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 .
Preliminary Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 12/22/23. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, claim 1 has been canceled, and new claims 2-21 have been added. Thus, claims 2-21 are presently pending in the application.
Priority Note
Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. Therefore, claims 2-21 are entitled the filing date of 02/20/2018 since none of the prior-filed applications disclose at least wireless communication.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control module configured to activate…” in claims 1, 9 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin et al. (9,161,878) in view of and Feinstein (9,730,494) and Magi (2015/0185762).
Regarding claim 2, in fig. 1 and 3A-3B Pamplin discloses a compression device configured to be worn by a user and portable during treatment, the compression device comprising: a flex frame (20a Col. 11, ll. 27-30) comprising: a series of struts (21a-i); and a series of spring links (22a-i, Col. 12, ll. 30-48), each spring link of the series of spring links disposed between adjacent struts of the series of struts (Fig. 3A-3B); a shape memory material (shape memory alloy 40) configured to be disposed around the series of struts such that the shape memory material crosses over itself between the adjacent struts of the series of struts (Col. 12, ll. 26-29, Fig. 3A-3B); one or more batteries (Col. 3, ll. 37-40); and a control module 50 comprising one or more operation modes (an on mode of providing current and timing of power as well as the power to the shape memory alloy 40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), the control module is configured to apply electrical current from the one or more batteries to the shape memory material to adjust a length of the shape memory material (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), a length of the flex frame (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), and compression applied to the user (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), but is silent regarding that the control module is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device and apply electrical current to the shape memory material. However, Feinstein teaches a control module that is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device and apply electrical current from the one or more batteries to the shape memory material to adjust a length of the shape memory material (Col. 14, ll. 40-44, Col. 19, ll. 27-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pamplin’s control module with wireless communication with an external device, as taught by Feinstein, for the purpose of allowing for remote adjustment of the device as needed. The modified Pamplin is silent regarding an audio sensor and that the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on a voice command of the user received by the audio sensor. However, Magi teaches an audio sensor (voice commands [0071][0076]) and that the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on a voice command of the user received by the audio sensor (voice commands allow for the adjustment of shape memory alloy [0071][0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of an audio sensor and voice command activation, as taught by Magi, for the purpose of allowing for voice command adjustment of the device as needed.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Pamplin discloses that the flex frame is one of a plurality of flex frames (20a-20d Col. 11, ll. 27-30 Pamplin), and wherein the compression device is configured to sequentially propagate compression in a distal-to-proximal direction (Col. 2, ll. 19-21 Pamplin).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Magi, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Senoue et al. (5,233,974).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding that the compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression. However, Senoue teaches a compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression (Col. 3, ll. 26-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of control of a speed of propagation of compression, as taught by Senoue, for the purpose of sequentially compressing the user’s leg at a speed desired by the operator.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a frequency of compression (Col. 3, ll. 60-63 Pamplin).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a duration of compression (Col. 2, ll. 37-39 Pamplin).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Magi, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Johnson et al. (2017/0312165).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding that the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on machine learning of user patterns. However, Johnson discloses a control module that is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on machine learning of user patterns [0072][0117][0177]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of activating one of the one or more operation modes based on machine learning of user patterns, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of providing convenience, comfort or efficacy of treatment to the user ([0177] Johnson).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Magi, as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Hyde et al. (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding a pressure sensor that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user, and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user. However, Hyde teaches a pressure sensor 108 that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user [0071], and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user ([0071] “responsive to the one or more sensors 108 detecting pressure or force on a body part, the control electrical circuitry 114 can direct the one or more actuators 110 to cause the flexible compression garment 102 to selectively constrict or selectively dilate in a gradient, such as along the at least one body part 104, or in a pulsatile manner substantially as described herein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with a pressure sensor and activation upon donning, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of providing immediate and automatic treatment to the user upon donning.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin et al. (9,161,878) in view of and Feinstein (9,730,494), Magi (2015/0185762) and Johnson et al. (2017/0312165).
Regarding claim 9, in fig. 1 and 3A-3B Pamplin discloses a compression device configured to be worn by a user and portable during treatment, the compression device comprising: a flex frame (20a Col. 11, ll. 27-30) comprising: a series of struts (21a-i); and a series of spring links (22a-i, Col. 12, ll. 30-48), each spring link of the series of spring links disposed between adjacent struts of the series of struts (Fig. 3A-3B); a shape memory material (shape memory alloy 40) configured to be disposed around the series of struts such that the shape memory material crosses over itself between the adjacent struts of the series of struts (Col. 12, ll. 26-29, Fig. 3A-3B); one or more batteries (Col. 3, ll. 37-40); and a control module 50 comprising one or more operation modes (an on mode of providing current and timing of power as well as the power to the shape memory alloy 40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), the control module is configured to direct electrical current from the one or more batteries to the shape memory material to adjust a length of the shape memory material (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), a length of the flex frame (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), and compression applied to the user (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), but is silent regarding that the control module is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device and direct electrical current to the shape memory material. However, Feinstein teaches a control module that is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device and direct electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust a length of the shape memory material (Col. 14, ll. 40-44, Col. 19, ll. 27-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pamplin’s control module with wireless communication with an external device, as taught by Feinstein, for the purpose of allowing for remote adjustment of the device as needed. The modified Pamplin is silent regarding an audio sensor. However, Magi teaches an audio sensor (voice commands [0071][0076]) and a control module that is configured to activate an operation mode based on a voice command of the user received by the audio sensor (voice commands allow for the adjustment of shape memory alloy [0071][0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of an audio sensor and voice command activation, as taught by Magi, for the purpose of allowing for voice command adjustment of the device as needed. The modified Pamplin is silent regarding that the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on machine learning of user patterns. However, Johnson discloses a control module that is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on machine learning of user patterns [0072][0117][0177]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of activating one of the one or more operation modes based on machine learning of user patterns, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of providing convenience, comfort or efficacy of treatment to the user ([0177] Johnson).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Pamplin discloses that the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on a voice command of the user received by the audio sensor (voice commands allow for the adjustment of shape memory alloy [0071][0076] Johnson).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Pamplin discloses that the flex frame is one of a plurality of flex frames (20a-20d Col. 11, ll. 27-30 Pamplin), and wherein the compression device is configured to sequentially propagate compression in a distal-to-proximal direction (Col. 2, ll. 19-21 Pamplin).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein, Magi and Johnson, as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Hyde et al. (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding a pressure sensor that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user, and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user. However, Hyde teaches a pressure sensor 108 that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user [0071], and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user ([0071] “responsive to the one or more sensors 108 detecting pressure or force on a body part, the control electrical circuitry 114 can direct the one or more actuators 110 to cause the flexible compression garment 102 to selectively constrict or selectively dilate in a gradient, such as along the at least one body part 104, or in a pulsatile manner substantially as described herein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with a pressure sensor and activation upon donning, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of providing immediate and automatic treatment to the user upon donning.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein, Magi and Johnson, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Senoue et al. (5,233,974).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a frequency of compression (Col. 3, ll. 60-63 Pamplin) and a duration of compression (Col. 2, ll. 37-39 Pamplin), but is silent regarding that the compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression. However, Senoue teaches a compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression (Col. 3, ll. 26-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of control of a speed of propagation of compression, as taught by Senoue, for the purpose of sequentially compressing the user’s leg at a speed desired by the operator.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin et al. (9,161,878) in view of and Feinstein (9,730,494) and Johnson et al. (2017/0312165).
Regarding claim 14, in fig. 1 and 3A-3B Pamplin discloses a compression device configured to be worn by a user and portable during treatment, the compression device comprising: a flex frame (20a Col. 11, ll. 27-30) comprising: a series of struts (21a-i); and a series of spring links (22a-i, Col. 12, ll. 30-48), each spring link of the series of spring links disposed between adjacent struts of the series of struts (Fig. 3A-3B); a shape memory material (shape memory alloy 40) configured to be disposed around the series of struts such that the shape memory material crosses over itself between the adjacent struts of the series of struts (Col. 12, ll. 26-29, Fig. 3A-3B); and a control module 50 comprising one or more operation modes (an on mode of providing current and timing of power as well as the power to the shape memory alloy 40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), the control module is configured to direct electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust a length of the shape memory material (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), a length of the flex frame (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), and compression applied to the user (Col. 3, ll. 37-40, Col. 11, ll. 39-45), but is silent regarding that the control module is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device and direct electrical current to the shape memory material. However, Feinstein teaches a control module that is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device and direct electrical current to the shape memory material to adjust a length of the shape memory material (Col. 14, ll. 40-44, Col. 19, ll. 27-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pamplin’s control module with wireless communication with an external device, as taught by Feinstein, for the purpose of allowing for remote adjustment of the device as needed. The modified Pamplin is silent regarding a control panel with one or more inputs, wherein the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on a command of the user received by way of the one or more inputs of the control panel. However, in fig. 28 Johnson teaches a control panel with one or more inputs [0208], wherein a control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on a command of the user received by way of the one or more inputs of the control panel ([0208] describes keys, buttons, GUI or a touch screen for providing input such as increased or decreased compression mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with the addition of a control panel, as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of allowing for user adjustment of the device as needed.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Pamplin discloses that the flex frame is one of a plurality of flex frames (20a-20d Col. 11, ll. 27-30 Pamplin), and wherein the compression device is configured to sequentially propagate compression in a distal-to-proximal direction (Col. 2, ll. 19-21 Pamplin).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Johnson, as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Senoue et al. (5,233,974).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding that the compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression. However, Senoue teaches a compression device is configured to control a speed of propagation of compression (Col. 3, ll. 26-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of control of a speed of propagation of compression, as taught by Senoue, for the purpose of sequentially compressing the user’s leg at a speed desired by the operator.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Pamplin discloses that the compression device is configured to control a frequency of compression (Col. 3, ll. 60-63 Pamplin) and a duration of compression (Col. 2, ll. 37-39 Pamplin).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Johnson, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Hyde et al. (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding a pressure sensor that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user, and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user. However, Hyde teaches a pressure sensor 108 that detects when the compression device has been placed on the user [0071], and wherein the control module is configured to activate when the pressure sensor detects that the compression device has been placed on the user ([0071] “responsive to the one or more sensors 108 detecting pressure or force on a body part, the control electrical circuitry 114 can direct the one or more actuators 110 to cause the flexible compression garment 102 to selectively constrict or selectively dilate in a gradient, such as along the at least one body part 104, or in a pulsatile manner substantially as described herein”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with a pressure sensor and activation upon donning, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of providing immediate and automatic treatment to the user upon donning.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Johnson, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Magi (2015/0185762).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding an audio sensor and that the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on a voice command of the user received by the audio sensor. However, Magi teaches an audio sensor (voice commands [0071][0076]) and that the control module is configured to activate one of the one or more operation modes based on a voice command of the user received by the audio sensor (voice commands allow for the adjustment of shape memory alloy [0071][0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s control module with the addition of an audio sensor and voice command activation, as taught by Magi, for the purpose of allowing for voice command adjustment of the device as needed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Johnson, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Deshpande (2012/0078146) and Hyde (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding an orientation sensor. However, Deshpande teaches an orientation sensor [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with the addition of an orientation sensor, as taught by Deshpande, for the purpose of allowing for altered compression depending on the orientation of the user’s limb ([0027] Deshpande). The modified Pamplin is silent regarding a location system. However, Hyde teaches a location system [0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with the addition of an a location system, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of allowing for altered compression depending on the location information of the user’s limb ([0075] Hyde).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplin, Feinstein and Johnson, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Hyde (2016/0220808).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Pamplin is silent regarding an optical sensor. However, Hyde teaches an optical pulse sensor [0077]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Pamplin’s device with the addition of an optical sensor, as taught by Hyde, for the purpose of allowing for altered compression depending on the optical sensor readings ([0077] Hyde).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kazanchyan et al. (2016/0331620) directed towards a compression device, Wyatt et al. (2015/0065930) directed towards a compression device and Holschuh et al. (2017/0304136) directed towards a compression device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights