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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 22 2025 has been entered and considered. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 4-5 and 11-12 were previously canceled. New claims 14-23 have been added. In light of the amendment the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 8 are withdrawn as moot. The new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the newly added amendments to the independent claims. Remarks of 12/22/2025 at Pgs. 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues (pgs. 9-10): For example, Applicant submits that Kumamoto fails to disclose the replacement and correction image features, calculating a position of the orthodontic bracket groove in the correction image, generating at least two virtual points for each tooth at the left and right boundaries of the groove, and generating the bending path based on those virtual points in the correction image.
Examiner responds:
Kumamoto discloses a target data acquiring unit which “uses the target dentition shape and bracket data included in this treatment planning data to generate the target data showing the target of the dentition of the patient with the brackets installed (target dentition)” (Para. 50). By utilizing the target dentition shape and bracket data to generate target data, Kumamoto is necessarily replacing the previously scanned bracket data with the target bracket data to generate target data for later comparison. Kumamoto further discloses that “the measurement data processing unit 14 may obtain the position and orientation of the slots of the brackets and not that of the brackets.” (Para. 49), indicating that the position of the bracket groove is used in the correction image. They also disclose that the bracket body comes from a library of known designs (Para. 42), leaving the bracket groove position as inherently known from the model. Kumamoto discloses a knowledge of the bracket groove position (Para. 49), and they use a wire data generating unit which “corrects the shape of the archwire based on the difference between the target data and the comparison data and generates wire data showing the corrected shape.”. In order to construct the geometric path for the wire, the system necessarily generates points derived from the slot boundaries to define the path. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that representing the slot constraint using at least two points corresponding to the boundaries of the slot is necessary to compute the wire path.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant asserts that the limitations (“image corrector”, “path generator”, etc.) do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However the claim language does not recite sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The mere recitation of a “computing device which includes one or more processors, and a memory” does not provide the specific structure corresponding to the claimed function.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that this limitation is properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:Claim 1 and all dependents:
Although the claims recite processors and memory as part of “the computing device”, they are not explicitly configured to modify the subsequent limitations. Instead, these structural components are listed separately from the functional elements, indicating that the forthcoming limitations are not modified by these structural components.
“an image analyzer configured to generate a tooth image and an image of a bracket attached to a plurality of teeth through the obtained oral image”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure is (Pg. 8, “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the scan data generated and stored as an STL file is loaded by a computer and forms a virtual 3D dental model, and the virtual 3D dental model may be generated for each of an upper jaw and a lower jaw of the plurality of teeth.”). Therefore, the interpretation of the “image analyzer” is a computer executing instructions to perform the algorithm described in the specification and equivalents.
“an image corrector configured to match the image of the attached bracket and an orthodontic bracket image included in pre-stored orthodontic bracket information and to generate a correction image for the oral image based on the tooth image and the matching orthodontic bracket image”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure is (Pg. 12, “The correction image generation method for orthodontic treatment according to the embodiment of the present disclosure may be performed in a computing device 12 including one or more processors and one or more memories that store one or more programs executed by the one or more processors. To this end, the correction image generation method for orthodontic treatment may be implemented in the form of a program or software including one or more computer-executable instructions and may be.”). Therefore, the interpretation of the “image corrector” is a computer executing instructions to perform the algorithm described in the specification and equivalents.
“a path generator configured to generate a bending path of a wire based on the correction image”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure is (Pg. 12, “The correction image generation method for orthodontic treatment according to the embodiment of the present disclosure may be performed in a computing device 12 including one or more processors and one or more memories that store one or more programs executed by the one or more processors. To this end, the correction image generation method for orthodontic treatment may be implemented in the form of a program or software including one or more computer-executable instructions and may be.”). Therefore, the interpretation of the “path generator” is a computer executing instructions to perform the algorithm described in the specification and equivalents.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13-14, 17-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. (Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kumamoto teaches a computing device which includes one or more processors, and a memory configured to store one or more programs executed by the one or more processors, the computing device comprising (Para. 22, “The computer 100 includes a processor (for example, a CPU) 101 configured to execute an operating system and/or an application program, a main storage 102 composed of ROM or RAM, an auxiliary storage 103 composed of a hard disk or flash memory”): an image acquisition part configured to acquire an oral image of an inside of a target patient's oral cavity using an intraoral 3D scanner (Para. 31, “In the present embodiment, the dentition of the patient is scanned at different times at least twice”, the second time being “with at least the brackets attached”, wherein para. 30 discloses that the image capture is performed using scanner 50 to “acquire a three-dimensional intraoral surface shape”); an image analyzer configured to generate a tooth image and an image of a bracket attached to a plurality of teeth through the obtained oral image (Para. 49, “the measurement data processing unit 14 virtually segments the three-dimensional shape of the dentition surface with the brackets installed into the dentition, gums, other oral structures, and brackets. Then, the measurement data processing unit 14 virtually segments the dentition surface into individual elements. Next, the measurement data processing unit 14 obtains the position and orientation of the segmented brackets.”); an image corrector configured to compare the image of the attached bracket with an orthodontic bracket image included in pre-stored orthodontic bracket information (Para. 42, “The treatment plan generating unit 12 may retrieve a bracket body suitable for each tooth from a library of bracket bodies (a database in which preset designs of bracket bodies are stored)”); and replace the image of the attached bracket in the oral image with the extracted orthodontic bracket image and generate a correction image by combining the replaced orthodontic bracket image with an image of each tooth, based on the position information of the attached bracket (Para. 48, “The measurement data processing unit 14 acquires measurement data obtained by scanning the actual dentition of the patient with the brackets installed.”; Para. 50, “Next, the target data acquiring unit 15 uses the target dentition shape and bracket data included in this treatment planning data to generate the target data showing the target of the dentition of the patient with the brackets installed (target dentition)”, the target data necessarily replaces the original data for later comparison; Para. 51, “The comparing unit 16 compares the position and orientation of the brackets represented by the target data to the position and orientation of the brackets represented by the comparison data to obtain the difference between the target position and orientation of the brackets and the current position and orientation of the brackets.”; Para. 79, “The comparing unit may display the message on the client terminal, and the client terminal may display the message. For example, the client terminal may display the message as a three-dimensional graphic of the dentition and brackets.”); and a path generator configured to: calculate a position of an orthodontic bracket groove in the correction image based on matching orthodontic bracket information (Para. 42, “The treatment plan generating unit 12 may retrieve a bracket body suitable for each tooth from a library of bracket bodies (a database in which preset designs of bracket bodies are stored)”; Para. 49, “The measurement data processing unit 14 may obtain the position and orientation of the slots of the brackets and not that of the brackets.”); generate at least two virtual points for each tooth at left and right boundaries of the calculated position of the orthodontic bracket groove (Para. 51, “The comparing unit 16 obtains the difference between the target data and the comparison data by comparing the two. The comparing unit 16 compares the position and orientation of the brackets represented by the target data to the position and orientation of the brackets represented by the comparison data to obtain the difference between the target position and orientation of the brackets and the current position and orientation of the brackets. The comparing unit 16 outputs the difference in the brackets to the wire data generating unit 17.”, by comparing the bracket positions and outputting the difference, the system necessarily generates at least two virtual points for each tooth); and generate a bending path of a wire based on the virtual points in the correction image (Para. 52, “The wire data generating unit 17 corrects the shape of the archwire based on the difference between the target data and the comparison data and generates wire data showing the corrected shape.”).
Kumamoto discloses utilizing position information of the bracket slots in order to perform correction but does not explicitly identify how the position of each bracket is used to generate the wire in a desired shape. The simplest way to connect these points (i.e. the wire connecting the brackets) would be a series of line segments connecting them. 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 Kumamoto to include generating at least two virtual points for each tooth at left and right boundaries of the calculated position of the orthodontic bracket groove and generating a bending path of a wire based on the virtual points in the correction image. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to generate a path, at least two distinct points are necessary. It would have been obvious to use at least the left and right boundary points of the slot in order to generate a minimal representation of a path for the wire, as it is a simple and computationally efficient way to define wire constraints from a known slot geometry.
Regarding claim 2, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein the path generator calculates a position of an orthodontic bracket groove in the correction image based on the matching orthodontic bracket information and generates a virtual point at the calculated position of the orthodontic bracket groove to generate the bending path of the wire (Para. 53, “The wire data generating unit 17 corrects the shape of the archwire represented by the wire data based on the difference between the target data and the comparison data and generates new wire data showing the corrected archwire. As described above, the archwire represented by the wire data is divided into segments corresponding to each of the brackets.”; Para. 54, “The identifier for segments is set to i, and the positional information relating to the i-th segment of the archwire is defined as follows: X (position, i): vector information representing the new position of the i-th segment. The definition of the position is not limited thereto, and for example, the position of the center of gravity or the average position of the segment may be used, or another predetermined position may be used.”; see also para. 49, “position and orientation of the slots of the brackets”).
Regarding claim 3, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as stated above, as well as wherein the bending path of the wire generates at least two or more virtual points for each tooth, and the virtual points are two or more points generated in left and right boundaries of the calculated position of the orthodontic bracket groove (Fig. 7, Para. 41, “The treatment plan generating unit 12 generates the wire data of the whole archwire by connecting the drawn out segments. The treatment plan generating unit 12 may perform smoothing on the connection points where segments are connected.” The line that connects each segment corresponding to the respective brackets necessarily intersects said brackets at multiple points including the left and right boundaries thereof; see also para. 49, “position and orientation of the slots of the brackets”).
Regarding claim 6, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein the image corrector places the matching orthodontic bracket image in the same portion as the image of the bracket attached to each tooth on the basis of the position information of the attached bracket (Para. 49, “To increase the accuracy of this computation, the measurement data processing unit 14 may obtain the actual position and orientation of the brackets with the minimum matching error with respect to the shape of the brackets represented by the target data while referencing the three-dimensional shape of the brackets represented by the target data.” Para. 67, “Target data shows the target of the dentition of the patient with the brackets installed on the teeth… Measurement data shows the actual dentition of the patient with the brackets installed.” Position information is used to compile this data, indicating the usage of the same portion of the image in the target and measurement data, wherein the minimization results in the claimed placement).
Regarding claim 8, the recited method performs substantially the same function as the computing device of claim 1. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 9, the recited elements perform substantially the same function as those recited in claim 2. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 10, the recited elements perform the same function as those recited in claim 3. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 13, the recited elements perform substantially the same function as those recited in claim 6. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 14, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as stated above, as well as wherein generating the bending path of the wire comprises setting a bending angle of the wire at each of the virtual points and connecting the virtual points based on the bending angles to generate the bending path of the wire (Para. 56, “Torque, angulation, and rotation can be corrected in a manner similar to position as described below.”; Para. 59, Equation 3).
Regarding claim 17, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as stated above, as well as wherein generating the bending path of the wire further comprises adjusting at least one of a left, right, front, back, or height position of the virtual points in the correction image to change the bending path of the wire in accordance with an orthodontic treatment process (Para. 51, “The comparing unit 16 outputs the difference in the brackets to the wire data generating unit 17.”; Para. 52, “The wire data generating unit 17 corrects the shape of the archwire based on the difference between the target data and the comparison data and generates wire data showing the corrected shape.”; Para. 55, “Accordingly, for example, when a tooth corresponding to a certain segment has not moved in the desired direction as much as planned, the segment is corrected to aggressively move the tooth in the desired direction”).
Regarding claim 18, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as stated above, as well as further comprising receiving orthodontic bracket information from an external server (Para. 50, “The target data acquiring unit 15 reads the target dentition shape from the database 30.”, hosting the database on an external server is a routine design choice), the orthodontic bracket information including bracket groove information comprising at least one of a shape or a position of a groove formed in an orthodontic bracket to which the wire is coupled (Para. 42, “The treatment plan generating unit 12 may retrieve a bracket body suitable for each tooth from a library of bracket bodies (a database in which preset designs of bracket bodies are stored)”).
Regarding claim 19, the recited elements perform substantially the same function as those recited in claim 14. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 22, the recited elements perform substantially the same function as those recited in claim 17. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 23, the recited elements perform substantially the same function as those recited in claim 18. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. in view of Chang (Previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 6, as stated above, as well as wherein the image corrector matches the matching orthodontic bracket image and the image of the attached bracket (Para. 49, “To increase the accuracy of this computation, the measurement data processing unit 14 may obtain the actual position and orientation of the brackets with the minimum matching error with respect to the shape of the brackets represented by the target data while referencing the three-dimensional shape of the brackets represented by the target data.”).
They do not explicitly teach using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm.
Chang teaches matching two images using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm (Para. 106, “When the data processing apparatus 100 aligns the tooth model data 600 with the tooth area image 420, the data processing apparatus 100 may use various alignment algorithms and may use, for example, a known iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. The ICP algorithm may be an algorithm for minimizing the difference between two point clouds and may be an algorithm used to reconstruct a 2D or 3D surface from different scan data. The ICP algorithm may fix a point cloud referred to as a reference and transform a point cloud referred to as a source to best match the reference. The ICP algorithm may align the 3D model by repeatedly modifying a transformation (a combination of translation and rotation) necessary to minimize the error metric representing the distance from the source to the reference.”).
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 Kumamoto to incorporate the teachings of Chang to include matching the orthodontic bracket image and the image of the attached bracket using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. Chang discloses that the ICP algorithm minimizes the difference between two point clouds and is used to reconstruct a 2D or 3D surface from scan data (Para. 106), which is well-suited for Kumamoto, as they process scans with point cloud data. While Kumamoto discloses obtaining position and orientation data with “the minimum matching error” (Para. 48), they do not specify the matching algorithm being used. Replacing the unspecified algorithm in Kumamoto with the known ICP algorithm from Chang would have been a logical choice that aligns with known techniques for improving matching accuracy.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumamoto et al. (Previously cited) in view of Lauren (US Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0072120 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as stated above, as well as further comprising outputting the bending path of the wire as data.
They do not explicitly disclose storing the wire data in a comma-separated values (CSV) file configured to be input to a bending machine that bends the wire according to the bending path. However, they do input this data into a bending machine that bends the wire (Para. 65).
Lauren teaches outputting the bending path of the wire as data stored in a comma-separated values (CSV) file configured to be input to a bending machine that bends the wire according to the bending path (Para. 37, “The centerline data along with information about the wire material and diameter are saved in a text-based computer file 92.”).
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 Kumamoto to incorporate the teachings of Lauren to include outputting the bending path of the wire as data stored in a comma-separated values (CSV) file configured to be input to a bending machine that bends the wire according to the bending path. Kumamoto stores wire data and configures it to be input to a bending machine, however they do not explicitly disclose how they store this wire data. Lauren teaches to store wire data in a text-based computer file. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that storing text-based wire path data in a structured text format such as a CSV file, which is a well-known, simple text format for storing numerical coordinate and parameter data, is a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Kumamoto teaches all of the elements of claim 10, as stated above, as well as outputting the bending path of the wire.
They do not explicitly disclose generating the bending path as a line connecting a center point of a vertical cross-section of the wire in consideration of a thickness of the wire, and adjusting a thickness of the bending path according to a type of the wire. However, they disclose manufacturing the correct archwire according to the wire data (Para. 65).
Lauren teaches wherein outputting the bending path of the wire comprises generating the bending path as a line connecting a center point of a vertical cross-section of the wire in consideration of a thickness of the wire, and adjusting a thickness of the bending path according to a type of the wire (Para. 37, “In general, the centerline of the wire is defined as a series of x,y,z points in space. The centerline data along with information about the wire material and diameter are saved in a text-based computer file 92.”).
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 Kumamoto to incorporate the teachings of Lauren to include generating the bending path as a line connecting a center point of a vertical cross-section of the wire in consideration of a thickness of the wire, and adjusting a thickness of the bending path according to a type of the wire. Kumamoto discloses manufacturing the corrected archwire according to the wire data, however they do not explicitly disclose how they perform this manufacturing. Using the center point of a cross-section of the wire in consideration of a thickness of the wire is a well-known manufacturing technique for wire generation, as taught by Lauren. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that implementing the method of Lauren into the manufacturing of Kumamoto is a routine design implementation using known techniques.
Regarding claim 20, the recited elements perform substantially the same function as those recited in claim 15. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 21, the recited elements perform substantially the same function as those recited in claim 16. It is rejected under the same analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A WAMBST whose telephone number is (703)756-1750. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 EST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571)272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ALEXANDER WAMBST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698