatial relationship between the virtual maxillary arch and the virtual mandibular arch, the dynamic occlusion quality metric (Par. 3, 280, and 406-409; Abstract); and
automatically modify, by the processor, at least one incremental tooth movement state of at least one treatment plan of the one or more treatment plans to optimize the at least one treatment plan for reduced undesirable occlusal contacts and predicted discomfort (Par. 253-255); and
generating, by the computing device, a digital file comprising data configured for use in fabricating a physical dental appliance or aligner to reposition one or more teeth of the patient according to the automatically modified at least one treatment plan (Par. 356 discloses that the method is used to make the orthodontic appliance in an orthodontic treatment planning. As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Fisker to include generating, by the computing device, a digital file comprising data configured for use in fabricating a physical dental appliance or aligner to reposition one or more teeth of the patient according to the automatically modified at least one treatment plan to fabricate the ideal aligner for the patient).
However, Fisker is silent to the dynamic occlusion quality metric comprising numerical values that indicate contact penetration depth and collision count between teeth, wherein the contact penetration depth is determined based on three-dimensional overlap between tooth geometries at each pose. Further, Fisker is silent to automatically modify, by the processor, at least one incremental tooth movement state of at least one treatment plan of the one or more treatment plans based on the computed dynamic occlusion quality metric.
Fisker does disclose that the colors indicate different collision depth in the depth mapping which would need to be determined by the amount of collisions in Par. 3, 280 and 406-409.
Matov discloses in the same field of endeavor of dental treatment planning and further discloses using color maps and numerical values to display information regarding the depth of the occlusions- indicating the occlusion degree (Par. 96). Further, Matov is found to disclose the multiple point of contact on a tooth is determined for a single tooth and the number of occlusion on a single tooth is mapped (Par. 98). Matov as such provides different means to display information regarding depth values.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method/apparatus of Fisker to use the teaching of Matov to teach the dynamic occlusion quality metric comprising numerical values that indicate contact penetration depth and collision count between teeth, wherein the contact penetration depth is determined based on three-dimensional overlap between tooth geometries at each pose by using the general teaching of displaying the depth values in varying ways which includes both color mapping and numerical values.
The combination as such would teach automatically modify, by the processor, at least one incremental tooth movement state of at least one treatment plan of the one or more treatment plans based on the computed dynamic occlusion quality metric.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20190290408 A1) in view of Matov (US 20150142400 A1) and Alvarez (US 20180005377 A1).
Re. Claims 4 and 18, Fisker and Matov discloses the method and the apparatus of claim 1/16, but are silent to predicting, by the computing device, wear facets at the contact points resulting from simulated mandibular excursions.
Alverez discloses method of determining virtual articulation in the same field of endeavor and further discloses predicting wear facets from mandibular excursions (Par. [0032], [0033] and [0042]) to reduce the chance of wear facets on the aligners produced in the treatment plan allowing more comfortability for the user.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective date to have the method of Fisker and Matov to include predicting, by the computing device, wear facets at the contact points resulting from simulated mandibular excursions as taught by Alverez to reduce the chance of wear facets on the aligners produced in the treatment plan allowing more comfortability for the user.
Re. Claim 10, Fisker and Matov discloses the method of claim 1, but are silent to the virtually articulating further comprises: virtually articulating, by the computing device, the modified virtual maxillary arch and the modified virtual mandibular arch to determine penetration depth between contacting teeth, the method further comprising: predicting an amount of facet wear based on the determined penetration depth.
Alverez discloses method of determining virtual articulation in the same field of endeavor and further discloses predicting wear facets from mandibular motions (Par. [0032], [0033] and [0042]) wherein as it discloses wear prediction, penetration made would be known which can be considered as contact depth.
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective date to have the method of Fisker and Matov to include virtually articulating, by the computing device, the modified virtual maxillary arch and the modified virtual mandibular arch to determine penetration depth between contacting teeth, the method further comprising: predicting an amount of facet wear based on the determined penetration depth as taught by Alverez to reduce the chance of wear facets on the aligners produced in the treatment plan allowing more comfortability for the user.
Response to Arguments
Argument #1: Applicant argues that the inclusion of the step involving the simulation of mandibular articulation and the computation of three-dimensional interaction metrics go beyond anything that could be mentally performed. This is because it requires complex spatial data processing and simulating multi-body dynamics which applicant states requires a computer. Further, applicant argues that the claims do not direct to a generic data processing but describes a structural sequence of technical steps that are far beyond performing mental evaluations. Applicant also points out that the claims signify more than alleged abstract ideas as they are neither conventional nor routine.
Response #1: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive as though many inventive novelties are present, it does not overcome Step 2A or 2B of the 101 rejection. It is suggested to include a manufacturing step of making the dental device to potentially overcome the 101 rejection.
Though the operation would be complex, an orthodontist can still be capable of being completed. It is known that orthodontist have long carried out their trade before the usage of computers and computer software and as such would obviously determine occlusal contact points found with the patient’s arches and determine the severity of the contact points. Further, an orthodontist would in turn be able to determine the proper amount of contact points to be present that would reduce discomfort to the patient and reduce malocclusion through the making of a treatment plan. The inclusion of the new claim limitations to the independent claims can still be achievable by an orthodontist despite the complexity of the process to determining different jaw positions for the mandibular poses and determining penetration depth from comparing the two mandibular poses.
With regards to the argument of Example 42, it is found to not be persuasive as applicant’s invention is different from Example 42 in which it can be done mentally. This is because an orthodontist can interpret the intraoral scans (processing the scans) to determine occlusal contacts based on how they interact with one another (executing occlusal simulation) and determine treatment metrics which are based on the severity of malocclusion and how severe the penetration would be present because of the contacts (calculate treatment metrics).
Applicant’s argument regarding Step 2B is found to not be persuasive as computer application does not improve on the treatment. It should be noted that the claims does not recite the treatment plans to be automated. Though the term “generate” is used in regards to the treatment plan, it does not require the plan to be automatically created and can be manually developed. Further, the computer components- computing device, memory and processor- are solely being used and does not add more to the improvement of the treatment itself. Further, it is found that the points provided by applicant (I.e. simulating jaw movement…computing quantitative occlusion metrics and outputting a treatment evaluation report) can still be done manually by the user. Thus it does not add more to the improvement of the treatment itself.
It should be noted that claim 23 does not invoke a 101 rejection as it presents the physical step of fabricating the particular appliance/aligner. By amending the independent claims to include the fabrication step, it would overcome the current 101 rejection.
Argument #2: Applicant argues that Fisker nor Matov does not provide disclosure of the new amended claim language to the independent claims. Applicant argues that the claims does not disclose a dynamic occlusion quality metric comprising numerical values such as contact penetration depth and collision count, where penetration depth is determined from three-dimensional geometric overlap at each pose. Applicant further argues that neither discloses modifying at least one incremental tooth movement of at least one treatment plan based on the quality metric. Further, applicant argues that the steps are not automatically done but rather manual/user-driven.
Response #2: Applicant’s argument is found to not be persuasive. Fisker is found to provide teaching of automatically modifying at least one incremental tooth movement of at least one treatment plan (Par. 88 253-254, 341). Fisker discloses modifying the tooth movement to prevent undesired collision points and present a suitable occlusion for the user. The teaching regarding the dynamic occlusion quality metric is found to be taught by Matov. The combination of Fisker and Matov provides the teaching of the at least one incremental tooth movement of at least one treatment plan based on the quality metric.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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.
/HOLLY T. TO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772