DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on September 2, 2025 concerning application No. 18/035,365 filed on May 4, 2023.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-22 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “a controller for controlling movement of the positioning device….wherein the controller is configured to: detect, via the electronic display monitor, one or more of movement or presence of at least a part of the body part supported by the electronic display monitor, and control, based on said detection, the positioning device to move to a first scanning position and initiate the ultrasound scan on a body part of a patient”, examiner respectfully disagrees. [0058] of Chen discloses “controller 638 uses the identified general locations for the finger joints to generate control signals which cause actuator 332 to appropriately position transducer array 30 proximate to each of the identified general finger joint locations for the acquisition of the first ultrasound images” which reads on a controller for controlling movement of the positioning device. [0018] and [0029] of Chen further disclose sensors that are part of the display are used for determining the location of the joints of the hand and further controlling the position of the ultrasound transducer based on the position of the joints. As set forth in the previous office action Goossen and Jumbe are then relied upon for teaching the deficiencies of Chen, specifically that the display is an electronic display monitor and the electronic display monitor is used for determining the presence of the at least part of the body part of the patient being supported by the electronic display monitor. The combination of Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe results in device as claimed, specifically, the positioning device being controlled based on the detection of the presence of the body part. See the rejection of claims 1 below for further details on the combination of references. For at least these reasons the combination of Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the argued limitation recited above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14, “a body part of a patient” should read “the body part of the patient”,
Claim 14, lines 11 and 13, “a 3D sensor” should read “the 3D sensor”,
Claim 1, line 14, “a body part of a patient” should read “the body part of the patient”,
Claim 15, line 2, “a body part” should read “the body part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160135782, hereinafter Chen) in view of Goossen et al. (US 20140348296, hereinafter Goossen) and Jumbe et al. (US 20210345939, hereinafter Jumbe).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a robotic system for performing an ultrasound scan on a body part of a patient ([0022] discloses the system includes a controller controls an actuator to move the transducer array to focus ultrasound imaging on the location of the subject. The combination of the controller and actuator is considered a robotic system for performing the ultrasound scan), the robotic system comprising:
a support surface for supporting the body part ([0039] discloses the container 322 which is used to retain the hand in a position or location within the container. The container is considered the support),
a display ([0049] discloses hand retainer 523 includes rear portion 525 and posts 527 and is considered a display to the user for where to place their hand) integrated into the support surface and adapted for supporting at least part of the body part to be scanned (figs. 7-8 show hand retainer 523 which includes portion 525 and posts 527 are integrated into the container (support) surface and adapted for supporting the hand of the patient to be scanned),
a positioning device configured to hold an ultrasound probe and move the ultrasound probe to obtain the ultrasound scan of the body part supported by the support surface ([0050] “actuator 532 comprise a movable support that facilitates selective repositioning of transducer array 30 within respect to hand 40 within container 322. Also [0058] “generate control signals which cause actuator 332 to appropriately position transducer array 30 proximate to each of the identified general finger joint locations for the acquisition of the first ultrasound images”), and
a controller for controlling movement of the positioning device ([0058] “controller 638 uses the identified general locations for the finger joints to generate control signals which cause actuator 332 to appropriately position transducer array 30 proximate to each of the identified general finger joint locations for the acquisition of the first ultrasound images”), wherein the controller is operatively connected to the display and positioning device (figs. 1 and 9 shows the controller is operatively connected to the display and positioning device), and wherein the controller is configured to:
detect, via the display, one or more of movement or presence of at least a part of the body part supported by the display ([0018] discloses one or more sensors located within the container are used for determining the position of the hand while it is contacting the sensors. The positioning of the hand is then used to determine the location of the joints of the hand. Since the sensors are within the container and in contact with the hand, the sensors are part of the display. This corresponds to at least detecting via the display the presence of the at least one body part), and
control, based on said detection, the positioning device to move to a first scanning position and initiate the ultrasound scan on a body part of a patient ([0029] discloses acquiring ultrasound images using the transducer array 30 of the finger joints and “controller 38 controls the operation and/or positioning of transducer array 30 based upon the identified locations of finger joints 42 of hand 40”. Therefore the positioning device is moved to a first scanning position and initiates the ultrasound scan of the body part).
Chen does not specifically teach the display is an electronic display monitor and the electronic display monitor is integrated into the support surface and adapted for supporting at least part of the body part to be scanned.
However,
Goossen in a similar field of endeavor teaches an electronic display monitor ([0074]-[0075] visible surface 42 in figs. 5-6. [0080]-[0081] “the visible surface 42 comprises an adaptable display surface 60, as shown in fig. 7…the visible surface 42 may be provided as a graphical user interface”. [0085]-[0086] further disclose the adaptable display surface 60 includes a light emitting structure, meaning the display is an electronic display monitor), wherein the electronic display monitor is integrated into the support surface and adapted for supporting at least part of the body part to be scanned ([0075] “the visible surface 42 may also be provided as a patient support surface 48 (for example, see fig. 6)”. [0080] “the adaptable display surface 60 can also be formed integrally with the housing structure 62”).
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 display of Chen for the electronic display monitor of Goossen because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of supporting the subject and indicating to the subject where they should place their body part in order to be scanned.
Chen in view of Goossen does not specifically teach the electronic display monitor detects a movement and/or presence of the at least part of the body part supported by the electronic display monitor.
However,
Jumbe in a similar field of endeavor teaches detecting via an electronic display monitor, the presence of the at least part of the body part ([0397]-[0398] disclose the base unit 3210 (electronic display monitor) provides both contactless and contact-based signal detection methods for obtaining data from the subject, thereby determining whether the subject is in contact with the base unit. [0400] further discloses the base unit 3210 includes a marker for where the subject should stand, thereby making the base unit a display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the electronic display monitor detect the presence of the at least part of the body part of Jumbe to the electronic display monitor of Chen in view of Goossen to allow for the predictable results of reducing the overall size of the system, thereby making the system more compact.
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Goossen further teaches the electronic display monitor is configured to display an instruction pattern ([0080] “the visible surface 42 comprises an adaptable display surface 60…the adaptable display surface 60 is displaying the graphical target anatomy representation 16”, fig. 6 shows the representation 16 is an instruction pattern for where to place the users hand).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Jumbe further teaches the display is a touch sensitive display ([0397]-[0398] discloses base unit 3210 (display) includes a contact based signal detection and also includes sensor assemblies to detect the vascularization, heat, weight, etc. from the subject. Therefore the display is a touch sensitive display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the display be a touch sensitive display of Jumbe to the electronic display monitor of Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe to allow for the predictable results of reducing the overall size of the system by reducing the total number of elements, thereby making the system more compact.
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Chen further teaches a display surface of the display is configured to support at least part of the body part, wherein the display surface extends within a display plane with an angle to a horizontal plane of 0-75 degrees (figs. 7 and 8 show that the display (523) is configured to support the hand of the patient and the surface of the display extends with an angle of 0 degrees to a horizontal plane). Additionally, as set forth above, Goossen teaches the display is an electronic display monitor.
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 9, as set forth above. Chen further teaches the display surface extends within the display plane with the angle to the horizontal plane of 0-60 degrees (figs. 7 and 8 show the surface of the display extends with an angle of 0 degrees to a horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 9, as set forth above. Chen further teaches the display surface extends within the display plane with the angle to the horizontal plane of 0-45 degrees (figs. 7 and 8 show the surface of the display extends with an angle of 0 degrees to a horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Goossen further teaches the electronic display monitor comprises:
a display surface that comprises the support surface ([0075] “the visible surface 42 may also be provided as a patient support surface 48 (for example, see fig. 6)”); and
a display housing that houses a display processing device ([0080] “the visible surface 42 provided as the adaptable display surface 60…can also be formed integrally with the housing structure 62”. Where the housing houses the x-ray detector arrangement, which is considered the display processing device).
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 display of Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe for the electronic display monitor of Goossen because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of supporting the subject and indicating to the subject where they should place their body part in order to be scanned.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funakubo (US 20170143310).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe does not specifically teach the robotic system is configured to: detect, via the electronic display monitor, an outline of the at least part of the body part supported by the electronic display monitor.
Funakubo in a similar field of endeavor teaches detecting via an electronic display monitor, an outline of the at least part of the body part supported by the electronic display monitor (Abstract discloses a detection unit for detecting a shape (outline) and spatial position of a finger of a practitioner. [0053] discloses the practitioner is in contact with the touch panel and is thereby being supported by the display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of detecting via an electronic display monitor, an outline of the at least part of the body part supported by the electronic display monitor of Funakubo to the electronic display monitor of Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe to allow for the predictable results of ensuring the entire part of the body is in contact with the display monitor, thereby increasing the accuracy of the procedure because the entire body part is being analyzed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton et al. (US 20190216433, hereinafter Hamilton).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe does not specifically teach the robotic system is configured to utilize the electronic display monitor in a calibration process.
However,
Hamilton in a similar field of endeavor teaches a robotic system ([0053] “the headset 110 includes robotics 214 configured to control positioning of the probe 105) configured to utilize the electronic display monitor in a calibration process ([0045] “a display screen configured to display visual indicators…to assist an operator with equipment calibration (e.g., probe positioning)”).
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 system disclosed by Chen in view of Goossen to have the robotic system be configured to utilize the electronic display monitor in a calibration process in order to improve the outcomes of the device, as recognized by Hamilton ([0045]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN108324321A, hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe does not specifically teach the robotic system is a movable unit.
However,
Guo in a similar field of endeavor teaches a robotic system that is a movable unit (fig. 1 shows that the robotic system includes wheels 33, therefore making the robotic system a movable unit).
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 system disclosed by Chen in view of Goossen and Jumbe to have the robotic system be a movable unit in order to allow for the system to be used in multiple different settings, thereby making the system more versatile.
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160135782, hereinafter Chen) in view of Goossen et al. (US 20140348296, hereinafter Goossen).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches a robotic system for performing an ultrasound scan on a body part of a patient ([0022] discloses the system includes a controller controls an actuator to move the transducer array to focus ultrasound imaging on the location of the subject. The combination of the controller and actuator is considered a robotic system for performing the ultrasound scan), the robotic system comprising:
a support surface for supporting the body part ([0039] discloses the container 322 which is used to retain the hand in a position or location within the container. The container is considered the support),
a display ([0049] discloses hand retainer 523 includes rear portion 525 and posts 527 and is considered a display to the user for where to place their hand) integrated into the support surface and adapted for supporting at least part of the body part to be scanned (figs. 7-8 show hand retainer 523 which includes portion 525 and posts 527 are integrated into the container (support) surface and adapted for supporting the hand of the patient to be scanned),
a positioning device configured to hold an ultrasound probe and move the ultrasound probe to obtain the ultrasound scan of the body part supported by the support surface ([0050] “actuator 532 comprise a movable support that facilitates selective repositioning of transducer array 30 within respect to hand 40 within container 322. Also [0058] “generate control signals which cause actuator 332 to appropriately position transducer array 30 proximate to each of the identified general finger joint locations for the acquisition of the first ultrasound images”),
one or more of a 2D sensor or a 3D sensor configured to obtain data on the body part of the patient supported by the support surface ([0018] discloses using one or more sensors to determine the positioning of the hand and location of the joints for the hand being supported within the system. This corresponds to at least a 2D sensor configured to obtain data on the body part of the patient), and
a controller for controlling movement of the positioning device ([0058] “controller 638 uses the identified general locations for the finger joints to generate control signals which cause actuator 332 to appropriately position transducer array 30 proximate to each of the identified general finger joint locations for the acquisition of the first ultrasound images”), wherein the controller is operatively connected to the 2D sensor and/or a 3D sensor ([0019] and fig. 1 disclose the controller is connected to the joint indicator which comprises the sensors as disclosed in [0018]), and the positioning device (figs. 1 and 9 shows the controller is operatively connected to the display and positioning device),
wherein the controller is configured to receive said obtained data from the 2D sensor and/or a 3D sensor ([0020] “Controller 38 comprises a processor or processing unit that receives the locations of joints 42 and that utilizes such signals to control the operation and/or positioning of transducer array 30”) and to control, based on said obtained data, the positioning device to move to a first scanning position and initiate the ultrasound scan on a body part of a patient ([0029] discloses acquiring ultrasound images using the transducer array 30 of the finger joints and “controller 38 controls the operation and/or positioning of transducer array 30 based upon the identified locations of finger joints 42 of hand 40”. Therefore the controller is moved to a first scanning position and initiates the ultrasound scan of the body part).
Chen does not specifically teach the display is an electronic display monitor and the electronic display monitor is integrated into the support surface and adapted for supporting at least part of the body part to be scanned.
However,
Goossen in a similar field of endeavor teaches an electronic display monitor ([0074]-[0075] visible surface 42 in figs. 5-6. [0080]-[0081] “the visible surface 42 comprises an adaptable display surface 60, as shown in fig. 7…the visible surface 42 may be provided as a graphical user interface”. [0085]-[0086] further disclose the adaptable display surface 60 includes a light emitting structure, meaning the display is an electronic display monitor), wherein the electronic display monitor is integrated into the support surface and adapted for supporting at least part of the body part to be scanned ([0075] “the visible surface 42 may also be provided as a patient support surface 48 (for example, see fig. 6)”. [0080] “the adaptable display surface 60 can also be formed integrally with the housing structure 62”).
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 display of Chen for the electronic display monitor of Goossen because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of supporting the subject and indicating to the subject where they should place their body part in order to be scanned.
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Goossen further teaches the electronic display monitor is configured to display an instruction pattern ([0080] “the visible surface 42 comprises an adaptable display surface 60…the adaptable display surface 60 is displaying the graphical target anatomy representation 16”, fig. 6 shows the representation 16 is an instruction pattern for where to place the users hand).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Chen further teaches a display surface of the display is configured to support at least part of the body part, wherein the display surface extends within a display plane with an angle to a horizontal plane of 0-75 degrees (figs. 7 and 8 show that the display (523) is configured to support the hand of the patient and the surface of the display extends with an angle of 0 degrees to a horizontal plane). Additionally, as set forth above, Goossen teaches the display is an electronic display monitor.
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 18, as set forth above. Chen further teaches the display surface extends within the display plane with the angle to the horizontal plane of 0-60 degrees (figs. 7 and 8 show the surface of the display extends with an angle of 0 degrees to a horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 18, as set forth above. Chen further teaches the display surface extends within the display plane with the angle to the horizontal plane of 0-45 degrees (figs. 7 and 8 show the surface of the display extends with an angle of 0 degrees to a horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 21, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Goossen further teaches the electronic display monitor comprises:
a display surface that comprises the support surface ([0075] “the visible surface 42 may also be provided as a patient support surface 48 (for example, see fig. 6)”); and
a display housing that houses a display processing device ([0080] “the visible surface 42 provided as the adaptable display surface 60…can also be formed integrally with the housing structure 62”. Where the housing houses the x-ray detector arrangement, which is considered the display processing device).
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 display of Chen in view of Goossen for the electronic display monitor of Goossen because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of supporting the subject and indicating to the subject where they should place their body part in order to be scanned.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Goossen as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20220211341, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Chen in view of Goossen does not specifically teach the obtained data is depth data of a body part to be scanned, and the controller is configured to creating a depth map of the body part to be scanned, and controlling the movement of the positioning device based on the depth map.
However,
Wang in a similar field of endeavor teaches obtaining depth data of a body part to be scanned ([0015] and [0093] disclose obtaining distance (depth) information from a shape sensor which is used for creating a depth map representing the shape of the subject (body part)), and the controller is configured to create a depth map of the body part to be scanned ([0116] discloses using the distance (depth) information to construct a depth map), and controlling the movement of the positioning device based on the depth map ([0015] “The depth map allows the processing unit to control the driving mechanism so that the ultrasound probe is maintained at a certain distance (e.g. in contact with) the subject”).
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 system disclosed by Chen in view of Goossen to have the obtained data be depth data of a body part to be scanned, and the controller is configured to creating a depth map of the body part to be scanned, and controlling the movement of the positioning device based on the depth map in order to improve the accuracy and ease of imaging the part of the body of the subject.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Goossen as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Jumbe et al. (US 20210345939, hereinafter Jumbe).
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Chen in view of Goossen does not specifically teach the electronic display monitor is a touch sensitive display.
However,
Jumbe in a similar field of endeavor teaches the display is a touch sensitive display ([0397]-[0398] discloses base unit 3210 (display) includes a contact based signal detection and also includes sensor assemblies to detect the vascularization, heat, weight, etc. from the subject. Therefore the display is a touch sensitive display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the display be a touch sensitive display of Jumbe to the electronic display monitor of Chen in view of Goossen to allow for the predictable results of determining whether or not the subject is in contact with the display/support structure, which allows the system to determine whether it is appropriate to start the procedure. Thereby increasing the longevity of the device by ensuring the device is only used when a subject is in contact with the support.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Goossen as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN108324321A, hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 22, Chen in view of Goossen teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Chen in view of Goossen does not specifically teach the robotic system is a movable unit.
However,
Guo in a similar field of endeavor teaches a robotic system that is a movable unit (fig. 1 shows that the robotic system includes wheels 33, therefore making the robotic system a movable unit).
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 system disclosed by Chen in view of Goossen to have the robotic system be a movable unit in order to allow for the system to be used in multiple different settings, thereby making the system more versatile.
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 ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798