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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claim are not directed to an abstract idea by asserting that the claim includes limitations of generating orthodontic information for automatically arranging remaining teeth to either contact a fixed tooth or allowing overlapping and spacing with a fixed tooth, however the generation of data is an abstract idea and the process of generating the data for a use can be done mentally or with paper and pencil. Applicant has further argued that the claim limitations would improve the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical field, however the claim limitations would not improve the computing functions of a computer, but would only be carried out an a generic computer, further the system would not be an improvement to technology or technical field but the use of abstract idea with existing technology or technical fields. The decision of treatment and generation of data that would represent such treatment is an abstract idea as the claims do not go beyond general data manipulation and displaying based on mathematical algorithms with mental image generation and comparisons. Nothing in the claims or specification requires anything more than a conventional prior art computer, input(mouse, keyboards), or display, for analyzing numbers according to a mathematical algorithm which a person would use in a digital manner of paper and pencil. The claimed method thus falls with the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) for further guidance.
Applicant has argued that there would be an improvement to displaying high-quality simulation results however there is no recitation in the claims of high-quality simulation results, only use of a generic display.
Applicant has further argued that the amendments to claim 1 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, however the claim amendments are essentially those of previously presented claim 5 which only includes the abstract idea of data generation.
Applicant has argued that Choi et al. fails to provide for the new limitations however the new limitations are contingent limitations through the reciting “if” a fixed tooth to an incisor or molar which, if the condition is not satisfied the recited generation of orthodontic information for contacting teeth or allowing overlapping and spacing would not need to be carried out for the prior art to satisfy the claim. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Applicant has argued that Sachdeva fails to provide for the new claim limitations by asserting that Sachdeva does not automatically generate arrangements however Sachdeva is cited for the automatic solving/generating of arrangements.
Further applicant has argued that Sachdeva does discloses where the movement of the adjacent teeth would be based on an incisor selection or the spacing overlapping would be based on a molar selection however Sachdeva was cited for such adjacent teeth coming into contact or spacing and overlapping would both be obvious for when the selected tooth for fixing, which is received in the claims from an input device and thus a human decision, would be obvious depending upon an patient’s particular anatomical needs, were an orthodontist that had selected an incisor to be fixed would have had an adjacent tooth moved to come into interproximal contact at its marginal ridges and where a user selected a molar input to be fixed then the creation of spacing/overlapping would result from the need to place for interproximal reductions.
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., “high-quality simulations”) 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of receiving information, and generating information in response to the received information.
In accordance with the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” issued January 7, 2019 the pending claims are analyzed as follows —
Step 1 - In regard to claims 1-4 and 6-11 which are directed to a system with readable medium to perform the process of receiving data of an oral cavity and tooth area, storing data, receiving a data of a selection by a user of a tooth to remained fixed in treatment, and generating data of treatment plans by a computing device, and displaying the data of the treatment plans which amounts to data sending, receiving and manipulation which is intended to operate using generic computing, input, and display devices. The various dependent claims all add only additional data manipulation steps, inputs or outputs. The method is within the 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory category of a “process” (MPEP 2106.03), but falls into the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2A —In regard to claims 1-4 and 6-11, the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea(MPEP 2106.04(a)) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05). The claimed inventions are directed to a mental process — concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or with paper and pencil — including observations, evaluations and judgements. More particularly the generating and receiving of data, receiving of inputs to generate data (selection of teeth to not move), generation of data(treatment plans), and displaying of models are capable of being done mentally (a dentist views a patient’s dentition envisioning treatment plans within their mind or by use of pencil and paper and the receiving and transmitting could be done via paper and pencil, or by writing out a descriptive arrangement).
It is further noted that orthodontists have long practiced their trade/art of viewing teeth and mentally determining the creation of treatment plans, the mental trade of information with a patient by talking and drawing — well before the advent of computers — and are most certainly capable of envisioning and mentally generating treatment plans and transmitting drawings or descriptions of treatment plans and receiving selections by discussions with patients from drawings done using a generic computer.
Step 2B — In regard to claims 1-4 and 6-11, the claimed method steps are capable of being performed mentally and represent nothing more than concepts related to performing mental modeling steps which fall within the judicial exception. Implicit in the claimed invention is the intended use of a computing or data processing device, an input selector, and a display, however, there is no disclosure in the written description that the processing units, input, and display are anything more than generic components, nor is there any disclosure that the receiving, generating, input, or displaying, improves the manner in which the processing unit, input, or display operates. The mere recitation in the claims of the intention to operate a generic conventional processing unit that is used in a conventional manner to perform conventional computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. The claims do not go beyond general data manipulation and displaying based on mathematical algorithms with mental image generation and comparisons.
The analysis of data in a particular field and the stating of those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions is an abstract idea and does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims do not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine and they do not require that the method particularly transform a particular article. The claims set forth instructions of analyzing information of a specific content and are not directed to any particularly asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. Nothing in the claims or specification requires anything more than a conventional prior art computer, input(mouse, keyboards), or display, for analyzing numbers according to a mathematical algorithm which a person would use in a digital manner of paper and pencil. The claimed method thus falls with the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) for further guidance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, Claims 1-4, 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sachdeva et al. (US 2004/0197727 A1).
Regarding claim 1 in a first contingency where if the fixed tooth is neither an incisor or molar, Sachdeva discloses an orthodontic plan display system (title, abstract, Fig. 1 element 14 being a display) comprising:
an oral information storage module (Fig. 1 elements 22/24/27/12 being storage modules) configured to store oral information comprising oral scan data obtained by scanning a shape of an oral cavity and tooth area data for dividing respective tooth areas among the oral scan data (Fig. 1 element 30 being a scanner source for oral information that is stored in the oral information storage module);
a fix information receiving module configured to receive (Fig. 1 element 12 containing programming modules/software), from an input device (fig. 1 elements 18/20), a selection of at least one tooth, which is not to be corrected and whose position is to be fixed, from among teeth of the oral information to receive the at least one of tooth as fix information (fig. 32 showing the display view from the fix information module that is configured to receive from an input device a selection of at least one tooth that is not to be corrected and whose position is fixed/stationary showing the selection that a tooth would be set to “hold”, paragraph [0160] all disclosing that the user can select teeth to be immobilized/fixed “the user can selectively immobilize teeth or allow their free movement in three planes of space, either individually or in groups”);
an automatic arrangement module configured to generate orthodontic information for correction in which positions and directions of the remaining teeth , excluding the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information, among the teeth of the oral information, are automatically arranged according to an orthodontic algorithm(paragraph [0106] all disclosing that once a user has modified a jaw a module of the system would automatically solve for the teeth to achieve an result, paragraph [0160]/[0161] also disclosing that once a tooth/teeth is set to be immobile the teeth are moved to ideal positions, paragraph [0056] all disclosing the automatic generation of orthodontic information for a position at any time during treatment); and
an oral display module configured to display a corrected shape of the oral cavity according to the orthodontic information generated by the automatic arrangement module on a display device (paragraph [0237] lines all disclosing system display can use the display to provide a full suite of visualization tools for interactive proposal of orthodontic setup).
Further regarding claim 1 and also claim 4, where a fixed tooth would be an incisor or a molar, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the automatic arrangement module is configured to generate the orthodontic information for automatically arranging the non-fixed remaining teeth on a side of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information to come into contact with the at least one fixed tooth fixed by the fix information with teeth coming in contact with a tooth they would be adjacent to that was fixed (Fig. 32 showing contact of automatic tooth moving as a result of selected immobile teeth of a negative length discrepancy and thus contact and overlapping in the digital space, Fig. 47d-47E showing the generation of arranging an adjacent tooth to a fixed tooth which would be more anterior tooth the information for an adjacent tooth to come into contact with at least one of the fixed more anterior teeth); and generate, such as when the fixed tooth is a molar, the orthodontic information for automatically arranging the non-fixed remaining teeth on the mesial side of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information to allow overlapping and spacing with respect to the at least one fixed tooth fixed by the fix information (Fig. 32 showing fixed molar teeth would be contacted by the negative length discrepancy that indicated the non-fixed moved anterior teeth would be in contact and thus need interproximal reduction, paragraph [0159], the negative discrepancy means the virtual teeth would be overlapping and need space added between them), but fails to explicitly disclose where the automatic arrangement would be triggered by the automatic determining of either incisor or molar and for the contacting of a distal side of the fixed tooth nor where if the fixed tooth was an incisor it would move the remaining teeth so that any tooth adjacent to the at least one fixed tooth would come into contact the fixed tooth automatically generated information would be automatically back solved based of any starting fixed tooth selection arrangement.
However Sachdeva does disclose that any individual tooth or group of teeth could be fixed/immobilized (paragraph [0160] all disclosing that the user can select teeth to be immobilized/fixed “the user can selectively immobilize teeth or allow their free movement in three planes of space, either individually or in groups”) and where the system would generate information for a tooth adjacent to a fixed tooth would be moved into contact with a more anterior tooth (Figs. 47d-47e) and where the generated tooth movement could be automatic (paragraph [0056] disclosing a model can be manipulated into a desired feature from which the system would automatically generate information and paragraph [0160] that any selected teeth can be held/fixed) and thus when an anterior tooth or any tooth that would have been both on the distal side and mesial side would result in the obviousness for those teeth to be automatically contacted with when an incisor was fixed or have overlapping in the digital space and allowed for interproximal reduction and proper spacing when a molar was fixed as taught by Sachdeva (paragraph [0158] all disclosing that teeth are moved “distal and mesial” for tooth movement during space analysis) and such resulting selected immobilized/fixed tooth would naturally occur for some patient’s with such anatomical needs, and the movement of adjacent teeth would haven been obvious when the selected fixed tooth would have only been an incisor tooth and the remaining adjacent teeth would need to have their stepped relationship from their marginal ridges reduced to reduce malocclusion as taught by Sachdeva (paragraph [0184] disclosing adjacent teeth are moved so that their interproximal contact would come into contact such that their discrepancy at their marginal line 722 would be reduced).
Regarding claim 2, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the automatic arrangement module is configured to generate the orthodontic information for automatically arranging the remaining teeth so that any tooth adjacent to the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information comes into contact with the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information (paragraph [0181] all disclosing the system will set up contact points between teeth, Fig. 32 showing a fixed tooth would be contacted by the negative length discrepancy that indicated the moved teeth would be in contact and thus need interproximal reduction, paragraph [0159]).
Regarding claim 3, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the automatic arrangement module is configured to generate the orthodontic information for automatically arranging the non-fixed remaining teeth to allow overlapping and spacing with respect to the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information (Fig. 32 showing a fixed tooth would be contacted by the negative length discrepancy that indicated the moved teeth would be in contact and thus need interproximal reduction, paragraph [0159], the negative discrepancy means the virtual teeth would be overlapping and need space added between them).
Regarding claim 6, Sachdeva further discloses a manual alignment module configured to receive manual alignment information for adjusting the positions of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information to conform to the positions of the teeth automatically arranged by the automatic arrangement module and adjust the positions of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information according to the manual alignment information (paragraph [0192] disclosing that after all previous steps, such as the fixing/immobilizing, the software includes a module to allow the user to “cycle back and repeat any of the previous steps” and which includes “making further adjustment so the proposed arrangement) and , wherein the oral display module is configured to display the corrected shape of the oral cavity adjusted according to the manual alignment information generated by the manual alignment module on the display device (paragraph [0191] the cycle back would display the adjustments and paragraph [0192] disclosing after the user was done with any manual adjustments the system would then “the display of Fig. 48 shows how the patient’s teeth will look at the end of treatment” thus showing the corrected shape after the manual adjustment).
Regarding claim 7, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the manual alignment module is configured to adjust, if the manual alignment information for realigning the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information is received, the positions of the at least one fixed tooth fixed by the fix information to be positioned such that the at least one teeth fixed by the fix information can come into contact with the closest teeth among the teeth automatically arranged in the state of being in contact with adjacent teeth (paragraph [0191] the cycle back would display the adjustments and paragraph [0192] disclosing after the user was done with any manual adjustments the system would then “the display of Fig. 48 shows how the patient’s teeth will look at the end of treatment” thus showing the corrected shape after the manual adjustment and thus if the manually input information would realign the selected fixed/immobilized tooth to contact any of the previously automatically arranged teeth then it would be in contact with them, and the display would then be updated to show that).
Regarding claim 8, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the manual alignment module is configured to adjust and realign, if the manual alignment information for realigning the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information is received, only the positions of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information while the directions of the at least one tooth fixed by the fixed information are fixed (paragraph [0191] the cycle back would display the adjustments and paragraph [0192] disclosing after the user was done with any manual adjustments the system would then “the display of Fig. 48 shows how the patient’s teeth will look at the end of treatment” thus showing the corrected shape after the manual adjustment and thus if the manually input information would realign the selected fixed/immobilized tooth to contact any of the previously automatically arranged teeth then it would be in contact with them, paragraph [0157] reciting “At all times, the user is able to interactively move any tooth or teeth on the graphical user interface relative to the desired arch form, by clicking the tooth to select the tooth and then dragging the tooth with the mouse to a new position” which would include the user only changing the position and not the direction of the tooth).
Regarding claim 9, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the manual alignment module further comprises information for extracting some of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information comprises multiple teeth fixed by the fix information, as the manual alignment information and is configured to adjust and arrange the positions of remaining fixed the multiple teeth fixed by the fix information, excluding the teeth to be extracted (paragraphs [0158] and [0159] disclosing the dynamic tooth adjustment based on the needed extraction of teeth, paragraph [0160] disclosing any tooth or teeth can be selected as immobilized, paragraph [0161] disclosing that afterwards the remaining teeth are automatically moved to an ideal position, and the display shows the length discrepancy for any required tooth extraction, thus in paragraph [0191] the user could extract the immobilized tooth).
Regarding claim 10, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the manual alignment module is configured to calculate, if overlapping or spacing occurs between at least one tooth fixed by the fix information and teeth for which orthodontic information is generated by the automatic arrangement module, overlapping or spacing dimensions thereof (Fig. 39 showing an example of the calculation overlapping/spacing by the length discrepancies), and wherein the oral display module is configured to display the overlapping or spacing dimensions of the teeth, which were calculated by the manual alignment module on the display device (Fig. 39 showing the discrepancies on the display in a numerical format).
Regarding claim 11, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the automatic arrangement module is configured to generate the orthodontic information by automatically arranging the remaining teeth, excluding the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information, along an arch line (paragraph [0160] lines 1-7 disclosing that only the non-immobilized teeth are automatically arranged on the arch form line) and that the arch form is obtained from the oral scan data of the oral information (paragraph [0157] lines 1-6 the designing of the arch form line, lines 21-23 disclosing the user has selected a customized arch form line based on the image of the teeth from the scan oral arrangement).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdeva et al. (US 2004/0197727 A1).
Regarding claims 4, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the automatic arrangement module is configured to generate the orthodontic information for automatically arranging the non-fixed remaining teeth on a side of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information to come into contact with the at least one fixed tooth fixed by the fix information (Fig. 32 showing contact of automatic tooth moving as a result of selected immobile teeth of a negative length discrepancy and thus contact and overlapping in the digital space); and generate, such as when the fixed tooth is a molar, the orthodontic information for automatically arranging the non-fixed remaining teeth on the mesial side of the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information to allow overlapping and spacing with respect to the at least one fixed tooth fixed by the fix information (Fig. 32 showing fixed molar teeth would be contacted by the negative length discrepancy that indicated the non-fixed moved anterior teeth would be in contact and thus need interproximal reduction, paragraph [0159], the negative discrepancy means the virtual teeth would be overlapping and need space added between them), but fails to explicitly disclose where the automatic arrangement would be for contact a distal side of the fixed tooth nor where if the fixed tooth was an incisor it would move the remaining teeth to contact the fixed tooth.
However Sachdeva does disclose that any individual tooth or group of teeth could be fixed/immobilized (paragraph [0160] all disclosing that the user can select teeth to be immobilized/fixed “the user can selectively immobilize teeth or allow their free movement in three planes of space, either individually or in groups”) and thus when an anterior tooth or any of the tooth that would have teeth both on the distal side and mesial side would result in the obviousness for those teeth to be automatically contacted and thus have overlapping in the digital space and allowed for interproximal reduction and proper spacing at taught by Sachdeva (paragraph [0158] all disclosing that teeth are moved “distal and mesial” for tooth movement during space analysis) and such resulting selected immobilized/fixed tooth would naturally occur for some patient’s with such anatomical needs.
Regarding claim 11, Sachdeva further discloses wherein the automatic arrangement module is configured to generate the orthodontic information by automatically arranging the remaining teeth, excluding the at least one tooth fixed by the fix information, along an arch line (paragraph [0160] lines 1-7 disclosing that only the non-immobilized teeth are automatically arranged on the arch form line) and that the arch form is obtained from the oral scan data of the oral information (paragraph [0157] lines 1-6 the designing of the arch form line, lines 21-23 disclosing the user has selected a customized arch form line based on the image of the teeth from the scan oral arrangement).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.P.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 03/18/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772