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
The present Office action is responsive to the application as filed on 03-03-2023. As directed, claims 1-14 are currently pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show and delineated any of the disclosed or claimed structures as described in the specification, since the drawings are not labeled. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 2, lines 3-5, it is suggested that the section be amended to read the following: “configured for a flexion-extension rotation of the wrist, configured for an ulnar-radial extension movement of the wrist, and configured for a supination-pronation extension movement of the forearm” for clarity.
At claim 8, line 2, it is suggested that “the” be added before “forearm” for clarity.
At claim 13, line 1, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “used” to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism and reciting method steps in an apparatus claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5-8, and 12-14 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 2 recites “the handle” in line 1 which renders the claim indefinite because in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, “a plurality of handles” are introduced. Thus, it is unclear which of the “plurality of handles” “the handle” of claim 2 is meant to refer to.
To overcome the rejection, Applicant may amend the limitation to read “wherein at least one of the plurality of handles”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the therapy mode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may either replace “the” with “a” or may amend the claim dependency of claim 5 to depend from claim 4. Claim 5 will be interpreted to depend from claim 4 for the purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may amend “can be” to read “is configured to be”.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the left hand" and “the right hand” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the rejection, each instance of “the” may be replaced with “a”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the height" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the rejection, “the” may be replaced with “a”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the rejection, “the” may be replaced with “a”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may amend “can be” to read “is configured to be”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the hand" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the rejection, “the” may be replaced with “a”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may amend “can be” to read “is configured to be”.
Claim 12 recites “a controller” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite because “a controller” was previously introduced in claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Thus, it is unclear whether there are two separate controllers claimed, or if there is only one.
To overcome the rejection, Applicant may replace “a” with “the”.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may replace “preferably” with “including one of”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the motor control parameters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant may eliminate “the”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akdogan (TR 2016/08657-U).
Examiner notes that the citations given with respect to Akdogan are derived from the provided translation.
Regarding claim 1, Akdogan discloses a rehabilitation apparatus (“robotic platform”) for wrist and forearm therapy (page 4: “a robotic platform for diagnosis and treatment of wrist and forearm rehabilitation”; Fig. 1) comprising:
an adjustable armrest (9) (page 5: “The arm of the patient is fixed to the platform by the arm clamping mechanism (9). The mechanism is driven by a stepper motor 37. The drive gear 38 coupled to this stepper motor transmits the movement clockwise to the gear 39. A ball screw (36) is connected to this gear. This ball screw moves the right jaw by the clockwise gear drive. The clockwise gear also moves the counterclockwise gear 40 in the opposite direction. This gear drives the second spindle (36) and moves it to the left jaw. Thus, with the rotation of the stepper motor, the right and left jaws 32 move simultaneously in opposite directions and secure the arm in the middle”; Figs. 2 and 7-8),
a motor (3) (page 4: “On this turntable there are holes in which the desired number of units can be fixed. There are pronation-supination (5), ulnar-radial deviation (6), flexion-extension (7) and clamping force measurement unit (8) on the rotary table. The rotary table is rotated by stepper motor (3)”), and
a rotatable base (2) having a plurality of sockets (“holes”) for engaging a plurality of handles (19, 25) for different types of therapy (page 4: “On this turntable there are holes in which the desired number of units can be fixed. There are pronation-supination (5), ulnar-radial deviation (6), flexion-extension (7) and clamping force measurement unit (8) on the rotary table. The rotary table is rotated by stepper motor (3) and “With the metal handle connected to the motor shaft end, the movement is transferred to the Ulnar Radial Deviation handle (19) and the flexion-extension handle (25)”, where 19 is carried on 6 and 25 is carried on 7; Figs. 2, and 4-5),
wherein the motor (3) is configured to move the rotatable base (2) (page 4: “On this turntable there are holes in which the desired number of units can be fixed. There are pronation-supination (5), ulnar-radial deviation (6), flexion-extension (7) and clamping force measurement unit (8) on the rotary table. The rotary table is rotated by stepper motor (3)”).
Regarding claim 2, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan further discloses wherein the handle (19, 25) is a handle for a flexion-extension rotation of the wrist, and a handle for an ulnar-radial extension movement of the wrist (page 4: “On this turntable there are holes in which the desired number of units can be fixed. There are pronation-supination (5), ulnar-radial deviation (6), flexion-extension (7) and clamping force measurement unit (8) on the rotary table. The rotary table is rotated by stepper motor (3) and “With the metal handle connected to the motor shaft end, the movement is transferred to the Ulnar Radial Deviation handle (19) and the flexion-extension handle (25)”, where 19 is carried on 6 and 25 is carried on 7; Figs. 2, and 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan further discloses a motor holder (20) (page 4: “The motor is fixed to the metal motor bearing (20)”; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan further discloses wherein the armrest (9) can be adjusted to be used for the left hand or the right hand (page 5: “The arm of the patient is fixed to the platform by the arm clamping mechanism (9). The mechanism is driven by a stepper motor 37. The drive gear 38 coupled to this stepper motor transmits the movement clockwise to the gear 39. A ball screw (36) is connected to this gear. This ball screw moves the right jaw by the clockwise gear drive. The clockwise gear also moves the counterclockwise gear 40 in the opposite direction. This gear drives the second spindle (36) and moves it to the left jaw. Thus, with the rotation of the stepper motor, the right and left jaws 32 move simultaneously in opposite directions and secure the arm in the middle”, where the adjustment is understood to allow accommodation of either arm; Figs. 2 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan further discloses wherein the armrest (9) can be adjusted to different sizes of the hand or forearm (page 5: “The arm of the patient is fixed to the platform by the arm clamping mechanism (9). The mechanism is driven by a stepper motor 37. The drive gear 38 coupled to this stepper motor transmits the movement clockwise to the gear 39. A ball screw (36) is connected to this gear. This ball screw moves the right jaw by the clockwise gear drive. The clockwise gear also moves the counterclockwise gear 40 in the opposite direction. This gear drives the second spindle (36) and moves it to the left jaw. Thus, with the rotation of the stepper motor, the right and left jaws 32 move simultaneously in opposite directions and secure the arm in the middle”, where the adjustment is understood to allow accommodation of differently sized hands and forearms; Figs. 2 and 7-8).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akdogan (TR 2016/08657-U), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Moon (KR 2016/0141128-A).
Examiner notes that the citations with respect to Moon are derived form the provided translation.
Regarding claim 4, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan fails to disclose wherein the motor is configured to move the rotatable base according to a therapy mode.
However, Moon teaches an apparatus for wrist rehabilitation (page 2: “1 is a view for explaining a robot for wrist joint rehabilitation training; Fig. 1), wherein a motor (190) is configured to move a rotatable base (147) according to a therapy mode for achieving rehabilitative exercise in an active manner (page 3: “a wrist adduction / abduction moving part 147coupled to the front end of the wrist bending / swinging moving part 144 so as to be vertically rotatable, And a torque sensor 148 installed in the wrist bending / swing support module 141 for sensing a torque generated during manual training” and “4 and 5, the wrist adiabatic / abduction moving part 147 includes a cylindrical wrist adduction /abduction drive shaft 147a, a drive shaft timing pulley 147b coupled to the cylindrical wrist adduction /abduction drive shaft 147a, A motor side timing pulley 147d coupled with the drive shaft timing pulley147b by a timing belt 147c, a motor shaft 147e coupled with the motor side timing pulley 147d, and a drive shaft timing pulley 147b And a potentiometer sensor 147f for measuring and outputting the rotation angle during wrist adduction / abduction. 7 is a diagram for explaining a circuit configuration of a robot for a wrist joint rehabilitation training according to the present invention. 8 is a view for explaining an electromagnetic clutch and an electromagnetic brake applied to the present invention. Circuit configurations for operating the robot for wrist joint rehabilitation training in a passive or active mode are required, and the related configurations are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Fig. 7 and 8, a mode selection switch 150 for outputting a manual mode or an active mode selection signal according to a user operation and outputting an electromagnetic brake force setting signal, a mode selection switch150 The controller 150 controls the electromagnetic clutch 170 so that the motor unit 190 and the wrist bending / swinging operation unit 144 are connected to each other”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the motor and rotatable base of Akdogan to include the capability of the motor being configured to move the rotatable base according to a therapy mode, as taught by Moon, in order to actively rehabilitate the wrist.
Regarding claim 5, Akdogan in view of Moon disclose the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 4, as discussed above.
Modified Akdogan further discloses wherein the therapy mode is a passive mode or an active mode (page 3 of Moon: “Circuit configurations for operating the robot for wrist joint rehabilitation training in a passive or active mode are required, and the related configurations are shown in Figs. 7 and 8”).
Regarding claim 11, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan fails to disclose a controller configured to control the motor.
However, Moon teaches an apparatus for wrist rehabilitation (page 2: “1 is a view for explaining a robot for wrist joint rehabilitation training; Fig. 1), wherein a controller (150) is configured to control a motor (190) according to a therapy mode for achieving rehabilitative exercise in an active manner (page 3: “a wrist adduction / abduction moving part 147coupled to the front end of the wrist bending / swinging moving part 144 so as to be vertically rotatable, And a torque sensor 148 installed in the wrist bending / swing support module 141 for sensing a torque generated during manual training” and “4 and 5, the wrist adiabatic / abduction moving part 147 includes a cylindrical wrist adduction /abduction drive shaft 147a, a drive shaft timing pulley 147b coupled to the cylindrical wrist adduction /abduction drive shaft 147a, A motor side timing pulley 147d coupled with the drive shaft timing pulley147b by a timing belt 147c, a motor shaft 147e coupled with the motor side timing pulley 147d, and a drive shaft timing pulley 147b And a potentiometer sensor 147f for measuring and outputting the rotation angle during wrist adduction / abduction. 7 is a diagram for explaining a circuit configuration of a robot for a wrist joint rehabilitation training according to the present invention. 8 is a view for explaining an electromagnetic clutch and an electromagnetic brake applied to the present invention. Circuit configurations for operating the robot for wrist joint rehabilitation training in a passive or active mode are required, and the related configurations are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Fig. 7 and 8, a mode selection switch 150 for outputting a manual mode or an active mode selection signal according to a user operation and outputting an electromagnetic brake force setting signal, a mode selection switch150 The controller 150 controls the electromagnetic clutch 170 so that the motor unit 190 and the wrist bending / swinging operation unit 144 are connected to each other”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Akdogan to include a controller capable of controlling operation of the motor, as taught by Moon, in order to activate various therapy modes for rehabilitation of the wrist.
Regarding claim 12, Akdogan in view of Moon disclose the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 11, as discussed above.
Akdogan discloses the presence of sensors for determining torque and force (13, 22) (page 4: “The motor shaft is connected to the torque sensor 13 by the pronation-supination motor flange (12). The other end of the torque sensor is connected to the roller bearing (15) supporting the system by the torque sensor flange (14). The rotating drum 16 is the portion that rotates the patient's wrist. The patient's wrist is secured to the rotating drum by the wrist fixing screws (17). The torque generated by the patient's wrist is measured with the aid of the torque sensor (13). By keeping the motor constant at the desired angle value, the torque value formed at these angles formed by the wrist can be measured statically. In addition, pronation - supination exercise can be performed with motor movement. The unit is located on the base (18) made of a durable material. Ulnar - Radial deviation unit (6) and flexion - extension unit (7) are similar in structure. Only the handle portions where the hand 10 is placed are different. Therefore, two units will be explained together in this section. The motion is also performed here by the ulnar - radial deviation and the flexion extension motor (24). The motor is fixed to the metal motor bearing (20). With the metal handle connected to the motor shaft end, the movement is transferred to the Ulnar Radial Deviation handle (19) and the flexion-extension handle (25) 15. With the bearing (23) at the end of the metal arm, the handle is rotated with the wrist during the exercise. The bidirectional force sensor 22 is used to measure the force generated during the exercise”), but fails to disclose a controller capable of recording either the force or torque data.
However, Moon further teaches the controller (150) capable of recording torque data for controlling the motor output (page 4: “At this time, a torque sensor 148 is provided inside the wrist bending / pivoting support module 141 to sense the torque generated in manual training and output to the controller 160. The controller 160 controls the electromagnetic clutch 170 so that the kinetic energy of the motor unit190 is transmitted to the wrist 170 via the wrist 170. [ So that it is not transmitted to the bending / In the present invention, when torque of 300 [Ncm] is generated in the manual mode, the electromagnetic clutch 170 is controlled to disconnect the connection between the motor unit 190 and the wrist bending / fuming moving unit 144”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller and sensors of modified Akdogan to include the capability of the controller recording data, i.e. by receiving sensor data, as taught by Moon in order to control the motor output.
Regarding claim 13, Akdogan in view of Moon disclose the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 12, as discussed above.
Modified Akdogan further discloses wherein the data is used for analyzing a progress of a patient in rehabilitation (Akdogan at page 4: “The torque generated by the patient's wrist is measured with the aid of the torque sensor (13). By keeping the motor constant at the desired angle value, the torque value formed at these angles formed by the wrist can be measured statically” and Moon at page 3: “And a torque sensor 148 installed in the wrist bending / swing support module 141 for sensing a torque generated during manual training”, where in each case, the generated data can reasonably be used for analyzing the patient’s applied force/torque, which can improve or worsen over time).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akdogan (TR 2016/08657-U), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Xu (CN 107811815).
Examiner notes that the citation with respect to Xu are derived from the provided translation.
Regarding claim 7, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan fails to disclose wherein the height and the distance of the armrest from the rotatable base can be adjusted.
However, Xu teaches an arm support mechanism for a wrist rehabilitation training device (abstract, lines 1-3) which includes a height adjuster (120) capable of adjusting the height and the distance of the armrest from the base (110) in order to operate the device at the appropriate height (page 4: “Further, as shown in FIG. 5, the height adjusting device 120 is composed of a driving device, a guiderail 127, a slider 125 sliding along the guide rail 127, guide rail 127 is fixedly connected with a base110, a sliding block 125 is fixedly connected with the supporting plate 130. the output shaft of the driving device 123 is a screw, the push rod 124 is provided with a nut, the screw rod is screwed with the nut, the output shaft 123 rotates, the rod 124 along the output shaft 123 axial linear movement, the push rod 124 and the support plate 130 are fixedly connected by connecting bolt 128; drive the support plate 130 along the axial direction the output shaft of the driving device 124” and page 5: “the height lifting device 120 in the drive device is operated to drive the supporting plate 130 adjusted to the proper height”; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Akdogan to include the capability of adjusting the height and the distance of the armrest from the rotatable base, as taught by Xu, in order to operate the device at the appropriate height.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akdogan (TR 2016/08657-U), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hachisuka (US 2015/0133828).
Regarding claim 9, Akdogan discloses the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Akdogan fails to disclose an emergency key configured to execute an emergency stop.
However, Hachisuka teaches a wrist rehabilitation device (10) (paragraph 29, lines 1-5; Fig. 1) including an emergency key (28) configured to execute an emergency stop in order to stop the motors from operating by force as needed (paragraph 37, lines 1-6; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Akdogan to include an emergency stop button, as taught by Hachisuka, in order to forcibly stop the action of the motors if needed.
Regarding claim 10, Akdogan in view of Hachisuka disclose the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 9, as discussed above.
Modified Akdogan further discloses wherein the emergency key (Hachisuka: 28) is a mechanical representation (Hachisuka-paragraph 37, lines 1-6; Fig. 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akdogan (TR 2016/08657-U) in view of Moon (KR 2016/0141128-A), as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Schanpp (US 2012/0238920).
Regarding claim 14, Akdogan in view of Moon disclose the rehabilitation apparatus according to claim 11, as discussed above.
As presently modified, modified Akdogan fails to disclose wherein the controller is capable of adjusting the motor control parameters according to a progress of a patient in rehabilitation.
However, Schanpp teaches a wrist attachment (2) for rehabilitation (paragraph 60, lines 1-5), wherein the controller (“computer control”) is capable of adjusting the motor control parameters (“adjusting the speed or drive power of the motor”) according to a progress of a patient in rehabilitation to vary the regimen over time as necessary (paragraph 60, lines 1-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Akdogan to include the capability of the controller is capable of adjusting the motor control parameters according to a progress of a patient in rehabilitation, as taught by Schnapp, in order to vary the regimen over time as necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785