DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 8/5/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 6 have been amended, claims 7, 9, 20, 23 and 25-27 have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-6, 8, 10-19, 21-22 and 24 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
3. Claims 12-19, 21-22, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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) is/are:
“human-machine interaction device” in claim 1 lines 7 and 11 are interpreted as a keyboard, operation button, mouse, trackball, touch pad, microphone, touch screen, or the like according to page 16 paragraph 3 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-2, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokko (US 2015/0164412) in view of Manigel et al. (US 2017/0224947).
Regarding claim 1, Kokko discloses an anesthesia control method, comprising:
establishing communication connection between an anesthesia machine and an infusion device (fig. 1, central anesthesia controller 10 is part of anesthesia machine 8, see [0027], and allows the clinician to set parameters for the anesthesia machine 8 and infusion pumps 9, see [0027] and fig. 1 which shows communication between central anesthesia controller 10, see [0016], and infusion pumps 9);
controlling, through a processor of the anesthesia machine ([0026] states that anesthesia machine 8 ventilates the patient and [0027] states that the central monitor 10 can be integrated with the anesthesia machine and the anesthesia machine commonly includes a controller which can directly control one or more anesthesia administration devices such as the infusion pumps and anesthesia machine 8), to provide anesthesia respiratory support for the patient ([0026] states that anesthesia machine 8 provides respiratory support for the patient) according to anesthesia machine control information which is inputted through a human-machine interaction device of the anesthesia machine (fig. 1, user interface 4 is part of the central anesthesia controller 10, which is integrated into the machine 8, see [0027], and can be used to input information, see [0018] for controlling the anesthesia machine) by a user ([0026] states that the anesthesia machine 8 can be controlled by the central monitor 10 which the physician inputs controls);
sending, through the anesthesia machine, a corresponding infusion device control instruction generated by the processor of the anesthesia machine ([0027] states dosing information can be entered by the clinician which is then conveyed to the infusion pumps 9 where the clinician input inherently is transformed according to specific interface/infusion pump programs to control the infusion pumps, see [0026] where a clinician can interact with monitor 10 which in turns controls the individual devices) to the infusion device according to infusion device control information which is inputted a human-machine interaction device of the anesthesia machine (fig. 1, user interface 4 is part of the central anesthesia controller 10, which is integrated into the machine 8, see [0027], and can be used to input information, see [0018]) by the user ([0026] states that IV pumps 9 are controlled by a central monitor 10 and the clinician interacts with the central monitor 10 to enter controls); and
through the infusion device, receiving the corresponding infusion device control instruction from the anesthesia machine ([0032] states the clinician can enter infusion pump controls remotely by a central monitor 10) and controlling medication administration to the patient according to the corresponding infusion device control instruction ([0032] states that the infusion pump 9 can be controlled by setting infusion rate or bolus amount which is the control instruction).
The device of Kokko does not expressly disclose that the anesthesia machine controlling step uses an anesthesia machine that comprises a respiratory line of the anesthesia machine to periodically deliver a mixed gas to a patient through controlling a plurality of valves in the respiratory line.
However, Manigel teaches of a method for enriching a gas flow with anesthetic that can adjust anesthetic concentration using control valves (abstract). The anesthesia machine comprises a respiratory line (see fig. 1, lines leading into patient interface 5) to periodically deliver (see claim 1 which states the gas flow is periodically enriches with anesthetic) a mixed gas (fig. 1, gas mixer 1 combines gases from inlets 2a, 2b, 2c which then travel to anesthetic dispenser 4) to a patient (fig. 1, 15) through controlling a plurality of valves in the respiratory line (see claim 1 which states a controller actuates a first and/or second control valve to adjust anesthetic concentration, see fig. 1, control valves 7a, 7b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the anesthesia machine with the structure and concentration control program for the control valves as taught by Manigel to realize the objective of providing a patient with a clinician controlled dose (Kokko [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on wherein the anesthesia machine control information comprises: anesthesia machine control information which is inputted by hand (Kokko [0026] states the clinician interacts with central monitor 10 to control the anesthesia machine 8); or the infusion device control information comprises infusion device control information which is inputted by hand (Kokko [0026] states the clinician interacts with central monitor 10 to control the IV pumps 9).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on wherein the infusion device comprises a first injection pump and a second injection pump (Kokko fig. 1, IV pumps 9); and the anesthesia control method further comprises: wherein the infusion device comprises a first injection pump (Kokko fig. 1, IV pump 9); and the anesthesia control method further comprises: through the first injection pump (Kokko fig. 1, IV pump 9 communicates with central monitor 10), acquiring a working state of the second injection pump (Kokko [0032] states that IV pumps 9 communicate delivered anesthetic amount 20 to central monitor 10) when the first injection pump is in a no-output state or a standby state (Kokko [0025] states anesthesia amount 20 can be delivered in any combination of drugs and/or gases, where drugs not being delivered through a first pump is a no-output or standby state), and before injection, updating information of the patient in the first injection pump at least based on the acquired working state (Kokko [0032] anesthetic amount 20) of the second injection pump (Kokko fig. 2, sensitivity calculation module 37 calculates a drug sensitivity index (DSI) based on patient response to a defined anesthesia, [0025] states that this is found by determining the amount of anesthesia 20 delivered); or
through the first injection pump (Kokko fig. 1, IV pump 9 communicates with central monitor 10), acquiring a working state of the anesthesia machine (Kokko [0025] states the anesthetic amount 20 is controlled by the central monitor by the clinician, where the delivery of anesthesia 20 by the anesthesia machine 8 would be a working state) when the first injection pump is in a no-output state or a standby state (Kokko [0025] states that anesthetic amount 20 includes any combination of delivered gases and drugs, and is set by the clinician, where the anesthesia machine 8 can deliver gases while no drugs are being delivered by the IV pumps 9), and before injection, updating information of the patient in the first injection pump (Kokko fig. 2, sensitivity calculation module 37 calculates a drug sensitivity index (DSI) based on patient response to a defined anesthesia, [0025] states that this is found by determining the amount of anesthesia 20 delivered. Meaning if no anesthesia is delivered by IV pumps 9, the DSI is calculated based on the anesthesia machine 8 gases prior to injection) at least based on the acquired working state of the anesthesia machine (Kokko [0017] states a drug sensitivity index (DSI) is a model created by comparing patient response to a defined anesthesia, see fig. 2, 37 where the DSI is calculated which is dependent on the anesthesia amounts 20 including the anesthesia delivered from gases).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 8 and further reads on wherein the anesthesia control method further comprises: through the anesthesia machine, acquiring a working state of the infusion device (Kokko [0032] states that the anesthetic amount 20 information of the infusion pumps 9 is transferred to a central processor) when the anesthesia machine is in a no-output state or a standby state, and before ventilation (Kokko [0025] states anesthetic is administered as any combination of gases and/or drugs, where the IV pumps can deliver a drug while no gas is delivered), updating information of the patient in the anesthesia machine at least based on the acquired working state of the infusion device (Kokko fig. 2, sensitivity calculation module 37 calculates a drug sensitivity index (DSI) based on patient response to a defined anesthesia, [0025] states that this is found by determining the amount of anesthesia 20 delivered).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on wherein the anesthesia control method further comprises: displaying, on a same interface of the anesthesia machine (Kokko fig. 1, central monitor 10 includes user interface/display 4), an anesthesia machine setting area for receiving the anesthesia machine control information which is inputted by the user and an infusion device setting area for receiving the infusion device control information which is inputted by the user (Kokko [0054] states that user interface 4 acts as a user input device, and [0026] states that the clinician interacts with central monitor 10 to control the dosing of each of the anesthesia machine 8 and IV pumps 9).
10. Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokko in view of Manigel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beck et al. (US 2022/0293262).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses that the IV pumps (Kokko fig. 1, 9) can be controlled by a central monitor remotely (Kokko [0032]), but does not expressly state that the communication connection is wireless communication connection.
However, Beck teaches of a method for connecting a medical device and a mobile, companion device (Kokko [0404]) that connects by establishing a wireless connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Kokko with the wireless connection as taught by Beck to facilitate the remote operation of the IV pumps by the central monitor (Kokko [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses that the IV pumps (Kokko fig. 1, 9) can be controlled by a central monitor remotely (Kokko [0032]), but does not expressly state that the communication connection is wireless communication connection; and the anesthesia control method further comprises: through the anesthesia machine, indicating that, the wireless communication connection with the infusion device is established, after establishing the wireless communication connection between the anesthesia machine and the infusion device; or through the infusion device, indicating that, the wireless communication connection with the anesthesia machine is established, after establishing the wireless communication connection between the anesthesia machine and the infusion device.
However, Beck teaches of a method for connecting a medical device and a mobile, companion device ([0404]) that connects by establishing a wireless connection and presents a notification on one or both devices to allows a wireless communication link ([0404]) to ensure credentialed users are controlling the device ([0406]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Kokko with the wireless connection and notification as taught by Beck to facilitate the remote operation of the IV pumps by the central monitor (Kokko [0032]), and ensure that proper users are accessing the mobile device (Beck [0406]).
The modified method of Kokko reads on the communication connection is wireless communication connection (Beck [0404] states that the devices establish a wireless connection); and the anesthesia control method further comprises:
through the anesthesia machine, indicating that, the wireless communication connection with the infusion device is established, after establishing the wireless communication connection (Beck [0404] states the notification occurs after detection of the respective device to send a notification where the detection is considered a wireless communication connection) between the anesthesia machine and the infusion device (Beck [0404] states that the medical device and/or the mobile device may present a notification to a user requesting authorization for connection); or
through the infusion device, indicating that, the wireless communication connection with the anesthesia machine is established (Beck [0404] states that the medical device and/or the mobile device may present a notification to a user requesting authorization for connection), after establishing the wireless communication connection between the anesthesia machine and the infusion device (Beck [0404] states the notification occurs after detection of the respective device to send a notification where the detection is considered a wireless communication connection).
11. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokko in view of Manigel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mann et al. (US 2002/0107476).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the anesthesia control method further comprises: through the infusion device, indicating that the corresponding infusion device control instruction is received, after receiving the corresponding infusion device control instruction.
However, Mann teaches of an infusion system that uses a remote controller, receiver, and indication device ([0009]), where the indication device indicates when a command has been received and when the infusion device is being utilized ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Kokko with the indication device and associated indication step as taught by Mann to allow the use of the infusion device while it is not in view (Mann [0009]).
The modified method of Kokko reads on through the infusion device (Mann [0009] the indication device is provided on the external infusion device), indicating that the corresponding infusion device control instruction is received, after receiving the corresponding infusion device control instruction (Mann [0009] states that the indication device provides an indication when a command has been received).
12. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokko in view of Manigel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beck and Matsiev et al. (US 2010/0305499).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Kokko reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the IV pumps (Kokko fig. 1, 9) can be controlled by a central monitor remotely (Kokko [0032]), but does not expressly state that the communication connection is wireless communication connection. Kokko also discloses that patient demographic information can be obtained from a database to advise the recommended anesthesia amount (Kokko [0042]), but does not expressly state the step of: through the anesthesia machine, determining whether information of the patient for whom the anesthesia machine provides the anesthesia respiratory support is consistent with information of the patient to whom the infusion device administers medication, before sending the corresponding infusion device control instruction to the infusion device; if not, disconnecting the wireless communication connection, refusing to send the corresponding infusion device control instruction or sending an alarm massage.
However, Beck teaches of a method for connecting a medical device and a mobile, companion device ([0404]) that connects by establishing a wireless connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Kokko with the wireless connection as taught by Beck to facilitate the remote operation of the IV pumps by the central monitor (Kokko [0032]).
Further, Matsiev teaches of a method for controlling an IV pump that consists of interrogating electronic medical records of specific patients to detect any wrong drugs or dangerous drugs for the patient ([0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Kokko with the electronic medical record interrogation step as taught by Matsiev to control drug combinations associated when multiple drugs are infused (Matsiev [0144]).
The modified method of Kokko reads on wherein the communication connection is wireless communication connection (Beck [0404] states that the devices establish a wireless connection) and the anesthesia control method further comprises: through the anesthesia machine, determining whether information of the patient for whom the anesthesia machine provides anesthesia respiratory support is consistent with information of the patient to whom the infusion device administers medication (Matsiev [0145] states that the electronic medical records can be interrogated to detect potential wrong drug errors due to drug and dose detected in the IV pump), before sending the corresponding infusion device control instruction to the infusion device (Matsiev [0145] the IV pump is controlled based on the wrong drug error); if not, refusing to send the corresponding infusion device control instruction (Matsiev [0145] states that when a drug error is detected a signal can be sent to stop the IV pump) or sending an alarm massage (Matsiev [0145] states that when a drug error is detected, a warning signal can also be transmitted to a healthcare worker).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Regarding a human-machine interaction device and valves of the respiratory line of the anesthesia machine, see the updated rejection to claim 1 above.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see page 10 paragraph 9 through page 11 paragraph 1 of “remarks,” that the anesthesia machine 8 and central monitor 10 of Kokko does not establish communication connection between an anesthesia machine and infusion device. However, Kokko shows in fig. 1 communication between an anesthesia machine 8 and controller 10 and between infusion pumps 9 and controller 10, where [0027] states that controller 10 can be integral with anesthesia machine 8. Therefore, connection between infusion pumps 9 and controller 10 is inherently requires an established communication between the anesthesia machine and infusion pumps due to controller 10 being integrated into anesthesia machine 8.
Applicant argues, see page 11 paragraphs 4-11 of “remarks,” that Beck’s notifications occur before or during establishment of the communication connection and not after the wireless communication connection has already been established. However, in the reference of Beck, the detection between devices is considered a wireless communication connection (Beck [0404] where detection of respective devices presents a notification to the user), therefore, the notifications occur after this connection is established. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “connected operational state”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is suggested to amend claim 4 to recite the argued language, specifically: “indication confirming that the anesthesia machine and infusion device are in a connected operational stated for coordinated control.”
Applicant argues, see page 12 paragraphs 2-6 of “remarks,” that Matsiev compares interrogates historical records and therefore compares information in different times, but does not determine whether information for whom the anesthesia machine provides the anesthesia respiratory support is consistent with the information of the patient to whom the infusion device administers medication. However, the method of Matsiev uses a system which compares patient-specific information (defined as the “information for whom the anesthesia machine provides the anesthesia respiratory support” due to the method of Kokko having the controller within the anesthesia machine) with a current drug being provided in an IV pump (defined as “information of the patient to whom the infusion device administers medication” due to the fact that the drug is planned to be administered to the patient) and alerts the healthcare worker if there is a discrepancy that could lead to a dangerous drug error (Matsiev [0145], where the comparison of the current drug to potential dangerous drugs constitutes a consistency check across the information at the anesthesia machine and IV pump of Kokko, also see the rejection to claim 6 above), therefore, the method of Matsiev reads on the current claim language.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nunez et al. (US 2016/0361492) discloses an infusion system that can be a ventilator which detects an accessory that has been coupled to it. Khajavi et al. (US 2018/0289387) discloses a system for preventing wrong-site surgeries that can check the patient profile during anesthesiology and references various stop conditions which includes a wrong patient condition.
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Z CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/THOMAS Z CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights