DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 10 April 2026. Claims 1-
23 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 7,
15, 17 and 20, as well as the cancellation of claims 24-30.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 8 of claim 17, “the memory” should apparently read --the at least one memory--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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-AIA ) 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.
5. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1, 4-8, 13 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857). Regarding claim 1, Horl discloses a method of treating a subject, the method comprising:
positioning a plurality of rotatable magnetic sources 1,2 in proximity to a head of the subject (Figs. 1-15 and 19-23; col. 2, lines 21-34), each rotatable magnetic source being configured to provide a pulsed magnetic field by rotating such that the body of the subject receives alternating north and south pole fields (Figs. 19-23; Figs. 1-3, 5-6, 11-12 and 14-15 shown the alternating north and south pole faces; col. 1, lines 32-46; col. 2, lines 21-68 – col. 3, lines 1-15; and col. 5, lines 40-49);
selecting a rotation frequency for each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources (col. 5, lines 40-49);
selecting a timing pattern for the pulsed magnetic field provided by each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources and operating the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources with the selected rotation frequencies and timing patterns (col. 5, lines 57-67); and
applying the pulsed magnetic fields provided by the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources to the body of the subject to influence cellular behavior in at least one application area of the body (col. 5, lines 46-49 and 59-67).
While Horl does not disclose explicitly that the fields are applied to the head of the subject, Horl makes such obvious as Horl does teach that the magnetic sources are placed in proximity to the head of the subject (see Fig. 19), and further that the motor may be laterally disposed (as shown with x/y directional arrows in Fig. 19 and disclosed at col. 5, lines 40-49), with the directional arrows covering an area under the head of the patient. Horl further obviates application to the head as Horl teaches that application of the fields creates a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 52-56), a relaxing/sedative effect of which would be subjective to the head/brain of the patient.
Regarding claim 4, the at least one application area of the head is located in an area that is different from an area of the subject’s brain affected by a tumor or blood vessel (Figs. 20-23).
Regarding claim 5, Horl’s teaching of positioning the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources in proximity to the head of the subject obviates positioning the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources around the head of the subject as shown in Fig. 19 and disclosed at col. 5, lines 40-49, due to the motor being laterally disposed, with the directional arrows covering an area “around” the head of the patient.
Regarding claim 6, positioning the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources in proximity to the head of the subject includes positioning the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources “adjacent” to the at least one application area (as shown in Figs. 19-20).
Regarding claim 7, the rotation frequency for each of the rotatable magnetic source corresponds to a rate of change of the pulsed magnetic field provided by the respective rotatable magnetic source (col. 5, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 8, the timing pattern of each rotatable magnetic source corresponds to a time series arrangement of pulses in the pulsed magnetic field provided by the rotatable magnetic source (Horl teaches a “pulsating magnetic field” – col. 5, lines 40-41 -- which is based on a time series arrangement of pulses).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, selecting the timing pattern for the pulsed magnetic field provided by each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources includes selecting a rotation pattern (clockwise or anti-clockwise) for each rotatable magnetic source (col. 2, lines 21-34), wherein the selected rotation pattern is one of a full-waveform pattern or a half-waveform pattern full rotation of the permanent magnet having north/south poles is considered to be a full-waveform pattern as shown in Figs. 11-12 and disclosed at col. 4, lines 30-56)
7. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857) in view of Becker (U.S. Patent No. 7,819,794). Regarding claim 2, Horl discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however Horl fails to disclose wherein the at least one application area of the head corresponds to a location of a tumor in the subject's brain. Becker teaches a method of treating a patient with a pulsed magnetic field, to include various locations of the body (see Abstract and col. 3, lines 64-67 - col. 4, lines 1-11), as likewise disclosed by Horl, wherein the at least one application area corresponds to a location of a tumor (col. 21, lines 9-17). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the stimulation to a tumor, as taught by Becker, in a method for treating a head of a patient, in addition to other body parts, as suggested by Horl, as Horl recognizes that magnetically stimulating various parts of the body can alleviate muscular tension and have a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 51-67) and Becker teaches applying a magnetic field in proximity to a user for addressing various ailments, and particularly for the reason that cancerous cells do not propagate well in a magnetic field (col. 21, lines 13-17). While the combination does not disclose explicitly that the tumor is in the brain of the patient, the combination makes such obvious as Horl obviates the application to the head of the patient as indicated with respect to claim 1; and Becker teaches the method of applying magnetic field can be used to promote healing, increase metabolism, stimulate the brain, and promote overall well-being (col. 4, lines 3-11; col. 8, lines 59-67 – col. 9, lines 1-12).
8. Claims 10, 17, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857) in view of Sotiriou (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0083074). Regarding claim 10, Horl discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however Horl fails to disclose wherein each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources is configured to provide a pulsed magnetic field having a maximum field strength of at least 1 Tesla. Sotiriou teaches the generation of a magnetic field for therapeutic purposes via the rotation of permanent magnets (see Abstract and [0018]), as likewise disclosed by Horl, wherein each magnetic source generates a magnetic field strength of 100,000 G (or 10T) [0018], which can address various health problems such as migraine headaches, pain, and muscle injuries [0001] and [0017]-[0018]). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a pulsed magnetic field having a maximum field strength of at least 1 Tesla, as taught by Sotiriou, in a method for treating a head of a patient, in addition to other body parts, as suggested by Horl, as Horl recognizes that magnetically stimulating various parts of the body with permanent magnets having a magnetic field strength of .1 T (1000G – col. 2, lines 43-47) can alleviate muscular tension and have a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 51-67) and Sotiriou teaches that permanent magnets generating a strength of at least 1 Tesla allow for good penetration to the user’s body [0019].
Regarding claim 17, Horl discloses a system for providing treatment a subject, comprising:
a plurality of rotatable magnetic sources 1,2 configured to be positioned in proximity to a head of the subject (Figs. 1-15 and 19-23; col. 2, lines 21-34), each rotatable magnetic source being configured to provide a pulsed magnetic field by rotating such that the body of the subject receives alternating north and south pole fields (Figs. 19-23; Figs. 1-3, 5-6, 11-12 and 14-15 shown the alternating north and south pole faces; col. 1, lines 32-46; col. 2, lines 21-68 – col. 3, lines 1-15; and col. 5, lines 40-49), wherein the system is configured to perform operations comprising:
selecting a rotation frequency for each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources (col. 5, lines 40-49);
selecting a timing pattern for the pulsed magnetic field provided by each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources and operating the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources with the selected rotation frequencies and timing patterns (col. 5, lines 57-67); and
applying the pulsed magnetic fields provided by the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources to the body of the subject to influence cellular behavior in at least one application area of the body (col. 5, lines 46-49 and 59-67).
While Horl does not disclose explicitly that the fields are applied to the head of the subject, Horl makes such obvious as Horl does teach that the magnetic sources are placed in proximity to the head of the subject (see Fig. 19), and further that the motor may be laterally disposed (as shown with x/y directional arrows in Fig. 19 and disclosed at col. 5, lines 40-49), with the directional arrows covering an area under the head of the patient. Horl further obviates application to the head as Horl teaches that application of the fields creates a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 52-56), a relaxing/sedative effect of which would be subjective to the head/brain of the patient.
However, Horl fails to disclose that the operations are performed by: at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor for executing the instructions stored on the memory, wherein execution of the instructions programs the at least one processor to perform the operations.
Sotiriou teaches the generation of a magnetic field for therapeutic purposes via the rotation of permanent magnets (see Abstract and [0018]), as likewise disclosed by Horl, wherein the disclosed circuitry or a microcontroller operating under software control, or a microprocessor which enables programming of the magnetic field frequency, duration of therapy or individual program profiles, or a programmable logic array [0031] could be used to perform the operations of the rotation of the magnetic for therapeutic purposes via a motor [0015], as likewise disclosed by Horl. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have configured a system for treating a patient with a magnetic field as taught by Horl, with at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor for executing the instructions stored on the memory, wherein execution of the instructions programs the at least one processor to perform the operations, as suggested by Sotiriou, as Horl recognizes the use of an electric motor and accumulator for supply power and operation to the rotation of the device, and Sotiriou teaches that the operations of the device/motor may be performed either by simple circuitry or a microcontroller operating under software, or a microprocessor with programmable capabilities for performing individual program profiles ([0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 20, the rotation frequency for each of the rotatable magnetic source corresponds to a rate of change of the pulsed magnetic field provided by the respective rotatable magnetic source (col. 5, lines 40-45 of Horl).
Regarding claim 21, the timing pattern of each rotatable magnetic source corresponds to a time series arrangement of pulses in the pulsed magnetic field provided by the rotatable magnetic source (Horl teaches a “pulsating magnetic field” – col. 5, lines 40-41 -- which is based on a time series arrangement of pulses).
Regarding claim 23, Horl discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however Horl fails to disclose wherein each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources is configured to provide a pulsed magnetic field having a maximum field strength of at least 1 Tesla. Sotiriou teaches the generation of a magnetic field for therapeutic purposes via the rotation of permanent magnets (see Abstract and [0018]), as likewise disclosed by Horl, wherein each magnetic source generates a magnetic field strength of 100,000 G (or 10T) [0018], which can address various health problems such as migraine headaches, pain, and muscle injuries [0001] and [0017]-[0018]). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a pulsed magnetic field having a maximum field strength of at least 1 Tesla, as taught by Sotiriou, in a method for treating a head of a patient, in addition to other body parts, as suggested by Horl, as Horl recognizes that magnetically stimulating various parts of the body with permanent magnets having a magnetic field strength of .1 T (1000G – col. 2, lines 43-47) can alleviate muscular tension and have a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 51-67) and Sotiriou teaches that permanent magnets generating a strength of at least 1 Tesla allow for good penetration to the user’s body [0019].
9. Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857) in view of Sotiriou (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0083074) and further in view of Becker (U.S. Patent No. 7,819,794). Regarding claim 18, Horl and Sotiriou discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however the combination fails to disclose wherein the at least one application area of the head corresponds to a location of a tumor in the subject's brain. Becker teaches a method of treating a patient with a pulsed magnetic field, to include various locations of the body (see Abstract and col. 3, lines 64-67 - col. 4, lines 1-11), as likewise disclosed by Horl, wherein the at least one application area corresponds to a location of a tumor (col. 21, lines 9-17). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the stimulation to a tumor, as taught by Becker, in a method for treating a head of a patient, in addition to other body parts, as suggested by Horl and Sotiriou, as Horl recognizes that magnetically stimulating various parts of the body can alleviate muscular tension and have a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 51-67) and Becker teaches applying a magnetic field in proximity to a user for addressing various ailments, and particularly for the reason that cancerous cells do not propagate well in a magnetic field (col. 21, lines 13-17). While the combination does not disclose explicitly that the tumor is in the brain of the patient, the combination makes such obvious as Horl obviates the application to the head of the patient as indicated with respect to claim 1; and Becker teaches the method of applying magnetic field can be used to promote healing, increase metabolism, stimulate the brain, and promote overall well-being (col. 4, lines 3-11; col. 8, lines 59-67 – col. 9, lines 1-12).
10. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857) in view of Zangen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0078056). Regarding claim 3, Hurl obviates stimulation of the at least one application area of the head corresponding to a location of an abnormality of the subject's brain (see claim 1), however Hurl fails to disclose explicitly that the abnormality is in a blood vessel. Zangen et al. (hereinafter Zangen) teaches a magnetic stimulator for providing TMS to the brain of a subject (see Abstract), in addition to treating other parts of the body of the patient such as nervous/muscle tissue ([0019] and [0086]-[0089]), as likewise disclosed by Hurl, wherein the application area corresponds to an area of blood flow (such as a blood vessel) through the brain of the subject [0088]. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have targeted a blood vessel for stimulation, as taught by Zangen, in a method for treating a head of a patient, in addition to other body parts, as suggested by Horl, as Horl recognizes that magnetically stimulating various parts of the body can alleviate muscular tension and have a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 51-67) and Zangen teaches that the targeted areas of the body may be muscular/nervous tissue and associated with conditions related to blood flow or blockages in a blood vessel [0088].
11. Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857) in view of Sotiriou (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0083074) and further in view of Zangen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0078056). Regarding claim 19, Hurl and Sotiriou obviates stimulation of the at least one application area of the head corresponding to a location of an abnormality of the subject's brain (see claim 1 of Horl), however the combination fails to disclose explicitly that the abnormality is in a blood vessel. Zangen et al. (hereinafter Zangen) teaches a magnetic stimulator for providing TMS to the brain of a subject (see Abstract), in addition to treating other parts of the body of the patient such as nervous/muscle tissue ([0019] and [0086]-[0089]), as likewise disclosed by Hurl, wherein the application area corresponds to an area of blood flow (such as a blood vessel) through the brain of the subject [0088]. At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have targeted a blood vessel for stimulation, as taught by Zangen, in a method for treating a head of a patient, in addition to other body parts, as suggested by Horl and Sotiriou, as Horl recognizes that magnetically stimulating various parts of the body can alleviate muscular tension and have a relaxing, sedative effect (col. 5, lines 51-67) and Zangen teaches that the targeted areas of the body may be muscular/nervous tissue and associated with conditions related to blood flow or blockages in a blood vessel [0088].
12. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857) in view of Souder (U.S. Patent No. 6,001,055). Regarding claim 9, Horl teaches the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however Horl fails to disclose that selecting the rotation frequency for each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources includes selecting a rotation frequency over 50 Hz. Souder teaches a magnetic therapy device for providing magnetic stimulation to various areas of the body, wherein the magnetic source may be rotated, oscillated or moved through a particular pattern relative to the treatment area and the specific region of interest to influence therapeutic benefit (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 16-50). Souder further teaches that the rate of change of the magnetic field may be varied by varying the speed of the motor which rotates the magnetic source (col. 1, lines 48-50), and further that a range of rotation frequencies may be selected, up to 8000 revolutions per minute (the equivalent of 133 Hz) (col. 8, lines 18-33). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a rotation frequency over 50 Hz as taught by Souder, in a method/system for treating a subject with magnetic stimulation to facilitate various therapeutic effects as suggested by Horl, as Horl recognizes that a therapeutically favorable rotation frequency of the magnetic field is on the order of 1 Hz to facilitate relaxation (col. 5, lines 52-67), and Souder teaches that a range of speeds may be selected, from 400 to 8000 revolutions per minute (to include 50 hz) to stimulate circulation and relaxation (col. 8, lines 18-33).
13. Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horl (U.S. Patent No. 4,727,857) in view of Sotiriou (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0083074) and further in view of Souder (U.S. Patent No. 6,001,055). Regarding claim 22, Horl and Sotiriou teaches the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however the combination fails to disclose that selecting the rotation frequency for each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources includes selecting a rotation frequency over 50 Hz. Souder teaches a magnetic therapy device for providing magnetic stimulation to various areas of the body, wherein the magnetic source may be rotated, oscillated or moved through a particular pattern relative to the treatment area and the specific region of interest to influence therapeutic benefit (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 16-50). Souder further teaches that the rate of change of the magnetic field may be varied by varying the speed of the motor which rotates the magnetic source (col. 1, lines 48-50), and further that a range of rotation frequencies may be selected, up to 8000 revolutions per minute (the equivalent of 133 Hz) (col. 8, lines 18-33). At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a rotation frequency over 50 Hz as taught by Souder, in a method/system for treating a subject with magnetic stimulation to facilitate various therapeutic effects as suggested by Horl and Sotiriou, as Horl recognizes that a therapeutically favorable rotation frequency of the magnetic field is on the order of 1 Hz to facilitate relaxation (col. 5, lines 52-67), and Souder teaches that a range of speeds may be selected, from 400 to 8000 revolutions per minute (to include 50 hz) to stimulate circulation and relaxation (col. 8, lines 18-33).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 11, 12, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claims 11 and 12, while the prior art teaches a method of treating a subject, the method comprising: positioning a plurality of rotatable magnetic sources in proximity to a head of the subject, each rotatable magnetic source being configured to provide a pulsed magnetic field by rotating such that the head of the subject receives alternating north and south pole fields; selecting a rotation frequency for each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources; selecting a timing pattern for the pulsed magnetic field provided by each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources; operating the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources with the selected rotation frequencies and timing patterns; and applying the pulsed magnetic fields provided by the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources to the head of the subject to influence cellular behavior in at least one application area of the head, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of treating a subject as claimed by Applicant, wherein the method further comprises collecting, via at least one biological sensor, feedback data in response to the application of the pulsed magnetic fields provided by the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources; and adjusting the rotation frequency and/or the timing pattern of at least one rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources based on the feedback data.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, while the prior art teaches a method of treating a subject, the method comprising: positioning a plurality of rotatable magnetic sources in proximity to a head of the subject, each rotatable magnetic source being configured to provide a pulsed magnetic field by rotating such that the head of the subject receives alternating north and south pole fields; selecting a rotation frequency for each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources; selecting a timing pattern for the pulsed magnetic field provided by each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources; operating the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources with the selected rotation frequencies and timing patterns; and applying the pulsed magnetic fields provided by the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources to the head of the subject to influence cellular behavior in at least one application area of the head, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of treating a subject as claimed by Applicant, wherein selecting the timing pattern for the pulsed magnetic field provided by each rotatable magnetic source of the plurality of rotatable magnetic sources includes selecting a first timing pattern for a first source of the plurality of sources and a second timing pattern for a second source of the plurality of sources such that the pulsed magnetic field provided by the first rotatable magnetic source is active while the pulsed magnetic field provided by the second rotatable magnetic source is inactive.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments filed 10 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
16. Applicant’s arguments filed 10 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) citing Schneider (‘209); and 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Schneider, Schneider in view of Zangen, and Schneider in view of Sounder, have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments.
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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights