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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 03/31/2026 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(f) interpretation, the 112(b) rejections, and the objection, and the amendments to the specification and drawings have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 (“Remarks”) with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of the first and second bushings have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely exclusively on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see below for the updated rejection over prior art in response to the change in scope of the claims.
The argument that Cho’s insulator does not provide heat insulation between the induction heater and the roller is persuasive (Cho [0048]). However, since the scope of the claims has changed, please refer to the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Tsuitsui et al. (JP 2013126456 A1), hereafter Tsuitsui, in view of Paik et al. (US 2011/0158672 A1), hereafter Paik, further in view of KR 100559923 B1, hereafter KR’923. Machine translations of Tsuitsui and KR’913 are relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutsui discloses a pressure application apparatus (fig. 1, treatment device 21 [0016]), comprising: a pressurizer which has an interior space (fig. 7, massage ball 41 [0033]); a heater (fig. 7, heat source portion 42 [0033]) which is inserted in the interior space (fig. 7, 42 is shown inserted into the interior space of 41) and is configured to generate heat such that the pressurizer is heated (heat source conducts heat from the power transmission coils [0033]); and an electromagnetic induction unit (fig. 7, power transmission coils 30a-d [0033]; [0035] the coils are electromagnetic) configured to generate an induced current to cause the heater to generate heat ([0035]);
a first bushing which is provided on one side of the pressurizer (fig. 7, first bearing 25, [0017]; a bushing is a type of bearing); a second bushing which is provided on the other side of the pressurizer (fig. 7, second bearing 26 [0017]); wherein the first bushing and the second bushing are configured to support the heater rotatably (fig. 7 shows this configuration; the heater is fixed to the pressurizer, see fig. 4 and fig. 6 [0052], and thus the heater portion rotates with the pressurizer while the electromagnetic induction unit remains fixed [0023]) to maintain a an interval between the electromagnetic induction unit and the heater (figs. 7-8 show a space between 42 and 30a-d).
Tsuitsui is silent on a heat insulator provided on an outer side surface of the electromagnetic induction unit to prevent heat generated from the heater from moving to the electromagnetic induction unit, and whether the first bushing and second bushing support the outer side surface of the insulator.
Paik teaches an induction heated roller (fig. 4, heating member 110, induction coil 140 [0051]) that uses an insulator (figs. 2 and 4, 130 [0061]) between the induction coil and the roller to prevent heat from being transferred from the roller to the coil ([0061] the inductor cover may be a thermal insulator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a heat insulating member, as taught by Paik, on the outer side surface of Tsuitsui’s induction units (fig. 8, 30a-d) in order to prevent heat from being directly transmitted from the heater to the induction coil (Paik [0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to understand that shielding the induction coil from heat protects the coil from thermal stress.
It further would have been obvious to position Tsuitsui’s bushings to support the outer surface of the insulator to maintain an interval between the electromagnetic induction unit and the heater in order to ensure that the current leak between the two structures is avoided, since the insulator is shown in Paik’s fig. 4 to be positioned between the electromagnetic induction unit and the heater. Additionally, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to position the insulator such that the bearings support the outer surface of the insulator to ensure that the heater is insulated from the coils, since the function of the insulator would remain the same.
In the event that it is not clear that Tsuitsui discloses a bushing, KR’913 teaches the use of a first bushing and a second bushing provided on opposite sides of a pressurizer (fig. 4a, sliding portion 360, page 4 lines 14-17, provides rotation between the heat transfer medium 350 and the rotary member 330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute Tsuitsui’s bearings for KR’923’s bushings, since both structures would be able to equally allow the pressurizer to rotate about its axis smoothly.
Regarding Claim 2, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure application apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is inserted into the heater (figs. 7 and 8, the power transmission coils 30a-d are inserted into the interior of heat source portion 42).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure application apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly state whether wherein the pressure application apparatus and the heater are integrally formed, and the heater is made of a metal material (“integrally formed” is interpreted to mean a single piece, incapable of being easily dismantled without destroying the integrity of the piece; Tsuitsui discloses that the pressure unit, fig. 7 massaging ball 41, is adhesively fixed to heat-generating unit, heat source portion 42 [0034]; but it is not clearly stated if the pieces are integral).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pressurizer integrally formed with the heat-generating unit, since it has been held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus (fig. 1, [0020]), comprising: a pressure application apparatus for thermotherapy (fig. 1, treatment device 21 [0016]); and a driver for moving the pressure application apparatus ([0014] driving motor for the massage unit 20 is provided but not shown), wherein the pressure application apparatus comprises: a pressurizer which has an interior space (fig. 7, massage ball 41 [0033]); a heater (fig. 7, heat source portion 42 [0033]) which is inserted in the interior space (fig. 7, 42 is shown inserted into the interior space of 41) and configured to generate heat such that the pressurizer is heated (as interpreted according to the 112(b) rejection above, heat source is a conductor [0033]); and an electromagnetic induction unit (fig. 7, power transmission coils 30a-d [0033]; [0035] the coils are electromagnetic) which is configured to generate an induced current to cause the heater to generate heat ([0035]); a first bushing which is provided on one side of the pressurizer (fig. 7, first bearing 25, [0017]; a bushing is a type of bearing); a second bushing which is provided on the other side of the pressurizer (fig. 7, second bearing 26 [0017]); wherein the first bushing and the second bushing are configured to support the heater rotatably (fig. 7 shows this configuration; the heater is fixed to the pressurizer, see fig. 4 and fig. 6 [0052], and thus the heater portion rotates with the pressurizer while the electromagnetic induction unit remains fixed [0023]) to maintain a an interval between the electromagnetic induction unit and the heater (figs. 7-8 show a space between 42 and 30a-d), wherein the heater is configured to rotate relative to the electromagnetic induction unit in a non-rotating state such that the heater rotates together with the pressurizer (fig. 7, shaft 24 is fixed [0016]; [0034] 42 is fixed to 43 and thus rotates around the fixed electromagnetic induction unit as described in [0023]).
Tsuitsui is silent on a heat insulator provided on an outer side surface of the electromagnetic induction unit to prevent heat generated from the heater from moving to the electromagnetic induction unit, and whether the first bushing and second bushing support the outer side surface of the insulator.
Paik teaches an induction heated roller (fig. 4, heating member 110, induction coil 140 [0051]) that uses an insulator (figs. 2 and 4, 130 [0061]) between the induction coil and the roller to prevent heat from being transferred from the roller to the coil ([0061] the inductor cover may be a thermal insulator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a heat insulating member, as taught by Paik, on the outer side surface of Tsuitsui’s induction units (fig. 8, 30a-d) in order to prevent heat from being directly transmitted from the heater to the induction coil (Paik [0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to understand that shielding the induction coil from heat protects the coil from thermal stress.
It further would have been obvious to position Tsuitsui’s bushings to support the outer surface of the insulator to maintain an interval between the electromagnetic induction unit and the heater in order to ensure that the current leak between the two structures is avoided, since the insulator is shown in Paik’s fig. 4 to be positioned between the electromagnetic induction unit and the heater. Additionally, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to position the insulator such that the bearings support the outer surface of the insulator to ensure that the heater is insulated from the coils, since the function of the insulator would remain the same.
In the event that it is not clear that Tsuitsui discloses a bushing, KR’913 teaches the use of a first bushing and a second bushing provided on opposite sides of a pressurizer (fig. 4a, sliding portion 360, page 4 lines 14-17, provides rotation between the heat transfer medium 350 and the rotary member 330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute Tsuitsui’s bearings for KR’923’s bushings, since both structures would be able to equally allow the pressurizer to rotate about its axis smoothly.
Regarding Claim 10, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 9, wherein the outer side surface of the heater is in contact with the inner side surface of the pressurizer (fig. 7, 42 is fixedly adhered to roller ball pressing portion 43 [0034]).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 10, wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is inserted into the heater (fig. 7 shows 30a-d inserted within the interior of 42), and wherein a separation space is formed between the heater and the electromagnetic induction unit such that heat generated from the heater is not directly conducted to the electromagnetic induction unit (figs. 7 and 8, a gap is shown between the coils 30a-d and 42).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 11, further comprising: a power supply unit configured to supply current to the electromagnetic induction unit ([0018] a power supply is present in the invention to supply power to the coils but is not shown), wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is provided with a coil that is configured to receive current from the power supply to generate an induced current ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 13, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 12, wherein the coil is formed in a spiral shape that is wound multiple times (fig. 7, 30a-d are coils that are spiral shaped [0018]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected und er 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of Choi (KR 101890070 B1), hereafter Choi. A machine translation is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure application apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the heater unit comprises: a first heater which is spaced apart from the pressurizer; a second heater which extends from one side of the first heater, partially surrounds the first heater (the second heater does not fully surround the first heater), and contacts the pressurizer; and a third heater which extends from the other side of the first heater, surrounds the first heater, and contacts the pressurizer, wherein the third heater is disposed to be spaced apart from the second heater.
Choi teaches a heating device which includes a first heater (fig. 7, case 110 has a first heater portion 111, which surrounds a heating body 120 and conducts heat [0053]); a second heater which extends from one side of the first heater (fig. 7, the top-most portion of second case 112 [0053]), partially surrounds the first heater (the second heater does not fully surround the first heat-generating unit; in fig. 7, the second heater 112 partially surrounds 111); and a third heater which extends from the other side of the first heater (fig. 7, the bottom-most portion of second case 112 [0053]), surrounds the first heater (the third heater 112 partially surrounds 111), wherein the third heater is disposed to be spaced apart from the second heater (fig. 7, the bottom-most portion of 112 is spaced apart from the top-most portion of 112; see annotated fig. below). This configuration allows for a reduction in the amount of material needed to conduct heat away from the heating body 120, and therefore reduces the amount of power required to heat the device overall ([0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Tsuitsui’s heater to that taught by Choi, such that the first heater is spaced apart from the pressurizer (as shown in Choi fig. 7, the center portion 11 is in the interior of the device and thus would be spaced apart from the pressurizer when inserted), and the second and third heat-generating units (fig. 7, 112) would contact the pressurizer in the same manner that Tsuitsui’s heat generating unit (fig. 7, 42) contacts the pressurizer to conduct heat to the pressure unit, since the power required to heat the material of Choi’s conductor design would be reduced.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Tsuitsui discloses a pressure application apparatus of claim 5, wherein the third heater is disposed symmetrically with the second heater (as shown in Choi fig. 7, the second and third heat-generating units are symmetrical).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of JP 6651880 B2, hereafter JP’880. A machine translation is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 7, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure application apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the heater comprises: a first heater which is spaced apart from the pressurizer; and a plurality of second heaters which extend from the first heater to contact the pressurizer, and are formed in a spiral shape that is bent in a direction toward the pressurizer, wherein the plurality of second heaters are disposed to be spaced apart from each other.
However, JP’880 teaches the use of a first heater (fig. 2, ring-shaped main body 8a [0030]) and a plurality of second heaters (fig. 2, arms 8B [0030]; the ring-shaped main body and arms are made of a metal plate and connect the rotating main body to the non-rotating shaft 3 [0055] and allows for elastic deformation of the arms when heat generating member 4 is heated to avoid thermal stress in the heat generating member [0054]) and are formed (interpreted to mean “arranged” according to the 112(b) rejection above) in a spiral shape (fig. 2, arms 8B are arranged in a spiral direction), wherein the plurality of second heaters are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (fig. 2 shows this configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of Tsuitsui’s heater to the configuration taught by JP’880, such that a first heater is spaced apart from the pressure unit; and a plurality of second heaters which extend from the first heater to contact the pressurizer (since Tsuitsui’s heater contacts the pressurizer in order to conduct heat outward toward the user), and are formed in a spiral shape that is bent in a direction toward the pressurizer, wherein the plurality of second heaters are disposed to be spaced apart from each other, since JP’880 teaches that this spirally arranged configuration allows for thermal expansion in the conductive material to avoid damage caused by thermal stress on an inductive heating generating member (JP’880 [0055]).
Claims 3, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of Zhang (US 12508192 B2), hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure application apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is disposed outside the heater.
Zhang teaches a heated roller having an electromagnetic induction unit disposed outside the heater (fig. 6, heated roller 14, electromagnetic induction unit 54, heater 61, col. 10 lines 14-23 and lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s electromagnetic induction unit to be positioned outside the heater as taught by Zhang for the benefit being able to make the roller smaller since the internal structure is simplified, as well as being able to improve safety by removing electronic components from user-contacting portions of the device, thus avoiding the potential for electric shock in a malfunction, as taught by Zhang (col. 9 lines 11-24).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsuitsui discloses a pressure application apparatus of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the heater is formed in a spring shape.
Zhang teaches an embodiment of a heated roller (fig. 3(a) , col. 8 line 10) where the heater is a wire passing through the roller and conducts heat from an induction unit (the embodiment of fig. 6, col. 10 lines 14-18) in which a heat transfer element conducting the heat from the induction heating element is straight in shape (fig. 6, 61, col. 10 lines 40-47).
Zhang also teaches an embodiment (fig. 3(a)) which uses a heater formed in a spring shape (fig. 3(a), heating element 25, col. 9 line 10 and lines 15-16, the heating element is a coil) placed inside the roller to transfer heat to the roller surface to the user (col. 8 lines 8-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s electromagnetic induction unit to be positioned outside the heater as taught by Zhang for the benefit being able to make the roller smaller since the internal structure is simplified, as well as being able to improve safety by removing electronic components from user-contacting portions of the device, thus avoiding the potential for electric shock in a malfunction, as taught by Zhang (col. 9 lines 11-24), in addition to changing the shape of the heat generating unit, in the form of Zhang’s wire passing through the roller, from the straight shape to the coiled spring shape in Zhang’s fig. 3(a) embodiment, since a change in shape has been found to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Regarding Claim 17, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 16, further comprising: an elevator configured to elevate the pressurizer (fig. 1, massage mechanism 20 moves the pressurizer vertically [0014]), but is silent on wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is disposed on the upper side of the elevator while being disposed outside the pressurizer.
However, Zhang teaches a heated roller having an electromagnetic induction unit disposed outside the heater (fig. 6, heated roller 14, electromagnetic induction unit 54, heater 61, col. 10 lines 14-23 and lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s electromagnetic induction unit to be positioned outside the heater as taught by Zhang for the benefit being able to make the roller smaller since the internal structure is simplified, as well as being able to improve safety by removing electronic components from user-contacting portions of the device, thus avoiding the potential for electric shock in a malfunction, as taught by Zhang (col. 9 lines 11-24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to position the electromagnetic induction unit on the upper side of the elevator as an obvious matter of design choice by rearrangement of parts, since Zhang teaches that placing the electromagnetic induction unit outside the roller provides the safety benefits described above. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tsuitsui in view of Hyllberg et al. (US 5420395), hereafter Hyllberg.
Regarding Claim 15, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 9, but is silent on wherein the heater comprises: a plurality of conductive units configured to generate heat via an current induced by the electromagnetic induction unit, and are disposed to be spaced apart from each other; and a plurality of electrical insulators that are disposed between the plurality of conductive units.
Hyllberg teaches a ceramic heater roller with zoned heating (title) that includes a heat generating unit with a plurality of conductive units (fig. 5, conductive bands 53, 54, 55, 56, col. 7 lines 17-20) that use induction heating (col. 3 line 13 and col. 7 lines 45-55) that are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (fig. 5, gaps 60 separate each conductive band, col., 7 line 23); and a plurality of electrical insulators disposed between the plurality of conductive units (fig. 7, gaps 60 contain a ceramic layer, which is an insulator, col. 7 line 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuitsui’s heater to include a plurality of conductive units disposed to be spaced apart and a plurality of electrical insulators disposed between the plurality of conductive units as taught by Hyllberg in order to create zones of heating in which various zones of the roller can be selected to heated or not, or maintained at different temperatures (Hyllberg col. 7 lines 56-64).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 15, wherein a width of the plurality of conductive units is longer than the width of the plurality of electrical insulators (Hyllberg fig. 5, the gaps 60 are smaller than the conductive units 53-56).
Regarding Claim 18, Tsuitsui discloses a thermotherapy apparatus of claim 16, further comprising: a power supply configured to supply current to the electromagnetic induction unit ([0018] a power supply is present in the invention to supply power to the coils but is not shown), wherein the electromagnetic induction unit is provided with a coil that is configured to receive current from the power supply to generate an induced current ([0018]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brandy S. Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights