DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or
an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 – The claim is drawn to “method for generating an orthodontic teeth alignment shape” and is therefore a process.
Step 2A – The claim is drawn to an abstract idea. The abstract idea being a mental process. The
limitations of:
• extracting specific points from a plurality of teeth
• generating a three-dimensional patient arch form
• comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form
• generating the orthodontic teeth alignment shape
• selecting a standard arch form by overlaying and comparing it with the reference model
are all data manipulation steps and can be performed by a human mind (i.e. a mental process). The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B- There are no further elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception (abstract idea). The steps as disclosed are performed on a generic use computer (i.e.
judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data
being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-5, these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 1 – The claim is drawn to “device for generating an orthodontic teeth alignment shape” and is therefore an apparatus.
Step 2A – The claim is drawn to an abstract idea. The abstract idea being a mental process. The
limitations of:
• extracting specific points from a plurality of teeth
• generating a three-dimensional patient arch form
• comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form
• generating the orthodontic teeth alignment shape
• selecting a standard arch form by overlaying and comparing it with the reference model
are all data manipulation steps and can be performed by a human mind (i.e. a mental process). The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B- There are no further elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception (abstract idea). The steps as disclosed are performed on a generic use computer (i.e.
judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data
being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 1 – The claim is drawn to “a computer program stored in a non-transitory recording medium” and is therefore an apparatus.
Step 2A – The claim is drawn to an abstract idea. The abstract idea being a mental process. The
limitations of:
• extracting specific points from a plurality of teeth
• generating a three-dimensional patient arch form
• comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form
• generating the orthodontic teeth alignment shape
• selecting a standard arch form by overlaying and comparing it with the reference model
are all data manipulation steps and can be performed by a human mind (i.e. a mental process). The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B- There are no further elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception (abstract idea). The steps as disclosed are performed on a generic use computer (i.e.
judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data
being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
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) 1-5, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matov et al. (US 2007/0168152 A1), in view of Sandholm et al. (US 2016/0220200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matov et al. teaches a method for generating an orthodontic teeth alignment shape for an orthodontic treatment ([0002]), the method comprising:
extracting first specific points from a plurality of teeth in at least one of an upper jaw and a lower jaw based on teeth shape information of a patient ([0098]; in step 110, a representation of the patient’s teeth is taken including points on the teeth in an initial state), each of the first specific points being a coordinate in a three-dimensional space (see figures; the scan is modeled in a 3D space);
generating a three-dimensional patient arch form based on by connecting the extracted first specific points ([0098-0099]; digital models are produced based on the initial teeth shape information);
comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form with a plurality of standard arch forms, each standard arch form having a three-dimensional curve shape (the standard arch forms represent a dental arch and therefore are curved), and selecting a standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form from the plurality of standard arch forms ([0171-0172]; the patient’s digital models are compared to other arch forms and a similar condition case is selected from the indexing system); and
generating the orthodontic teeth alignment shape based on the selected standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form ([0100-0101], [0201-0202], [0210]; the compared data is considered in creating the final desired teeth alignment for the specific treatment plan); and
transmitting the orthodontic teeth alignment shape to an orthodontic appliance generating device to apply the orthodontic teeth alignment shape to an orthodontic appliance ([0096], [0105]; the appliances defined by the process are manufactured, or electronic or printed information is produced that can be used by a manual or automated process to define appliance configurations or changes to appliance configurations),
Matov teaches wherein the comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form with the plurality of standard arch forms comprises:
generating a three-dimensional reference plane defined by the first specific points, the three-dimensional reference plane ([0242] and see Fig. 32B; an occlusal plane is generated as a reference object) including the first specific points and the three-dimensional patient arch form (the first specific points are points of the scanned teeth that make up on the modeled 3D arch form. The occlusal plane may be an average plane of supporting planes and therefore includes the points and the arch form);
Matov teaches the model of the patient arch form has a reference plane ([0242]) and comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form with the plurality of standard arch forms projected on the three-dimensional reference plane ([0085], [0241-0248]; the reference object is used to detect differences and allow determination of how much the patient’s teeth need to move to achieve the desired positioning. Since the desired positioning is based on the most similar arch form from the standards, the reference object is used for comparison of the two). Matov does not explicitly teach aligning the plurality of standard arch forms with the three-dimensional patient arch form and wherein in the selecting of the standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form, the standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form is selected based on a minimal value of an area or a distance of a space generated by overlaying the plurality of standard arch forms projected on the three-dimensional reference plane and the three-dimensional patient arch form on one another.
Sandholm teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of 3D modeling and comparing models (abstract). Sandholm teaches stored patient models can be fitted to a corresponding model of another patient and can be used for predictive modeling, such that a progression of stored models from another patient can be better fitted to those of a current patient by matching multiple characteristics (e.g., color changes at a similar rate, similar tooth wear, similar gum-line retraction, and similar tooth movement) and comparing models can be done by overlaying the models onto each other ([0038-0042]). Sandholm further discloses overlaying models to perform best-fit analysis by visualizing the positional differences and showing the differences as a heat map ([0047], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include overlaying or projecting the models on the model (which includes the reference plane) to compare them and determine a best-fit based on positional differences, as taught by Sandholm et al., such that it would provide a more accurate visual scale for selecting the best-fit model for comparative and predictive analysis.
Matov teaches reference objects established by determination of various planes ([0242-0248]) and the reference object may comprise an occlusal plane 3102, which is an average plane of Supporting planes which approximate the tips of central incisors and cusps of the first molars in Such a way that all teeth points (except of the points of the canines) are on one of its sides, and/or an occlusal Surface 3104. For example, an occlusal plane may include an average plane of Supporting planes that pass through at least three points including two tip points of the incisors ([0242]). Matov teaches reference objects may comprise a center of resistance that is a conventional point through which passes every axis of tooth rotation, an arch form curve, an arch form template comprises the final positions of arch form curves for successfully treated cases, and/or an arch form ideal curve that comprises an arch form template curve that best fits an existing arch form (after appropriate Scaling) ([0245]). Although Matov does not explicitly disclose wherein in the generating of the three-dimensional reference plane, the three-dimensional reference plane is generated by coupling a plurality of different planes to one another, each of the plurality of different planes being defined by connecting a predetermined reference point in the three-dimensional space and two adjacent ones of the first specific points to one another.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the reference models have reference planes established by connecting points to one another, as planes are known to have a straight line joining at least two points. The reference model must comprise reference points (any point on the model of a completed corrected malocclusion of a patient, for example facial axis points and the reference points must lie in a plane. Since the reference plane may comprise an average plane generated by averaging other supporting planes including at least three points including two tip points of the incisors and may comprise a center of resistance point through which passes every axis of tooth rotation, it would have been obvious to have the reference plane generated by coupling other planes to each other and to have the planes include a common point to which points from the patient’s arch model connect to.
Regarding claim 2, Matov in view of Sandholm teaches the method according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Matov teaches wherein the first specific points are Facial Axis (FA) points, each corresponding to each of the plurality of teeth ([0243] and see Figure 32C; the points may be any point on the model, including FA points).
Regarding claim 3, Matov in view of Sandholm teaches the method according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Matov teaches the method further comprising acquiring the plurality of standard arch forms from teeth shape information of a plurality of normal occlusion persons ([0085-0088]; the database includes completed cases and their outcomes (i.e., patients with corrected or normal occlusion)).
Regarding claim 4, Matov in view of Sandholm teaches the method according to claim 3 (see rejection above). Matov teaches wherein the acquiring the plurality of standard arch forms comprises: extracting second specific points from a plurality of teeth in at least one of an upper jaw and a lower jaw based on teeth shape information each of the plurality of normal occlusion persons; performing three-dimensional cluster analysis for the second specific points from the teeth shape information each of the plurality of normal occlusion persons; and generating the plurality of standard arch forms three-dimensionally based on a result of the three-dimensional cluster analysis ([0085-0088]; the database includes completed cases and their outcomes (i.e., patients with corrected or normal occlusion, cluster analysis may be used for comparing models and cases).
Regarding claim 5, Matov in view of Sandholm teaches the method according to claim 4 (see rejection above). Matov teaches cluster analysis may be used for comparing models and cases and the database includes completed cases and their outcomes (i.e., patients with corrected or normal occlusion) ([0085-0088] and model discrepancies between intended position and actual positions within a cluster are determined (see step 42). Matov also teaches reference objects may be determined and may include reference planes and curves, such that a reference object may comprise an arch form curve 3122, an arch form template 3124 comprising the final positions of arch form curves for successfully treated cases and/or an arch form ideal curve 3126 that best fits an existing arch form and may include an occlusal plane ([0245-0247]). The teachings of Matov indicate that the generating of the plurality of standard arch forms, a curve of occlusion is reflected on the results of the cluster analysis to generate each of the plurality of standard arch forms, since an idealized curve of an arch form is generated based off of the completed cases, to which cluster analysis is applied, and used for reference with the current condition model.
Regarding claim 9, Matov teaches a device for generating an orthodontic teeth alignment shape for an orthodontic treatment, the device comprising:
a processor ([0234-0237]); and
a memory for storing a program executable by the processor ([0234-0237]), wherein the processor is configured to:
extract specific points from a plurality of teeth in at least one of an upper jaw and a lower jaw based on teeth shape information of a patient ([0098]; in step 110, a representation of the patient’s teeth is taken including points on the teeth in an initial state), each of the first specific points being a coordinate in a three-dimensional space (see figures; the scan is modeled in a 3D space);
generate a three-dimensional patient arch form by connecting the specific points ([0098-0099]; digital models are produced based on the initial teeth shape information);
compare the three-dimensional patient arch form with a plurality of standard arch forms, each standard arch form having a three-dimensional curve shape (the standard arch forms represent a dental arch and therefore are curved) and select a standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form from the plurality of standard arch forms ([0171-0172]; the patient’s digital models are compared to other arch forms and a similar condition case is selected from the indexing system); and
generate the orthodontic teeth alignment shape based on the selected standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form ([0100-0101], [0201-0202], [0210]; the compared data is considered in creating the final desired teeth alignment for the specific treatment plan).
transmit the orthodontic teeth alignment shape to an orthodontic appliance generating device to apply the orthodontic teeth alignment shape to an orthodontic appliance ([0096], [0105]; the appliances defined by the process are manufactured, or electronic or printed information is produced that can be used by a manual or automated process to define appliance configurations or changes to appliance configurations),
Matov teaches wherein the processor is configured to compare the three-dimensional patient arch form with the plurality of standard arch forms by:
generating a three-dimensional reference plane defined by the first specific points, the three-dimensional reference plane ([0242] and see Fig. 32B; an occlusal plane is generated as a reference object) including the first specific points and the three-dimensional patient arch form (the first specific points are points of the scanned teeth that make up on the modeled 3D arch form. The occlusal plane may be an average plane of supporting planes and therefore includes the points and the arch form);
Matov teaches the model of the patient arch form has a reference plane ([0242]) and comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form with the plurality of standard arch forms projected on the three-dimensional reference plane ([0085], [0241-0248]; the reference object is used to detect differences and allow determination of how much the patient’s teeth need to move to achieve the desired positioning. Since the desired positioning is based on the most similar arch form from the standards, the reference object is used for comparison of the two). Matov does not explicitly teach aligning the plurality of standard arch forms with the three-dimensional patient arch form and wherein the processor is configured to select the standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form based on a minimal value of an area or a distance of a space generated by overlaying the plurality of standard arch forms projected on the three-dimensional reference plane and the three-dimensional patient arch form on one another.
Sandholm teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of 3D modeling and comparing models (abstract). Sandholm teaches stored patient models can be fitted to a corresponding model of another patient and can be used for predictive modeling, such that a progression of stored models from another patient can be better fitted to those of a current patient by matching multiple characteristics (e.g., color changes at a similar rate, similar tooth wear, similar gum-line retraction, and similar tooth movement) and comparing models can be done by overlaying the models onto each other ([0038-0042]). Sandholm further discloses overlaying models to perform best-fit analysis by visualizing the positional differences and showing the differences as a heat map ([0047], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include overlaying or projecting the models on the model (which includes the reference plane) to compare them and determine a best-fit based on positional differences, as taught by Sandholm et al., such that it would provide a more accurate visual scale for selecting the best-fit model for comparative and predictive analysis.
Matov teaches reference objects established by determination of various planes ([0242-0248]) and the reference object may comprise an occlusal plane 3102, which is an average plane of Supporting planes which approximate the tips of central incisors and cusps of the first molars in Such a way that all teeth points (except of the points of the canines) are on one of its sides, and/or an occlusal Surface 3104. For example, an occlusal plane may include an average plane of Supporting planes that pass through at least three points including two tip points of the incisors ([0242]). Matov teaches reference objects may comprise a center of resistance that is a conventional point through which passes every axis of tooth rotation, an arch form curve, an arch form template comprises the final positions of arch form curves for successfully treated cases, and/or an arch form ideal curve that comprises an arch form template curve that best fits an existing arch form (after appropriate Scaling) ([0245]). Although Matov does not explicitly disclose wherein in the generating of the three-dimensional reference plane, the three-dimensional reference plane is generated by coupling a plurality of different planes to one another, each of the plurality of different planes being defined by connecting a predetermined reference point in the three-dimensional space and two adjacent ones of the first specific points to one another.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the reference models have reference planes established by connecting points to one another, as planes are known to have a straight line joining at least two points. The reference model must comprise reference points (any point on the model of a completed corrected malocclusion of a patient, for example facial axis points and the reference points must lie in a plane. Since the reference plane may comprise, an average plane generated by averaging other supporting planes including at least three points including two tip points of the incisors and may comprise a center of resistance point through which passes every axis of tooth rotation, it would have been obvious to have the reference plane generated by coupling other planes to each other and to have the planes include a common point to which points from the patient’s arch model connect to.
Regarding claim 10, Matov teaches a computer program stored in a non-transitory recording medium ([0234-0237]) for executing a method for generating an orthodontic teeth alignment shape for an orthodontic treatment, the method comprising:
extracting first specific points from a plurality of teeth in at least one of an upper jaw and a lower jaw based on teeth shape information of a patient ([0098]; in step 110, a representation of the patient’s teeth is taken including points on the teeth in an initial state), each of the first specific points being a coordinate in a three-dimensional space (see figures; the scan is modeled in a 3D space);
generating a three-dimensional patient arch form based on by connecting the extracted first specific points ([0098-0099]; digital models are produced based on the initial teeth shape information);
comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form with a plurality of standard arch forms, each standard arch form having a three-dimensional curve shape (the standard arch forms represent a dental arch and therefore are curved), and selecting a standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form from the plurality of standard arch forms ([0171-0172]; the patient’s digital models are compared to other arch forms and a similar condition case is selected from the indexing system); and
generating the orthodontic teeth alignment shape based on the selected standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form ([0100-0101], [0201-0202], [0210]; the compared data is considered in creating the final desired teeth alignment for the specific treatment plan); and
transmitting the orthodontic teeth alignment shape to an orthodontic appliance generating device to apply the orthodontic teeth alignment shape to an orthodontic appliance ([0096], [0105]; the appliances defined by the process are manufactured, or electronic or printed information is produced that can be used by a manual or automated process to define appliance configurations or changes to appliance configurations),
Matov teaches wherein the comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form with the plurality of standard arch forms comprises:
generating a three-dimensional reference plane defined by the first specific points, the three-dimensional reference plane ([0242] and see Fig. 32B; an occlusal plane is generated as a reference object) including the first specific points and the three-dimensional patient arch form (the first specific points are points of the scanned teeth that make up on the modeled 3D arch form. The occlusal plane may be an average plane of supporting planes and therefore includes the points and the arch form);
Matov teaches the model of the patient arch form has a reference plane ([0242]) and comparing the three-dimensional patient arch form with the plurality of standard arch forms projected on the three-dimensional reference plane ([0085], [0241-0248]; the reference object is used to detect differences and allow determination of how much the patient’s teeth need to move to achieve the desired positioning. Since the desired positioning is based on the most similar arch form from the standards, the reference object is used for comparison of the two). Matov does not explicitly teach aligning the plurality of standard arch forms with the three-dimensional patient arch form and wherein in the selecting of the standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form, the standard arch form most similar to the three-dimensional patient arch form is selected based on a minimal value of an area or a distance of a space generated by overlaying the plurality of standard arch forms projected on the three-dimensional reference plane and the three-dimensional patient arch form on one another.
Sandholm teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of 3D modeling and comparing models (abstract). Sandholm teaches stored patient models can be fitted to a corresponding model of another patient and can be used for predictive modeling, such that a progression of stored models from another patient can be better fitted to those of a current patient by matching multiple characteristics (e.g., color changes at a similar rate, similar tooth wear, similar gum-line retraction, and similar tooth movement) and comparing models can be done by overlaying the models onto each other ([0038-0042]). Sandholm further discloses overlaying models to perform best-fit analysis by visualizing the positional differences and showing the differences as a heat map ([0047], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include overlaying or projecting the models on the model (which includes the reference plane) to compare them and determine a best-fit based on positional differences, as taught by Sandholm et al., such that it would provide a more accurate visual scale for selecting the best-fit model for comparative and predictive analysis.
Matov teaches reference objects established by determination of various planes ([0242-0248]) and the reference object may comprise an occlusal plane 3102, which is an average plane of Supporting planes which approximate the tips of central incisors and cusps of the first molars in Such a way that all teeth points (except of the points of the canines) are on one of its sides, and/or an occlusal Surface 3104. For example, an occlusal plane may include an average plane of Supporting planes that pass through at least three points including two tip points of the incisors ([0242]). Matov teaches reference objects may comprise a center of resistance that is a conventional point through which passes every axis of tooth rotation, an arch form curve, an arch form template comprises the final positions of arch form curves for successfully treated cases, and/or an arch form ideal curve that comprises an arch form template curve that best fits an existing arch form (after appropriate Scaling) ([0245]). Although Matov does not explicitly disclose wherein in the generating of the three-dimensional reference plane, the three-dimensional reference plane is generated by coupling a plurality of different planes to one another, each of the plurality of different planes being defined by connecting a predetermined reference point in the three-dimensional space and two adjacent ones of the first specific points to one another.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the reference models have reference planes established by connecting points to one another, as planes are known to have a straight line joining at least two points. The reference model must comprise reference points (any point on the model of a completed corrected malocclusion of a patient, for example facial axis points and the reference points must lie in a plane. Since the reference plane may comprise, an average plane generated by averaging other supporting planes including at least three points including two tip points of the incisors and may comprise a center of resistance point through which passes every axis of tooth rotation, it would have been obvious to have the reference plane generated by coupling other planes to each other and to have the planes include a common point to which points from the patient’s arch model connect to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The amendments overcome the previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are considered but they
are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the recites steps integrate the claims into a practical application and provides a technological improvement, such that a specific sequence of steps using specific rules that automate the task of generating an orthodontic teeth alignment shape for correcting the patient’s teeth alignment in a faster, more convenient and accurate manner. Applicant further argues that the claimed steps are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite a specific application that provides a treatment method tailored to a patient.
The limitations recited in the independent claims fall under an abstract idea or if not an
abstract idea, are considered extra solution activity and do not amount to significantly more.
Although inconvenient, the claimed steps can be done in the human mind or by pen and paper.
For instance, one can create a model of a current position of a patient’s teeth and compare it to previously created models visually by overlaying them and analyzing them for the most minimal difference to select which previous model best matches the current model. There evidence provided that makes it impossible to perform such steps, even if it may take longer or be difficult. Additionally, limitations requiring the use of rules or machine-based algorithms would also not be considered eligible since they are merely abstract ideas being performed by artificial intelligence.
Under step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are directed to an abstract idea such that the steps involve data gathering and data analysis.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. The method merely uses a computing system to perform the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional elements are conventional computing and display systems performing their ordinary functions, routine digital steps (e.g., superimposing models), and generic extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the recited limitations are not found to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception and the claims remain patentably ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 9-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
12/22/2025