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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on January 13th, 2026. Claims 10-13 and 15 have been canceled as such claims 1-9 and 14 are pending consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor 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 and 14 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.
Claim 1 recites that the at least one magnetostrictive torque sensor comprises “a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk, wherein the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure”. The “or” statement followed by the rest of the limitation of “wherein the magnetized shaft (…) and the magnetized disk” makes it unclear whether the claim requires the magnetized shaft or the magnetized disk or both. Therefore, this uncertainty renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination. This limitation is being interpreted as only requiring either the magnetized shaft or the magnetized disk.
Further, claim 1 recites that “the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure”. It is unclear whether a part/parts in claim 1 are the same as the first part and second part in claim 2 or if they are entirely different parts. For purposes of examination, the part/parts are being interpreted as being different parts than the first part and second part and are capable of being connected to the mechanical joint.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected for being dependent off of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites that the magnetostrictive torque sensor comprises “a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk, wherein the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure”. The “or” statement followed by the rest of the limitation of “wherein the magnetized shaft (…) and the magnetized disk” makes it unclear whether the claim requires the magnetized shaft or the magnetized disk or both. Therefore, this uncertainty renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination. This limitation is being interpreted as only requiring either the magnetized shaft or the magnetized disk.
Further, claim 14 recites that “the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure”. It is unclear whether a part/parts in claim 1 are the same as the first part and second part in claim 2 or if they are entirely different parts. For purposes of examination, the part/parts are being interpreted as being different parts than the first part and second part and are capable of being connected to the mechanical joint.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joutras (WO 9700661) in view of Ju (US 20080097255) and further in view of Jones (US 6513395).
Regarding claim 1, Joutras discloses
an exoskeleton fitness device (Figs. 1-2; exercise assembly 10; Page 26, Lines 22-24 and Page 27, Lines 1-5) for exercising a human body (Fig. 1; limb 12; Page 27, Lines 1 and 11-17), comprising:
a wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace/brace portion 14; Page 27, Lines 18-23) having at least one fastening member (Figs. 1-2; first supper means 20 and second support means 22; Page 27, Lines 18-23),
wherein the at least one fastening member (Figs. 1-2; first supper means 20 and second support means 22; Page 27, Lines 18-23) is configured to fasten the wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace/brace portion 14; Page 27, Lines 18-23) to a body of a user (Fig. 1; thigh and leg of a person; Page 27, Lines 18-23);
at least one mechanical joint (Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 27, Lines 18-20 and 23-25; Page 28, Lines 1-3) having at least one axis of rotation (see modified Fig. 2 below) and at least one degree-of- freedom (Page 28, Lines 1-3 and Page 31, Lines 9-14; joints are 24 are pivotal which mean they turn; brace is moving during extension and flexion or in other words when the knee bends or rotates),
PNG
media_image1.png
630
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one mechanical joint (Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 30, Lines 14-25) is fastened to the wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace 14; Page 30, Lines 14-25);
at least one unit for generating a rotational resistance (Fig. 3; friction disk; Page 29, lines 17-21 and Page 144, Claim 8, Lines 1-6) which counteracts a rotational movement (Fig. 3; friction disk; Page 29, lines 17-21 and Page 144, Claim 8, Lines 1-6) of the at least one mechanical joint (Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 29, lines 17-21 and Claim 8, Lines 1-6); and
a controller (Figs. 1-5; control module 30A; Page 30, Lines 6-13; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8) for controlling the rotational resistance (resistance program for the knee bending; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8), wherein the controller (Figs. 1-3; control module 30A; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8) is configured to control the rotational resistance (resistance program for the knee bending; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8) according to a user setting (resistance-mode selector; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8).
However, Joutras does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to control the at least one rotational resistance as a function of an angular force applied by the user; and at least one magnetostrictive torque sensor for measuring the angular force applied by the user, the at least one magnetostrictive torque sensor comprising: a magnetic field sensor; and a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk, wherein the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure.
Ju discloses a rehabilitation device to help provide the user with rehabilitation movements
wherein the controller is further configured to control the at least one rotational resistance as a function of an angular force applied by the user (figs. 1-2; the user rotates their body segment A and the torque detector 400 detects the torque input of the user's body segment A, the control unit 500 may control to provide resistive or assistive torque to help perform rehab movements according to the degree of the rehabilitation that is assessed by the torque detected; [0017]); and
at least one torque sensor for measuring the angular force applied by the user (figs. 1-2; the user rotates their body segment A and the torque detector 400 detects the torque input of the user's body segment A; [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify control assembly and pivot shafts of Joutras with the torque detector and control unit of Ju to detect the torque of the user’s body segment on the actuator thereby assessing the degree of rehabilitation and amending the rehabilitation movements according to the degree of rehabilitation to promote the rehabilitation effect (Ju: [0005]-[0007], [0009], and [0017]).
The modified device of Joutras does not disclose the at least one magnetostrictive torque sensor comprising: a magnetic field sensor; and a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk, wherein the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure.
Jones discloses a magnetoelastic torque sensor for control system that have rotating drive shafts where
the at least one magnetostrictive torque sensor (figs. 1-4; torque transducer 2 with disk 10 containing magnetostrictive material; col. 3, lines 7-54) comprising:
a magnetic field sensor (figs. 1-4; Magnetic field vector sensor 16 provides a signal output reflecting the magnitude of the applied torque; col. 6, lines 55-62); and
a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk (figs. 1-4; disk 10 is or includes a magnetically active element of the transducer such as having a magnetostrictive material; col. 3, lines 38-54), wherein the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint (figs. 1-4; magnetized disk 10 is connected to rum 12 and hub 6 to connect to shaft 8; col. 3, lines 7-54) of the wearable structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the torque detector of the modified device of Joutras with the magnetoelastic torque sensor that comprises a magnetostrictive material of Jones to yield the predictable results of being able to detect torque applied to the shaft/pivot shaft (Jones: col. 3, lines 7-54 and col. 6, lines 55-62).
It directly follows that the resultant control module and pivot joints/shaft of Joutras combined with the magnetoelastic torque sensor of Jones would meet the claimed structural limitations since:
The modified device of Joutras and Jones combined discloses
wherein the magnetized disk is connected to parts (Jones: figs. 1-4; magnetized disk 10 is connected to rum 12 and hub 6 to connect to shaft 8; col. 3, lines 7-54) which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure (Jones: shaft 8; Joutras: Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints/shafts 24A and 24B; Page 30, Lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 2, Joutras further discloses
The exoskeleton fitness device (exercise assembly 10) according to claim 1,
wherein the wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace portion 14; Page 30, Lines 14-18) further comprises a first part (Figs. 1-2; thigh splint members 26A and 26B; Page 30, Lines 22-25) and a second part (Figs. 1-2; leg splint members 28A and 28; Page 30, Lines 22-25), the first part (Figs. 1-2; thigh splint members 26A and 26B; Page 30, Lines 22-25) and the second part (Figs. 1-2; leg splint members 28A and 28; Page 30, Lines 22-25) being rotatably connected to each other via the at least one mechanical joint (Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 28, Lines 1-3 and Page 31, Lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, Joutras further discloses
the exoskeleton fitness (exercise assembly 10) device according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one axis of rotation (see modified Figs. 1-2 below) of the at least one mechanical joint (see modified Figs. 1-2 below; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 27, Lines 18-20 and 23-25; Page 28, Lines 1-3) coincides with an axis of rotation of a body joint of the user (see modified Figs. 1-2 below; knee joint).
PNG
media_image2.png
798
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Joutras further discloses
the exoskeleton fitness device (exercise assembly 10) according to claim 1,
wherein the wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace/brace portion 14; Page 27, Lines 11-17) is further configured to enable a movement sequence (Page 27, Lines 11-17 and Page 30, Lines 3-13; movement of the knee) performed by at least one body part of the user (knee and leg of a person; Page 27, Lines 11-17 and Page 31, Lines 15-15 and Page 32, Lines 1-6), the at least one body part selected from
a left shoulder, a right shoulder, a torso, a left arm, a right arm, a left upper arm, a right upper arm, a left lower arm, a right lower arm, a left hand, a right hand, at least one finger, a left hip, a right hip,
a left leg, a right leg, a left knee, a right knee (knee and leg of a person; Page 27, Lines 11-17 and Page 31, Lines 15-15 and Page 32, Lines 1-6),
a left foot and a right foot.
Regarding claim 8, Joutras further discloses
the exoskeleton fitness device (exercise assembly 10) according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one mechanical joint is a pair of mechanical joints (see modified Fig. 2 below; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 27, Lines 18-20 and 23-25; Page 28, Lines 1-3) whose axes of rotation coincide (see modified Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
671
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Joutras further discloses
the exoskeleton fitness device (exercise assembly 10) according to claim 8,
wherein mechanical joints of the pair of mechanical joints (see modified Figs. 1-2 below; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 27, Lines 18-20 and 23-25; Page 28, Lines 1-3) are arranged in correspondence to a position of a body joint of the user (see modified Figs. 1-2 below; knee; Page 30, Lines 14-22 and Page 142, Claim 1, Lines 4-11) opposite to each other on the wearable structure (limb brace/brace portion 14; Page 27, Lines 18-23) so that the body joint is positioned at their center (see modified Figs. 1-2 below; Page 30, Lines 14-22 and Page 142, Claim 1, Lines 4-11).
PNG
media_image4.png
771
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Joutras discloses
a method for exercising a human body (Fig. 1; using exercise assembly 10 for limb 12; Page 27, Lines 1 and 11-17), with an exoskeleton fitness device (Figs. 1-2; exercise assembly 10; Page 26, Lines 22-24 and Page 27, Lines 1-5), the method comprising:
fastening a wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace/brace portion 14; Page 27, Lines 18-23) of the exoskeleton fitness device (Figs. 1-2; exercise assembly 10; Page 26, Lines 22-24 and Page 27, Lines 1-5) to the body of a user (Fig. 1; thigh and leg of a person; Page 27, Lines 18-23) by means of at least one fastening member (Figs. 1-2; first supper means 20 and second support means 22; Page 27, Lines 18-23);
generating a rotational resistance (Fig. 3; friction disk; Page 29, lines 17-21 and Page 144, Claim 8, Lines 1-6) counteracting a rotational movement (Fig. 3; friction disk; Page 29, lines 17-21 and Page 144, Claim 8, Lines 1-6) of a mechanical joint (Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 29, lines 17-21 and Claim 8, Lines 1-6),
wherein the mechanical joint (Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 27, Lines 18-20 and 23-25; Page 28, Lines 1-3) comprises at least one axis of rotation (see modified Fig. 2 below) and at least one degree- of-freedom (Page 28, Lines 1-3 and Page 31, Lines 9-14; joints are 24 are pivotal which mean they turn; brace is moving during extension and flexion or in other words when the knee bends or rotates), and
PNG
media_image1.png
630
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one mechanical joint (Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints 24A and 24B; Page 30, Lines 14-25) is fastened to the wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace 14; Page 30, Lines 14-25);
controlling, by means of a controller (Figs. 1-3; control module 30A; Page 30, Lines 6-13; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8) according to a user setting (resistance-mode selector; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8), the rotational resistance (resistance program for the knee bending; Page 32, Lines 17-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-8);
performing, by means of the wearable structure (Figs. 1-2; limb brace 14; Page 30, Lines 14-25), an angular movement by the user (bending of the knee; Page 32, Lines 22-25 and Page 33, Lines 1-3), a center of which is a body joint of the user (see modified Figs. 1-2 below; Page 30, Lines 14-22 and Page 142, Claim 1, Lines 4-11).
Joutras does not disclose measuring an angular force applied by the user by means of a magnetostrictive torque sensor, wherein the controlling further comprises controlling the at least one rotational resistance as a function of the measured angular force, and wherein the magnetostrictive torque sensor comprises: a magnetic field sensor; and a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk, the magnetized shaft being an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk being connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure.
Ju discloses a rehabilitation device to help provide the user with rehabilitation movements
measuring an angular force applied by the user by means of a torque sensor (figs. 1-2; the user rotates their body segment A and the torque detector 400 detects the torque input of the user's body segment A; [0017]),
wherein the controlling further comprises controlling the at least one rotational resistance as a function of the measured angular force (figs. 1-2; the user rotates their body segment A and the torque detector 400 detects the torque input of the user's body segment A, the control unit 500 may control to provide resistive or assistive torque to help perform rehab movements according to the degree of the rehabilitation that is assessed by the torque detected; [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control assembly and pivot shafts of Joutras with the torque detector and control unit of Ju to detect the torque of the user’s body segment on the actuator thereby assessing the degree of rehabilitation and amending the rehabilitation movements according to the degree of rehabilitation to promote the rehabilitation effect (Ju: [0005]-[0007], [0009], and [0017]).
The modified method of Joutras does not disclose a magnetostrictive torque sensor; wherein the magnetostrictive torque sensor comprises: a magnetic field sensor; and a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk, the magnetized shaft being an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk being connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure.
Jones discloses a magnetoelastic torque sensor for control system that have rotating drive shafts where
the magnetostrictive torque sensor (figs. 1-4; torque transducer 2 with disk 10 containing magnetostrictive material; col. 3, lines 7-54) comprises:
a magnetic field sensor (figs. 1-4; Magnetic field vector sensor 16 provides a signal output reflecting the magnitude of the applied torque; col. 6, lines 55-62); and
a magnetized shaft or a magnetized disk (figs. 1-4; disk 10 is or includes a magnetically active element of the transducer such as having a magnetostrictive material; col. 3, lines 38-54), wherein the magnetized shaft is an angled region of a part which connects the mechanical joint of the wearable structure and the magnetized disk is connected to parts which connect the mechanical joint (figs. 1-4; magnetized disk 10 is connected to rum 12 and hub 6 to connect to shaft 8; col. 3, lines 7-54) of the wearable structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the torque detector of the modified method of Joutras with the magnetoelastic torque sensor that comprises a magnetostrictive material of Jones to yield the predictable results of being able to detect torque applied to the shaft/pivot shaft (Jones: col. 3, lines 7-54 and col. 6, lines 55-62).
It directly follows that the resultant control module and pivot joints/shaft of Joutras combined with the magnetoelastic torque sensor of Jones would meet the claimed structural limitations since:
The modified device of Joutras and Jones combined discloses
wherein the magnetized disk is connected to parts (Jones: figs. 1-4; magnetized disk 10 is connected to rum 12 and hub 6 to connect to shaft 8; col. 3, lines 7-54) which connect the mechanical joint of the wearable structure (Jones: shaft 8; Joutras: Figs. 1-2; two pivotal joints/shafts 24A and 24B; Page 30, Lines 14-25).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joutras (WO 9700661) in view of Ju (US 20080097255) and further in view of Jones (US 6513395) and a second embodiment of Joutras (WO 9700661).
Regarding claim 5. Joutras discloses
the exoskeleton fitness device (exercise assembly 10) according to claim 1,
Joutras does not disclose wherein the at least one unit for generating the rotational resistance comprises an electrically controllable brake.
Joutras discloses a second embodiment
wherein the at least one unit (Fig. 42; electronic pressure control module/electronic program control 382H and friction disk 380H; Page 64, Lines 8-14 Page 66, Lines 14-18) for generating the rotational resistance (Fig. 42; frictional resistance to motion in flexion and extension; Page 65, Lines 9-10 and Page 66, Lines 14-18) comprises an electrically controllable brake (Fig. 42; electronic brake; Page 66, Lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control module and friction disk of the first embodiment of Joutras with the electronic control module and friction disk of the second embodiment of Joutras to serve as an electronic brake that is able to stop motion or release members to move freely (second embodiment of Joutras: Page 66, Lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 7, Joutras discloses
the exoskeleton fitness device (exercise assembly 10) according to claim 1,
Joutras does not disclose wherein one or both of the wearable structure and the at least one mechanical joint further comprises at least one optical marker.
Joutras discloses a second embodiment
wherein one or both of the wearable structure (Fig. 68; exercise apparatus 1140; Page 98, Lines 12-18) and the at least one mechanical joint (Figs. 63 and 68; ball joint at control modules 1142; Page 94, Lines 3-10; Page 97, Lines 19-25 and Page 98, Lines 1-4) further comprises at least one optical marker (Figs. 63 and 68; plurality of markings/optical markings 1092; Page 94, Lines 3-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that neither Jones, McDaid, and Ratner, nor the combination of said arts, disclose “wherein the controller is further configured to control at least one rotational resistance as a function of an angular force applied by the user” in addition to the further newly amended limitations in claims 1 and 14. It was agreed by the examiner that Joutras does not disclose said limitations.
However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the “wherein the controller is further configured to control at least one rotational resistance as a function of an angular force applied by the user” and the new limitations as amended in claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on McDaid or Ratner 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.
Ohta (US 20180092792) – An assistance apparatus/body brace with a torque detection section that can be a magnetostrictive torque sensor for use in electric power steering (at the joint)
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 SYDNEY REYES RUSSELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930am -6pm.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/S.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights