DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (1-10 and 17-24) is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the insert configured to eliminate an overhang or undercut in the first mold portion (claim 22) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig 6-7 shows a label for insert 311 but nothing is shown (relevant portion shown below):
PNG
media_image1.png
528
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7, 17-20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 7, there is no support for separating as claimed.
In reference to claim 17, there is no support for “wherein the aligning the first mold portion with the second mold portion to form the mold assembly comprises aligning the first mold portion with the second mold portion to form a complete mold”
The specification teaches aligning two mold portions to form a mold. There is not support for a multi-step process where a mold is formed and further comprises forming a complete mold.
In reference to claim 24, there is no support for the defining an insert or defining a slot as claimed.
Note: Claims 18-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 17, in the limitation “wherein the aligning the first mold portion with the second mold portion to form the mold assembly comprises aligning the first mold portion with the second mold portion to form a complete mold” it is unclear what it means for a mold to be complete. The mold is formed in claim 1 by joining two mold portions. What does complete mean in this context?
In reference to claim 17, in the limitation “the second recess” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Note: Claims 18-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-5, 7, 9-10 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (US 20160100917 A1) and in view of Howe591 (US 20210015591 A1)
In reference to claim 1, Howe discloses a method of producing a partial denture (“The instant method and apparatus are applicable to other dental prostheses such as partial denture prostheses” [P0125]), comprising:
producing, via additive manufacturing, a first mold portion having a first recess based on a tooth portion of a patient mouth; (“the bottom and top molds 60 and 80 may be fabricated using 3D printing” [P0085]. See Fig 4)
producing, via additive manufacturing, a second mold portion having a second recess based on a gum portion of the patient mouth; (“the bottom and top molds 60 and 80 may be fabricated using 3D printing” [P0085]. See Fig 4)
…
aligning the first mold portion with the second mold portion to form a mold assembly having a cavity defined by the first recess and the second recess; (see Fig 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
542
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
filling the cavity with a resin; and (“the mold cavity 72 has been completely filled with injected fluid synthetic denture base material” [P0088])
removing the partial denture from the mold, the partial denture formed by the resin and the at least one artificial tooth (“When the layer 30 or layers 30 and 40 (and any additional layers) of teeth are completed, the molds 140 and 120 are removed.” [P0118]).
Howe, in their invention, forms an artificial tooth in the recess whereas the claim places an artificial tooth in the recess.
Howe discloses that positioning at least one artificial tooth in the first recess for denture fabrication was known (e.g., “U.S. Pat. No. 8,641,938, at present commonly owned by the Applicant, discloses manufacturing a denture by starting with a disc of pink denture base acrylic, then milling cavities for artificial teeth, then adding liquid artificial tooth acrylic into the prepared cavities and curing the material,” [P0029]).
However, since the thrust of the Howe disclosure is to form the tooth in the mold, a stronger rejection is made here by reliance on another disclosure by Howe.
In a later publication Howe591 (the same Howe), in the same field of endeavor, discloses a similar invention of a method of producing a partial denture, comprising:
producing, via additive manufacturing, a first mold portion having a first recess based on a tooth portion of a patient mouth; (“b) fabricating the mold form, including a first mold surface corresponding to the external surface of the denture, by 3D printing mold form material;” [Claim 12] and see Fig 4)
producing, via additive manufacturing, a second mold portion having a second recess based on a gum portion of the patient mouth; (“b) fabricating the mold form, including a first mold surface corresponding to the external surface of the denture, by 3D printing mold form material;” [Claim 12] and see Fig 4)
positioning at least one artificial tooth in the first recess; (“d) placing denture teeth in the tooth sockets of the mold block;” [Claim 12] See Fig 5 and description thereof, e.g., “FIG. 5, in step 150, denture teeth 14 that were selected in the denture fabrication steps 110 are placed in the tooth sockets 43 of the mold block 40. The covers 32 and 34 are fitted to the mold fixture 30, forming a denture base cavity 38 therein.” [P0048])
PNG
media_image3.png
508
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
filling the cavity with a resin; and removing the partial denture from the mold, the partial denture formed by the resin and the at least one artificial tooth (Fig 6 and description thereof, e.g., “Referring to FIG. 6, in step 160, liquid denture base material is delivered into the denture base cavity and cast against the denture base surface portion 42 of the mold block material 40 and against bases of the denture teeth 14.” [P0049])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a preformed tooth as the denture tooth in the manner as claimed..
A person of skill in the art interested in the practice of the invention would have discovered Howe and found that they teach the use of 3D printed two-part molds and placing preformed teeth in 3d printed molds to form dentures. It would have been immediately apparent that preformed teeth could be placed in 3D printed two-part molds.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020) and explains that “Via the use of software, a dental professional may create any shape and color of teeth to match the clinical and aesthetic needs of the patient, and the method and apparatus can be employed to make them to order.” (P0045)
It would have been obvious to design the denture such that a rotten tooth was removed and to replace it with an artificial tooth. Using a computer to perform parts modeling and design was obvious at the time of filing.
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
In reference to claim 3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
This is generic quality control and is obvious on its face.
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020)
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
In reference to claim 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe’s figures show that the artificial tooth is located with the widest portion at the base. This is the same as the claim.
In reference to claim 7 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “mold designs allow the respective sections to be separated individual” (P0092).
In reference to claim 9 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe demonstrates that a tooth can be formed by 3d printing (“In order to mold at the second (enamel) portion 40 of the denture teeth, a three-dimensional model of a second bottom denture tooth mold is produced using 3D CAD design software.” [P0100])
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses ““diatoric” holes are often cut into the bottom or side of the tooth, or both, to allow acrylic material to flow in an optimal path to increase the surface area and create mechanical retention in a tooth” (P0026)
In reference to claim 17 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Fig 1-4 of Howe shows a jaw impression.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020)
It would have been obvious to design the denture such that a rotten tooth was removed and to replace it with an artificial tooth. Using a computer to perform parts modeling and design was obvious at the time of filing.
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
Howe disclose injecting (Claim 1).
In reference to claim 18 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020) and explains that “Via the use of software, a dental professional may create any shape and color of teeth to match the clinical and aesthetic needs of the patient, and the method and apparatus can be employed to make them to order.” (P0045)
It would have been obvious to design the denture such that a rotten tooth was removed and to replace it with an artificial tooth. Using a computer to perform parts modeling and design was obvious at the time of filing.
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
In reference to claim 19 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses that “the mold may be cut or milled away.” (P0095).
In reference to claim 20 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe’s figures show that the artificial tooth is located with the widest portion at the base. This is the same as the claim.
In reference to claim 21 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses that “the bottom mold 60 is removably joined to the top mold 80 by a clamp” (P0084).
In reference to claim 23 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “removing molding sprues from the denture and polishing the denture base” (P0034). See Fig 3C.
Claim 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (US 20160100917 A1) and in view of Howe (US 20210015591 A1) and further in view of Lichkus (US 20020068258 A1)
In reference to claim 6 and 8, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses the injected material can be PMMA (P0089). PMMA melts at a lower temperature than claimed.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, molded dentures, Lichkus discloses a similar method (e.g., “injecting substantially transparent thermoplastic into a first portion of a mold cavity of a mold containing an artificial tooth” [P0011]) and the use of nylon for molding of dentures and demonstrates a commercial nylon (polyamide) product that is processed at 300C (Table 1) in order “to provide a removable partial dental prosthesis which is capable of restoring oral function and dental and facial aesthetics” (P0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use as the molded material of Lichkus that is processed at 300C and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. If the molded resin is 300C then the mold must be capable of withstanding 300C.
Claim 1-5, 7, 9-10 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe591 (US 20210015591 A1) in view of Howe (US 20160100917 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Howe591 discloses a method of producing a partial denture (“method is also applicable to maxillary dentures and partial dentures.” [P0042]), comprising:
producing, via additive manufacturing, a first mold portion having a first recess based on a tooth portion of a patient mouth; (“the mold form 40 may be produced using an additive process such as 3D printing” [P0052]))
producing, via additive manufacturing, a second mold portion having a second recess based on a gum portion of the patient mouth; (“the mold form 40 may be produced using an additive process such as 3D printing” [P0052])
positioning at least one artificial tooth in the first recess; (“d) placing denture teeth in the tooth sockets of the mold block;” [Claim 12] See Fig 5 and description thereof, e.g., “FIG. 5, in step 150, denture teeth 14 that were selected in the denture fabrication steps 110 are placed in the tooth sockets 43 of the mold block 40. The covers 32 and 34 are fitted to the mold fixture 30, forming a denture base cavity 38 therein.” [P0048])
PNG
media_image3.png
508
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
filling the cavity with a resin; and removing the partial denture from the mold, the partial denture formed by the resin and the at least one artificial tooth (Fig 6 and description thereof, e.g., “Referring to FIG. 6, in step 160, liquid denture base material is delivered into the denture base cavity and cast against the denture base surface portion 42 of the mold block material 40 and against bases of the denture teeth 14.” [P0049])
Howe591 uses single part mold thus does not perform aligning the first mold portion with the second mold portion to form a mold assembly having a cavity defined by the first recess and the second recess as claimed.
In an earlier publication Howe (the same Howe), in the same field of endeavor, discloses a similar invention of a method of producing a partial denture, comprising:
producing, via additive manufacturing, a first mold portion having a first recess based on a tooth portion of a patient mouth; (“the bottom and top molds 60 and 80 may be fabricated using 3D printing” [P0085]. See Fig 4)
producing, via additive manufacturing, a second mold portion having a second recess based on a gum portion of the patient mouth; (“the bottom and top molds 60 and 80 may be fabricated using 3D printing” [P0085]. See Fig 4)
…
aligning the first mold portion with the second mold portion to form a mold assembly having a cavity defined by the first recess and the second recess; (see Fig 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
542
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
filling the cavity with a resin; and (“the mold cavity 72 has been completely filled with injected fluid synthetic denture base material” [P0088])
removing the partial denture from the mold, the partial denture formed by the resin and the at least one artificial tooth (“When the layer 30 or layers 30 and 40 (and any additional layers) of teeth are completed, the molds 140 and 120 are removed.” [P0118]).
Thus, Howe demonstrates that a person of skill in the art would have known that two part molds were suitable for forming dental devices.
Howe explains that such use of 3d printed molds allows for benefits including that “these custom made “one of a kind” molds for making a denture to fit a specific patient may be made at low cost.” (P0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a the two piece mold construction of Howe in the method and thereby arrive at the method as claimed.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020) and explains that “Via the use of software, a dental professional may create any shape and color of teeth to match the clinical and aesthetic needs of the patient, and the method and apparatus can be employed to make them to order.” (P0045)
It would have been obvious to design the denture such that a rotten tooth was removed and to replace it with an artificial tooth. Using a computer to perform parts modeling and design was obvious at the time of filing.
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
In reference to claim 3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
This is generic quality control and is obvious on its face.
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020)
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
In reference to claim 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe’s figures show that the artificial tooth is located with the widest portion at the base. This is the same as the claim.
In reference to claim 7 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “mold designs allow the respective sections to be separated individual” (P0092).
In reference to claim 9 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe demonstrates that a tooth can be formed by 3d printing (“In order to mold at the second (enamel) portion 40 of the denture teeth, a three-dimensional model of a second bottom denture tooth mold is produced using 3D CAD design software.” [P0100])
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses ““diatoric” holes are often cut into the bottom or side of the tooth, or both, to allow acrylic material to flow in an optimal path to increase the surface area and create mechanical retention in a tooth” (P0026)
In reference to claim 17 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Fig 1-4 of Howe shows a jaw impression.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020)
It would have been obvious to design the denture such that a rotten tooth was removed and to replace it with an artificial tooth. Using a computer to perform parts modeling and design was obvious at the time of filing.
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
Howe disclose injecting (Claim 1).
In reference to claim 18 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “scanner for scanning an impression, software for creating a three-dimensional model of the denture” (P0020) and explains that “Via the use of software, a dental professional may create any shape and color of teeth to match the clinical and aesthetic needs of the patient, and the method and apparatus can be employed to make them to order.” (P0045)
It would have been obvious to design the denture such that a rotten tooth was removed and to replace it with an artificial tooth. Using a computer to perform parts modeling and design was obvious at the time of filing.
Howe demonstrates that the mold is formed as a negative space of the tooth and gum regions.
In reference to claim 19 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses that “the mold may be cut or milled away.” (P0095).
In reference to claim 20 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe’s figures show that the artificial tooth is located with the widest portion at the base. This is the same as the claim.
In reference to claim 21 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses that “the bottom mold 60 is removably joined to the top mold 80 by a clamp” (P0084).
In reference to claim 23 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses “removing molding sprues from the denture and polishing the denture base” (P0034). See Fig 3C.
Claim 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (US 20210015591 A1) in view of Howe (US 20160100917 A1) and further in view of Lichkus (US 20020068258 A1)
In reference to claim 6 and 8, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Howe discloses the injected material can be PMMA (P0089). PMMA melts at a lower temperature than claimed.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, molded dentures, Lichkus discloses a similar method (e.g., “injecting substantially transparent thermoplastic into a first portion of a mold cavity of a mold containing an artificial tooth” [P0011]) and the use of nylon for molding of dentures and demonstrates a commercial nylon (polyamide) product that is processed at 300C (Table 1) in order “to provide a removable partial dental prosthesis which is capable of restoring oral function and dental and facial aesthetics” (P0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use as the molded material of Lichkus that is processed at 300C and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. If the molded resin is 300C then the mold must be capable of withstanding 300C.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20240028782 provides an a computer-implemented method and system of virtual dental restoration design automation includes: receiving a 3D virtual dental model of at least a portion of a patient's dentition, the 3D virtual dental model comprising at least one virtual preparation tooth, the virtual preparation tooth comprising a digital representation of a physical preparation tooth prepared by a dentist; performing an automated virtual restoration design using the 3D virtual dental model; displaying virtually to the dentist one or more physical preparation tooth issues detected while performing the automated virtual restoration design; and displaying virtually to the dentist a generated virtual restoration for one or more adjustments where no physical preparation tooth issues are detected while performing the automated virtual restoration design.
US 20240029380 A1 provides a method and system receives a 3D digital dental model representing at least a portion of a patient's dentition, automatically determines a virtual dental preparation site in the 3D digital dental model using a first neural network, automatically generates a 3D digital dental prosthesis model in the 3D digital dental model using a second trained generative deep neural network and automatically routes the 3D digital dental model comprising the virtual 3D dental prosthesis model to a quality control (“QC”) user.
US 20240346788 A1 provides a computer-implemented method for adjusting an arrangement of a plurality of three-dimensional digital tooth models for a dental restoration. A three-dimensional digital teeth model comprising the plurality of the three-dimensional digital tooth models is received. A first input is received selecting one or more of the three-dimensional digital tooth models. A second input is received defining a modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models. The selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models are modified according to the second input. While the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models are modified according to the second input, adjustments of a geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models are automatically calculated and applying. Furthermore, adjustments of a set of remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models of the three-dimensional digital teeth model depending on the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models are automatically calculated and applied. The resulting adjusted three-dimensional digital teeth model is provided for manufacturing the dental restoration.
KR20120107470A shows digital processing of dentures.
The cited NPLs provide background information.
The other cited patent documents are generally pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights