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 08/15/2025 regarding the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the previous prior art rejection does not teach receiving original magnetic resonance sequence data of a predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of a plurality of different sequence segments from a system control unit upstream of the intermediate layer of the magnetic resonance apparatus. Additionally, the method includes repeating the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data during the performing of the magnetic resonance measurement such that respective original magnetic sequence data for each predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of the plurality of different sequence segments is modified during the magnetic resonance measurement and output as modified magnetic resonance sequence data to the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus. Applicant argues that Figs. 12-13 does not teach these limitations and that particularly in Figure 13, in step S24, Kamata teaches that the process may be repeated for an additional slice in which data has not yet been acquired. This is a separate or different process from what is being recited and described in amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner does believe that Fig. 13 of Kamata teaches the argued limitations. Kamata teaches receiving original magnetic resonance sequence data of a predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of a plurality of different sequence segments from a system control unit upstream of the intermediate layer of the magnetic resonance apparatus [See Fig. 12 and 13, step of setting imaging condition. Fig. 1-2 and ¶0049-0051, the eddy compensation circuit 39 has function to refer to a pulse sequence acquired from the sequence controller 31. Figs. 4, 6, and 11 disclose a pulse sequence is set so that a fat saturation pulse is applied for each slice and subsequently data on the corresponding slice is acquired by performing an imaging sequence (each sequence segment is dashed box in the figures). Therefore, the pulse sequence is set in 31/32, which is upstream from eddy compensation circuit 39. Fig. 2 and ¶0121-0122, wherein a pulse sequence is set in 40A which is upstream of the eddy correction gradient pulse generating part 40B. ¶0057. See also rest of reference.]. Kamata also teaches repeating the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data during the performing of the magnetic resonance measurement such that respective original magnetic sequence data for each predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of the plurality of different sequence segments is modified during the magnetic resonance measurement and output as modified magnetic resonance sequence data to the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [See Fig. 13, steps S12-S23 occur iteratively during the imaging until all imaging sections are completed. Therefore, the modification is being performed during each imaging segment. See also Fig. 12 and 14. See also rest of reference.].
Applicant argues Kamata’s teaching that the process may be repeated for an additional slice in which data has not yet been acquired. This is a separate or different process from what is being recited and described in amended claim 1. Specifically, the present application recites an iterative process for determining modified magnetic resonance sequence data for each magnetic resonance sequence of a plurality of different sequence segments during the magnetic resonance measurement. Such a repetition for a plurality of sequence segments during the measurement process is separate and distinct from any disclosed repetition for a different slice within Kamata.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a plurality of different sequence segments” does not exclude a repetition for a different slice, as disclosed in Kamata. Kamata teaches a pulse sequence for multi-slice imaging. Kamata discloses “As shown in FIG. 11, in case of performing a multi-slice imaging, a pulse sequence is set so that a fat saturation pulse is applied for each slice and subsequently data on a corresponding slice is acquired by performing an imaging sequence” [¶0113]. Therefore, the pulse sequence includes multiple sequence segments [See each dashed box for each slice which includes a fat sat pulse and imaging sequence in Fig. 11. See also Fig. 4 and 6]. Therefore, the arguments are not considered persuasive.
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 1-3, 7, 9-14, 16-19 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 claim 1, the limitation “receiving original magnetic resonance sequence data of a predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of a plurality of different sequence segments” is considered indefinite. [0025] of the applicant’s specification discloses “the predetermined magnetic resonance sequence is divided into different sequence segments”. Therefore, the specification teaches the different sequence segments are a part of/form the predetermined magnetic resonance sequence.
However, the wording of the claim language is “…of a predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of a plurality of different sequence segments”, which makes it seem that the predetermined magnetic resonance is part of/forms the different sequence segments. Therefore, the claim language is considered indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-14, 16, and 19 are considered indefinite for depending on claim 1.
Claims 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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 1-3, 7, 9-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (US 2010/0148774), in view of Miyazaki (US 2023/0003817).
Regarding claim 1, Kamata teaches a method for automatically compensating eddy currents in a magnetic resonance apparatus, the method comprising:
determining a modified magnetic resonance sequence data by a compensation computing unit as an intermediate layer of the magnetic resonance apparatus [Fig. 1, see eddy compensation circuit 39 and Fig. 2, eddy correction gradient pulse generating part 40B. Fig. 1, eddy compensation circuit 39 is in a signal path of gradient power supplies 27. Figs. 1-2, wherein computer 32 includes eddy correction gradient pulse generating part 40B and is in the signal path of gradient power supplies 27. See Fig. 12, step S1 determines a modified pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.];
performing a magnetic resonance measurement in which a gradient generating system generates magnetic field gradients in the magnetic resonance apparatus based on the modified magnetic resonance sequence data [See Fig. 12, step S2 performing eddy current compensated pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data comprises:
receiving original magnetic resonance sequence data of a predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of a plurality of different sequence segments from a system control unit upstream of the intermediate layer of the magnetic resonance apparatus [See Fig. 12 and 13, step of setting imaging condition. Fig. 1-2 and ¶0049-0051, the eddy compensation circuit 39 has function to refer to a pulse sequence acquired from the sequence controller 31. Figs. 4, 6, and 11 disclose a pulse sequence is set so that a fat saturation pulse is applied for each slice and subsequently data on the corresponding slice is acquired by performing an imaging sequence (each sequence segment is dashed box in the figures). Therefore, the pulse sequence is set in 31/32, which is upstream from eddy compensation circuit 39. Fig. 2 and ¶0121-0122, wherein a pulse sequence is set in 40A which is upstream of the eddy correction gradient pulse generating part 40B. ¶0057. See also rest of reference.];
computing eddy current information about eddy currents that would be produced in the magnetic resonance apparatus by applying the original magnetic resonance sequence data [See Fig. 12, step S13 and ¶0122, wherein an intensity of remanent magnetic field due to an eddy current at the slice position is calculated using the slice positional information and parameters with regard to an eddy current, such as intensities and/or time constants, concerned with respective spatial positions stored in the eddy current parameter storage unit 40C. Therefore, eddy current time constant and intensities are determined. Fig. 4, shows the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2, wherein the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on the imaging sequence of slice 1 (which is the same imaging sequence as slice 2). Therefore, the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on an original magnetic resonance sequence. See also rest of reference.];
estimating a magnetic field perturbation that would be produced in the magnetic resonance apparatus by the eddy currents when applying the original magnetic resonance sequence data [See Fig. 12, step S13 and ¶0122, wherein an intensity of remanent magnetic field due to an eddy current at the slice position is calculated using the slice positional information and parameters with regard to an eddy current, such as intensities and/or time constants, concerned with respective spatial positions stored in the eddy current parameter storage unit 40C. A remanent magnetic field due to an eddy current is considered a field perturbation because the remanent magnetic field is a deviation of the overall MRI static magnetic field. See ¶0010, wherein the remanent magnetic field has a gradient and deviates as it gets further from the center of the static magnetic field. Fig. 4, shows the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2, wherein the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on the imaging sequence of slice 1 (which is the same imaging sequence as slice 2). Therefore, the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on an original magnetic resonance sequence. See also rest of reference.];
computing, based on the computed eddy current information and dependent on the estimated magnetic field perturbation, at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse for compensating the eddy currents [Fig. 12, see step S14, eddy current compensation gradients are calculated. See also rest of reference.];
generating the modified magnetic resonance sequence data by inserting the at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse into the original magnetic resonance sequence data in a time segment in which the magnetic resonance apparatus does not switch any gradient pulses or transmit any radiofrequency (RF) pulses [Fig. 12, see step S15, eddy current compensation gradients are set for the updated pulse sequence. See Figs. 3-4, wherein the eddy current compensation gradient is applied before the pre-pulse and imaging sequence. See also rest of reference.]; and
outputting the modified magnetic resonance sequence data to the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [Fig. 12, see step S2, the updated and compensated pulse sequence is executed. See also rest of reference.]; and
repeating the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data during the performing of the magnetic resonance measurement such that respective original magnetic sequence data for each predetermined magnetic resonance sequence of the plurality of different sequence segments is modified during the magnetic resonance measurement and output as modified magnetic resonance sequence data to the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [See Fig. 13, steps S12-S23 occur iteratively during the imaging until all imaging sections are completed. Therefore, the modification is being performed during each sequence segment. See also Fig. 12 and 14. See also rest of reference.].
However, Kamata is silent in teaching wherein the original magnetic resonance sequence data of the predetermined magnetic resonance sequence remains unchanged in the system control unit.
Miyazaki, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the original magnetic resonance sequence data of the predetermined magnetic resonance sequence remains unchanged in the system control unit [¶0033, wherein console 400 is used to control the sequence controller 34. ¶0051 and Fig. 2, wherein imaging protocol storage region 411 stores standard imaging protocols. The standard imaging protocols are then adjusted based on the imaging sequence setting function F02. Since standard imaging protocols are stored in imaging protocol storage region 411, the original magnetic resonance sequence data remains unchanged. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamata and Miyazaki because both references are in the field of using pulse sequences in MRI and because Miyazaki teaches it is known and common in the art to store standard pulse sequences in a memory [Miyazaki - Fig. 2, see imaging protocol storage region 411], so pulse sequence can be used multiple times.
Regarding claim 2, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the modified magnetic resonance sequence data is determined at least in part during the magnetic resonance measurement [¶0045, “The gradient power supply control computer 38 has the function to set and apply an eddy correction gradient magnetic field pulse in real time following applications of gradient magnetic field pulses for data acquisition by controlling the gradient power supply 27 during an imaging.” See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the modified magnetic resonance sequence data is determined in real time and/or on-the-fly [¶0045, “The gradient power supply control computer 38 has the function to set and apply an eddy correction gradient magnetic field pulse in real time following applications of gradient magnetic field pulses for data acquisition by controlling the gradient power supply 27 during an imaging.” See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the modified magnetic resonance sequence data is determined in real time and/or on-the-fly [¶0045, “The gradient power supply control computer 38 has the function to set and apply an eddy correction gradient magnetic field pulse in real time following applications of gradient magnetic field pulses for data acquisition by controlling the gradient power supply 27 during an imaging.” See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the predetermined magnetic resonance sequence comprises a diffusion-weighted sequence [¶0101, see DWI. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the eddy current information is computed based on at least one parameter specific to a type of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0083-0084, wherein the time constant is determined as a pair of parameters with a scaling factor Sc depending on characteristics of an apparatus. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data comprises detecting at least one fat saturation pulse in the original magnetic resonance sequence data [Fig. 3, wherein a fat saturation pulse is shown. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse is inserted into the original magnetic resonance sequence data before the at least one fat saturation pulse [Fig. 3, wherein eddy current compensation pulse is before the fat saturation pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the predetermined magnetic resonance sequence comprises applying gradient pulses to a plurality of axes of the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0078-0091, wherein gradients are applied to each axis and eddy currents occur on each axis. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the computing of the at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse takes into account the gradient pulses so far applied in the magnetic resonance measurement to the plurality of axes of the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0078-0091 and ¶0104-0105 wherein the eddy current compensation pulse takes into account the eddy currents on each axis and the eddy current compensation pulse is determined to be executed before the pre-pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the predetermined magnetic resonance sequence comprises applying gradient pulses to a plurality of axes of the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0078-0091, wherein gradients are applied to each axis and eddy currents occur on each axis. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the computing of the at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse takes into account the gradient pulses so far applied in the magnetic resonance measurement to the plurality of axes of the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0078-0105 wherein the eddy current compensation pulse takes into account the eddy currents on each axis and the eddy current compensation pulse is determined. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the original magnetic resonance sequence data has at least one dedicated placeholder for the inserting of computed eddy current compensation gradient pulses [See Figs. 3-4, wherein the eddy current compensation gradient is applied before the pre-pulse and imaging sequence. ¶0071, “Accordingly, application of an eddy correction gradient magnetic field pulse having an intensity required to cancel the remanent magnetic field is set prior to the fat saturation pulse in a sequence corresponding to each slice.” Therefore, the placeholder is before the pre-pulse and imaging sequence. See also Fig. 5, wherein there can be a requirement to executed the eddy current correction pulse at the same time as the fat saturation pulse. Therefore, the placeholder is at the same timing for the fat saturation pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 above also apply to this claim. Claim 17 is merely the processor version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 above also apply to this claim. Claim 18 is merely the processor version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data as the intermediate layer is determined in a signal path to the gradient generating system of the magnetic resonance apparatus [Fig. 1, see eddy compensation circuit 39 and Fig. 2, eddy correction gradient pulse generating part 40B. Fig. 1, eddy compensation circuit 39 is in a signal path of gradient power supplies 27. Figs. 1-2, wherein computer 32 includes eddy correction gradient pulse generating part 40B and is in the signal path of gradient power supplies 27. See Fig. 12, step S1 determines a modified pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Kamata, in view of previously cited Miyazaki, in further view of Kettinger (US 2021/0096205).
Regarding claim 14, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data comprises estimating a magnetic field perturbation that would be produced in the magnetic resonance apparatus by the eddy currents when applying the original magnetic resonance sequence data [See Fig. 12, step S13 and ¶0122, wherein an intensity of remanent magnetic field due to an eddy current at the slice position is calculated using the slice positional information and parameters with regard to an eddy current, such as intensities and/or time constants, concerned with respective spatial positions stored in the eddy current parameter storage unit 40C. A remanent magnetic field due to an eddy current is considered a field perturbation because the remanent magnetic field is a deviation of the overall MRI static magnetic field. See ¶0010, wherein the remanent magnetic field has a gradient and therefore deviates as it gets further from the center of the static magnetic field. Fig. 4, shows the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2, wherein the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on the imaging sequence of slice 1 (which is the same imaging sequence as slice 2). Therefore, the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on an original magnetic resonance sequence. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse is computed and inserted into the original magnetic resonance sequence data when the magnetic field perturbation is present [See Fig. 12, wherein the eddy current compensation gradient is inserted in S15. See also rest of reference.].
However, Kamata is silent in teaching inserting only when the magnetic field perturbation exceeds a specified threshold value (emphasis added).
Kettinger, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches inserting only when the magnetic field perturbation exceeds a specified threshold value [¶0040-0043, wherein a gradient is considered a perturbation of the static magnetic field and compensation is done when the gradient exceeds a certain value. See also rest of reference.] and wherein the at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse is computed and inserted into the original magnetic resonance sequence data only when the magnetic field perturbation exceeds a specified threshold value [¶0040-0043, wherein a gradient is considered a perturbation of the static magnetic field and compensation is done when the gradient exceeds a certain value. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamata and Miyazaki with the teachings of Kettinger because Kamata and Miyazaki are in the field of correcting eddy currents in MRI and because Kettinger teaches that available information about gradients already switched (e.g. at least above a predefined threshold value) are considered to determine compensation gradients that are possibly to be switched in a repetition to compensate eddy current effects [Kettinger - ¶0027].
Claim 14 can also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Kamata, in view of previously cited Miyazaki, in further view of Tsuda (US 2011/0037467).
Regarding claim 14, Kamata and Miyazaki teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kamata further teaches wherein the determining of the modified magnetic resonance sequence data comprises estimating a magnetic field perturbation that would be produced in the magnetic resonance apparatus by the eddy currents when applying the original magnetic resonance sequence data [See Fig. 12, step S13 and ¶0122, wherein an intensity of remanent magnetic field due to an eddy current at the slice position is calculated using the slice positional information and parameters with regard to an eddy current, such as intensities and/or time constants, concerned with respective spatial positions stored in the eddy current parameter storage unit 40C. A remanent magnetic field due to an eddy current is considered a field perturbation because the remanent magnetic field is a deviation of the overall MRI static magnetic field. See ¶0010, wherein the remanent magnetic field has a gradient and therefore deviates as it gets further from the center of the static magnetic field. Fig. 4, shows the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2, wherein the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on the imaging sequence of slice 1 (which is the same imaging sequence as slice 2). Therefore, the eddy current correction gradient magnetic field pulse for slice 2 is based on an original magnetic resonance sequence. See also rest of reference.],, and wherein the at least one eddy current compensation gradient pulse is computed and inserted into the original magnetic resonance sequence data when the magnetic field perturbation is present [See Fig. 12, wherein the eddy current compensation gradient is inserted in S15. See also rest of reference.].
However, Kamata is silent in teaching inserting compensation only when the magnetic field perturbation exceeds a specified threshold value (emphasis added).
Tsuda, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches inserting compensation only when the magnetic field perturbation exceeds a specified threshold value [¶0016, ¶0059, ¶0091. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kamata and Miyazaki with the teachings of Tsuda because Kamata and Tsuda are in the field of correcting magnetic fields in MRI and because Tsuda teaches it is known in the art to only apply correction when values exceed allowable thresholds [Tsuda- ¶0016, ¶0059, ¶0091], this will reduce the need correction for situations where the perturbing magnetic field is low/small.
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 RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896