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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding independent claims 1 and 18, the applicant claims “prompting the examinee to input the answer”, however, the specification does not describe “prompting the examinee”, what the “prompting” is and/or how the examinee is prompted to input the answer (i.e., is the examinee prompted visually on a screen/monitor, is the examinee prompted visually using a flashing light, is the examinee prompted by an audio command via a speaker, etc.). Therefore, the specification does not comply with the written description requirement as the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding independent claims 1 and 18, the applicant claims “prompting the examinee to input the answer”, however, it is unclear to the examiner as to what or how exactly the examinee is prompted to input the answer (i.e., is the examinee prompted visually on a screen/monitor, is the examinee prompted visually using a flashing light, is the examinee prompted by an audio command via a speaker, etc.). For purposes of expediting prosecution, the Examiner interprets the phrase “prompting the examinee to input the answer” to mean --the examinee prompted visually on a screen/monitor or the examinee prompted by an audio command via a speaker--.
Regarding claim 20, the applicant claims “leading information”, however, it is unclear to the Examiner as to whether or not the claimed “leading information” is different information from the newly claimed “prompting” or if the claimed “leading information” is the same as the newly claimed “prompting”. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the Examiner interprets -- the claimed “leading information” is the same as the newly claimed “prompting”--.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 2007/0013870) in view of Chou et al. (US 2012/0212706).
Regarding claim 1, Hara discloses, an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye by presenting an examination visual target to the subject eye (Figs. 1-5), the optometry system comprising:
a response input unit (6) by which an examinee reading the examination visual target (2) inputs an answer (Para. 0091); and
a controller (see 1, 2, 7, 11, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) configured to:
set a reference value (Para. 0081 and see 9; note, discloses standard time output means for outputting a standard time on the response time) based on a reaction time of the examinee with respect to the examination visual target (Para. 0081; note, discloses a time comparison means 10 for comparing result measured by the response time measuring means 8 with the standard time outputted by the standard time output means 9);
automatically proceeds with an examination, based on an input signal from the response input unit (Para. 0091 and see “S10” and “S20”); and
leading information (Para. 0015 and 0077; note, discloses standard time output means for outputting a standard time with respect to said response time), during the examination of the subject eye, for leading the examinee to input the answer, based on the set reference value (Para. 0077, 0101 and see 7, 9).
Hara does not explicitly disclose prompting the examinee to input the answer.
Chou teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that it would have been desirable to include prompting the examinee to input the answer (Para. 0107-0108 and see Figs. 9, 12 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include prompting the examinee to input the answer as taught by the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Chou in the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Hara since Chou teaches it is known to include this feature in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye for the purpose of providing optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that provides earlier diagnosis with improved accuracy and disease detection.
Regarding claim 2, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, controller is further configured to repeatedly outputs the leading information, in a case where no signal from the response input unit is obtained after a predetermined time set for repeating the leading information has elapsed (see “S5” and “S20”; note, the Examiner interprets “S5” proceeds to step “S20” and repeats outputting leading information when the response input is not within standard time).
Regarding claim 4, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the examination includes a plurality of examination items (Para. 0079, 0091 and see 2 of Fig. 1; note, discloses optotypes E and landolt rings), and the controller is further configured to set the reference value according to the examination items (Para. 0045-0046 and see 3, 4, 20, 21).
Regarding claim 5, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to: acquires the reaction time, based on a start timing at which measurement of the subject eye is started and a response timing at which the examinee responds with respect to the examination visual target (Para. 0077 and see 8, 10); and set the reference value, based on the acquired reaction time (Para. 0077 and see 9).
Regarding claim 6, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to: acquires the reaction time in real time, during the examination (Para. 0077 and see 8, 10); changes the reference value from a first reference value to a second reference value different from the first reference value to set the reference value, based on the real-time acquired reaction time (Para. 0077 and see 8, 10); and output the leading information, based on the second reference value (Para. 0082 and see “A” of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, a visual target presenting unit (2) that emits a target light flux toward the subject eye to present the examination visual target to the subject eye (Para. 0079 and 0091), wherein the controller is further configured to: control the visual target presenting unit to automatically proceed with the examination (Para. 0090 and see “S2”), acquires a timing at which the controller controls the visual target presenting unit, as the start timing (Para. 0091; note, discloses standard time); and acquires a timing at which the input signal from the response input unit is acquired, as the response timing (Para. 0091 and see “S5”).
Regarding claim 8, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, a correction unit (3, 4) that changes an optical characteristic of the target light flux to change a correction power for correcting the subject eye (see “S10” and “S12”), wherein the controller is further configured to: controls the correction unit to automatically proceed with the examination (Para. 0091 and see “S10”); and acquires a timing at which the controller controls the correction unit, as the start timing (Para. 0091).
Regarding claim 9, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, a visual target presenting unit (2) that emits a target light flux toward the subject eye; and a correction unit (3, 4, 20, 21) that changes an optical characteristic of the target light flux (Para. 0091); wherein the controller is further configured to: control an operation of the optometry system (3, 4, 20, 21); and output the reaction time (Para. 0098-0106 and see 8, 10), and wherein the reaction time is a time acquired based on a start timing at which measurement of the subject eye is started and a response timing after the start timing, the reaction time being a time required from a start of the measurement of the subject eye to a response with respect to the measurement of the subject eye (Para. 0098-0106 and see 8, 10), the start timing is a timing at which the visual target presenting unit or the correction unit is controlled by the controller (Para. 0098-0106 and see 8, 10), and the response timing is a timing at which a response signal with respect to the measurement is input by the response input unit (Para. 0080 and 0091).
Regarding claim 18, Hara discloses, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (23 of Fig. 1) storing an optometry program used in an optometry system (1 of Fig. 1) for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye (Para. 0077, 0081 and Figs. 1-5) by presenting an examination visual target (2) to the subject eye, the optometry program being executed by a processor to cause the optometry system to perform:
a setting processing of setting a reference value (Para. 0081 and see 9; note, discloses standard time output means for outputting a standard time on the response time) based on a reaction time of an examinee with respect to the examination visual target (Para. 0081; note, discloses a time comparison means 10 for comparing result measured by the response time measuring means 8 with the standard time outputted by the standard time output means 9);
an answering processing (6) in which the examinee reading the examination visual target inputs an answer (Para. 0091);
a control processing of automatically proceeding with an examination, based on an input signal of the answering processing (Para. 0091 and see “S10” and “S20”); and
a leading information output processing (Para. 0015 and 0077; note, discloses standard time output means for outputting a standard time with respect to said response time) of outputting leading information, during the examination of the subject eye, for leading the examinee to input the answer, based on the reference value set by in the setting processing (Para. 0077, 0101 and see 7, 9).
Hara does not explicitly disclose prompting the examinee to input the answer.
Chou teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that it would have been desirable to include prompting the examinee to input the answer (Para. 0107-0108 and see Figs. 9, 12 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include prompting the examinee to input the answer as taught by the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Chou in the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Hara since Chou teaches it is known to include this feature in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye for the purpose of providing optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that provides earlier diagnosis with improved accuracy and disease detection.
Regarding claim 20, Hara in view of Chou discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Chou further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that it would have been desirable to make the leading information is an operation instruction to the examinee for operating the response input unit (Para. 0107-0108 and see Figs. 9, 12 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Chou in the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Hara since Chou teaches it is known to include this feature in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye for the purpose of providing optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that provides earlier diagnosis with improved accuracy and disease detection.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 2007/0013870) in view of Chou et al. (US 2012/0212706) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2017/0215723).
Hara in view of Chou remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Hara in view of Chou does not the controller is further configured to changes the leading information from first leading information to second leading information that is at least partially different from the first leading information, to output the leading information, according to the number of times of output of the leading information.
Sakurada teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optometry system that it would have been desirable to make the controller is further configured to changes the leading information from first leading information (Para. 0014 and 0070 and see 231; note, discloses visual instructions as the first leading information) to second leading information (Para. 0014 and 0070 and see 233; note, discloses auditory instructions as the second leading information) that is at least partially different from the first leading information, to output the leading information, according to the number of times of output of the leading information (Para. 0067 and 0070; note, discloses auditory instructions are output after a patient notifies that they cannot perceive the visual instructions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the controller is further configured to changes the leading information from first leading information to second leading information that is at least partially different from the first leading information, to output the leading information, according to the number of times of output of the leading information as taught by the optometry system of Sakurada in the combination of Hara in view of Chou since Sakurada teaches it is known to include these features in an optometry system for the purpose of providing an efficient and effective leading information.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 2007/0013870) in view of Donaldson (US 2017/0049316).
Regarding claim 10, Hara discloses, an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye (Figs. 1-5), the optometry system comprising:
a visual target presenting unit (2) that emits a target light flux toward the subject eye;
a correction unit (Para. 0079 and see 3, 4) that changes an optical characteristic (Para. 0079; note discloses a first optotype change means 3 for changing the optotype E to be shown by the optotype presentation means 2 into smaller one, a second optotype change means 4 for changing the optotype E to be shown by the optotype presentation means 2 into one having the same size and the other shape) of the target light flux; and
a controller (see 1, 2, 7, 11, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) configured to:
control an operation (Para. 0079; note, discloses the controller controls the device to perform a visual acuity test) of the optometry system (Para. 0077 and 0081);
acquisition means (8) that acquires a reaction time (Para. 0081); and
output the acquired reaction time (Para. 0081; note, discloses a time comparison means 10 for comparing result measured by the response time measuring means 8 with the standard time outputted by the standard time output means 9),
wherein the reaction time is a time acquired based on a start timing at which measurement of the subject eye is started and a response timing after the start timing (Para. 0020 and 0081; note, discloses a response time measuring means 8 for measuring a response time from the first presentation of optotype E by the optotype presentation means 2 to output of a signal by the operating means 6), the reaction time being a time required from a start of the measurement of the subject eye to a response with respect to the measurement of the subject eye (Para. 0020 and 0081; note, discloses a response time measuring means 8 for measuring a response time from the first presentation of optotype E by the optotype presentation means 2 to output of a signal by the operating means 6),
the start timing is a timing at which the visual target presenting unit or the correction unit is controlled by the controller (Para. 0081; note, discloses a time comparison means 10 for comparing result measured by the response time measuring means 8 with the standard time outputted by the standard time output means 9), and
the response timing is a timing at which a response signal with respect to the measurement is input by a response input unit (Para. 0020 and 0081; note, discloses a response time measuring means 8 for measuring a response time from the first presentation of optotype E by the optotype presentation means 2 to output of a signal by the operating means 6).
Hara does not disclose the correction unit changes an optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target.
Donaldson teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that it would have been desirable to make the correction unit changes an optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target (Para. 0035-0037; note, discloses changing the characteristics of brightness, color, size, shape, and/or contrast).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the correction unit changes an optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target as taught by the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Donaldson in the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Hara since Donaldson teaches it is known to include this feature in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye for the purpose of providing a reliable and accurate optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye.
Regarding claim 11, Hara in view of Donaldson discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to: acquire a first reaction time (“S5”) and a second reaction time (“S20”), that are acquired at different timings, as the reaction time (Para. 0091-0092 and see Fig. 3); and output the first reaction time and the second reaction time in a comparable manner, and at least one of the start timing or the response timing of the first reaction time and the second reaction time is different (Para. 0091-0092 and see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Hara in view of Donaldson discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to: wherein the control means is capable of control at least one of the visual target presenting unit or the correction unit (20, 21); and controls an operation of the optometry system based on the acquired reaction time (Para. 0077 and 0091).
Regarding claim 13, Hara in view of Donaldson discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to: acquire a state of the optometry system in a case where the visual target presenting unit or the correction unit is controlled by the controller (Para. 0082-0083, 0097 and Fig. 2); and determine suitability of the acquired state of the optometry system, based on the acquired reaction time (Para. 0082-0083, 0097 and Fig. 2); and control an operation of the optometry system, based on a determined suitability (Para. 0082-0083, 0097 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Hara in view of Donaldson discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to output the acquired state of the optometry system acquired by the state acquisition means, together with the acquired reaction time (Para. 0082-0083, 0097 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Hara in view of Donaldson discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to output data indicating a relationship between the reaction time and the state of the optometry system (Para. 0082-0083, 0097 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Hara in view of Donaldson discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to output graph data indicating a relationship between the reaction time and the state of the optometry system (Para. 0082-0083, 0097 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Hara in view of Donaldson discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hara further discloses, the controller is further configured to output graph data indicating a relationship between the reaction time and a correction power set by the correction unit (Para. 0082-0083, 0097 and see 12 of Fig. 2; note, discloses the display means that prints or displays results on a monitor).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 2007/0013870) in view of Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 2015/0342454).
Hara in view of Donaldson remains as applied to claim 10 above.
Hara in view of Donaldson does not disclose the correction unit comprises at least one of: (1) a spherical lens movable along an optical axis of the target light flux to change the optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target, or (2) A phantom lens refractometer to change the optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target.
Foster teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that it would have been desirable to make the correction unit comprises at least one of: (1) a spherical lens movable along an optical axis of the target light flux to change the optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target (Para. 0178 and 0189), or (2) A phantom lens refractometer to change the optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the correction unit comprises at least one of: (1) a spherical lens movable along an optical axis of the target light flux to change the optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target, or (2) A phantom lens refractometer to change the optical characteristic of the target light flux emitted from the same visual target as taught by the optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye of Foster in the combination of Hara in view of Donaldson since Hara teaches it is known to include these features in an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye for the purpose of providing a reliable and accurate optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., discussion of leading information/voice guide output when the examinee does not respond within a time based on the reference value) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) and/or in the instant specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “leading information” therefor is guidance prompting the examinee (e.g., instructions on how to operate the response input unit, prompting the examinee to input an answer)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) and/or in the instant specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., outputting to the examinee any instruction or prompt to cause the examinee to operate the operation means (response input) when a response is delayed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) and/or in the instant specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-17 and 21 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Darby et al. (US 2002/0192624) and Wasowicz et al. (US 2002/0164563) discloses an optometry system for subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of a subject eye that output leading information, for prompting the examinee to input the answer.
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights