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 . This action is in response to applicant arguments/remarks made in an amendment received on July 13, 2025. Claims 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 33 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind. While the claim may involve computer or surgical complexity, the relevant inquiry under Step 2A, Prong 1 is whether the claim recites a mental process, not whether a human could realistically perform it during surgery. The claim recites determining positions, performing registration (mapping between coordinate systems); and updating models based on detected changes. These are fundamentally acts of collecting data, analyzing it, correlating it, and presenting results. Even if performed with a computer, such data analysis and spatial mapping fall within the mental process and mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas. The use of processing circuitry does not remove the claim from this category. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claim is integrated into a practical surgical application. While the claim is used in a surgical setting, the additional elements: intraoperative images, AR/MR display, and processing circuitry. The claims do not reflect an improvement to: imaging technology, AR rendering technology, registration technology, and surgical hardware. Rather, the claims applies generic image acquisition, coordinate registration, and visualization techniques in context of surgery. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular environment (i.e., intraoperative use) is generally considered a field-of-use limitation and does not, by itself, integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the argument under Step 2A is not persuasive.
Under Step 2, the question is whether the claim includes an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. The additional elements recited, processing circuitry, AR/MR display, image acquisition are described at a high level of generally and appear to perform their conventional functions. The claims does not recite: a specific unconventional registration algorithm technique, a particular non-routine image processing technique, a technique improvement to AR device functionality, and hardware-level improvement. Instead, the abstract idea is implemented using generic computer components performing expected functions. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
While the claimed subject matter is applied in a surgical context and may be useful, the claims are currently drafted recite an abstract idea analyzing and mapping operations, does not integrate the abstract idea into a technological improvement, and does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more. For these reasons, the 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, and 33 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.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-19, 21-23, 25-26, and 28-29 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-19, 21-23, 25-26, and 28-29 recites at least one step or instruction for an orthopedic surgery involving computer-readable instruction that, when executed by processing circuitry, causes a computer system to provide intraoperative guidance which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed subject matter is related to a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))]]. The claimed method and system merely implements an abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. Accordingly, each of Claims 2-5,7-15,17-19,22,23,25,26,and 28-29 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a computer (additional element) implemented method comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry, during a surgery performed on a patient, one or more intraoperative images of a surgical site of the patient, wherein (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)):
the surgical site includes a plurality of bones that are not substantially exposed through skin of the patient during the surgery, a connected K-wire, wherein the fixation device is attached to a bone of the plurality of bones, an external portion of the connected K-wire is connected to a fixation device that is attached to the patient substantially external to the skin of the patient, the fixation device being configured to remain at a fixed position relative to the surgical site, the fixation device includes one or more features for moving the connected K-wire relative to other K-wires attached to bones of the plurality of bones, and external portion of the connected K-wire extends outside the skin of the patient(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
generating, by processing circuitry, models of the bones and the connected K-wire (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
determining, by processing circuitry, based at least in part on the one or more intraoperative images, one or more positions on the external portion of the connected K-wire in a real-world coordinate system (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
performing, by processing circuitry, a registration process that generates registration data for mapping the one or more positions on the external portion of the connected K-wire in the real-world coordinate system with corresponding positions of a model of the connected K-wire in a virtual coordinate system (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
generating, by processing circuitry, and presenting on a display device, an augmented reality (AR) device, or a mixed reality (MR) device, a visualization that includes the models of the bones superimposed on live images of the surgical site itself (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
detecting, by processing circuitry, changes to the positions of the external portion of the connected K-wire (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
and based on the changes to the positions of the external portion of the connected K-wire, updating, by processing circuitry, positions of the models of the bones as shown in the visualization to maintain correspondence between positions of the bones and the positions of the models of the bones (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, independent claim 16 recites a computing system (additional element) comprising:
a memory (additional element);
and processing circuitry (additional element) configured to: obtain, during a surgery performed on a patient, one or more intraoperative images of a surgical site of the patient, wherein: the surgical site includes a plurality of bones that are not substantially exposed through skin of the patient during the surgery, a connected K-wire is attached to a bone of the plurality of bones, an external portion of the connected K-wire is connected to a fixation device, wherein the fixation device is attached to the patient substantially external to the skin of the patient, and the fixation device being configured to remain at a fixed position relative to the surgical site, and the fixation device includes one or more features for moving the connected K-wire relative to other K-wires attached to bones of the plurality of bones, and external portion that extends outside the skin of the patient(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
generate models of the bones and the connected K-wire(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)));
determine, based at least in part on the one or more intraoperative images, one or more positions on the external portion of the connected K-wire in a real-world coordinate system (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
perform a registration process that generates registration data for mapping the positions on the external portion of the connected K-wire in the real-world coordinate system with corresponding positions of a model of the connected K-wire in a virtual coordinate system(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
generate and present on a display device, an augment reality (AR) device, or a mixed reality (MR) device, visualization that includes the models of the bones superimposed on live images the surgical site or the surgical site itself;(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
detect changes to the positions of the external portion of the connected K-wire; and based on the changes to the positions of the external portion of the connected K- wire(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
update positions of the models of the bones in the visualization to maintain correspondence between positions of the bones and the positions of the models of the bones (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, independent claim 33 recites a computer-implemented (additional element) method comprising:
obtaining, by processing circuitry, during a Lapidus surgery performed on a patient, one or more intraoperative images of a surgical site of the patient, wherein: the surgical site includes a plurality of bones that are not substantially exposed through skin of the patient during the Lapidus surgery, a connected K-wire is attached to a bone of the plurality of bones, an external portion of the connected K-wire is connected to a fixation device, wherein the fixation device is attached to the patient substantially external to the skin of the patient, the fixation device being configured to remain at a fixed position relative to the surgical site, and the external portion of the connected K-wire extends outside the skin of the patient(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
generating, by the processing circuitry, models of the bones and a model of the connected K-wire(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)));
determining, by the processing circuitry, based at least in part on the one or more intraoperative images, one or more positions on the external portion of the connected K-wire in a real-world coordinate system(judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
performing, by the processing circuitry, a registration process that generates registration data for mapping the one or more positions on the external portion of the connected K-wire in the real-world coordinate system with corresponding positions of the model of the connected K- wire in a virtual coordinate system(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
generating, by the processing circuitry, and presenting on a display device, an augmented reality (AR) device, or a mixed reality (MR) device, a visualization that includes the models of the bones superimposed on live images of the surgical site or the surgical site itself(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
detecting, by the processing circuitry, changes to the positions of the external portion of the connected K-wire; and based on the changes to the positions of the external portion of the connected K-wire, updating, by the processing circuitry, positions of the models of the bones as shown in the visualization to maintain correspondence between positions of the bones and the positions of the models of the bones, wherein updating the positions of the models of the bones in the visualization comprises moving a position of a model of a first metatarsal bone relative to a position of a model of a first cuneiform bone(judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Further, dependent Claims 2-15,17-19,21-23,25-26, and 28-29 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 16, and 33 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-5,7-15,17-19,22,23,25,26,and 28-29) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1,16, and 33), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a computer device as recited in independent claim 1, and a processor and a memory device, as recited in independent Claim 16 are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1,16, and 33 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 16, and 33 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor, computer device, and memory, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1,16, and 33 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 ,16, and 33 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, and 33 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: the additional elements of: a computer device as recited in independent claim 1, and a processor and a memory device, as recited in independent Claims 16 and 33.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, [0022] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example surgical assistance system 100 that may be used to implement the techniques of this disclosure. In the example of FIG. 1, surgical assistance system 100 includes a computing system 102. Computing system 102 is an example of a computing system configured to perform one or more example techniques described in this disclosure. Computing system 102 may include various types of computing devices, such as server computers, personal computers, smartphones, laptop computers, tablet computers, and other types of computing devices. Computing system 102 includes processing circuitry 104, memory 106, a display 108, and a communication interface 110. Display 108 may be optional, such as in examples where computing system 102 comprises a server computer.
[0023] Examples of processing circuitry 104 include one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), hardware, or any combinations thereof. In general, processing circuitry 104 may be implemented as fixed-function circuits, programmable circuits, or a combination thereof. Fixed-function circuits refer to circuits that provide particular functionality and are preset on the operations that can be performed. Programmable circuits refer to circuits that can be programmed to perform various tasks and provide flexible functionality in the operations that can be performed. For instance, programmable circuits may execute software or firmware that cause the programmable circuits to operate in the manner defined by instructions of the software or firmware. Fixed-function circuits may execute software instructions (e.g., to receive parameters or output parameters), but the types of operations that the fixed-function circuits perform are generally immutable.
[0024] Processing circuitry 104 may include arithmetic logic units (ALUs), elementary function units (EFUs), digital circuits, analog circuits, and/or programmable cores, formed from programmable circuits. In examples where the operations of processing circuitry 104 are performed using software executed by the programmable circuits, memory 106 may store the object code of the software that processing circuitry 104 receives and executes, or another memory within processing circuitry 104 (not shown) may store such instructions. Examples of the software include software designed for surgical planning and/or surgical assistance. Processing circuitry 104 may perform the actions ascribed in this disclosure to computing system 102.
[0025] Memory 106 may store various types of data used by processing circuitry 104. For example, memory 106 may store data describing 3D models of various anatomical structures, including morbid (pathological) and predicted premorbid (non-pathological) anatomical structures, such as a bone.
[0026] Memory 106 may be formed by any of a variety of memory devices, such as dynamic random access memory (DRAM), including synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), magnetoresistive RAM (MRAM), resistive RAM (RRAM), hard disk drives, optical discs, or other types of non-transitory computer-readable media. Examples of display 108 may include a liquid crystal display (LCD), a plasma display, an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, or another type of display device.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms, processor, computer device, and memory are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor, computer device, and memory. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, and 33 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system and method of Claims 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, and 33 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 16, and 33 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, and 33 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, and 33 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: 1-5, 7-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-29, and 33. None of the prior art discloses a computing system comprising wherein an external portion of a connected K-wire is connected to a fixation device, wherein the fixation device is attached to a patient, and the fixation device includes one or more features for moving the connected K-wire relative to other K-wires attached to bones of a plurality of bones. This feature, in combination with the other required limitations of the claim, is not shown in the prior art nor would it be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the prior art references in a manner that would read on the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 DIANA S JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-5963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8am to 4pm EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-270-5963. 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.
/Diana Jones/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
/KEVIN T TRUONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3775