DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed 10/02/2023, in which claims 1-23 are pending and ready for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “606” has been used to designate both “Network I/O Interface(s)” and “User I/O Interface(s)” in Fig. 6 and in paragraph 65 of the instant application’s pre-grant publication (pgpub).
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. 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 § 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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method of arranging orthodontic brackets,” which is a process, and therefore a statutory category. Meanwhile, claim 22 recites “At least one non-transitory computer readable medium,” which is a product, and thus is also a statutory category. Claim 23 recites “A system,” which is also a statutory category.
At Step 2A, prong one, claims 1, 22, and 23 recite a series of limitations that involve obtaining one or more three-dimensional geometrical models of a plurality of teeth, obtaining one or more three dimensional geometrical models of a brackets, determining values for a plurality of positional parameters that optimize a cost function, and arranging the geometrical models of the brackets relative to the geometrical models of the teeth according to the determined values. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are directed to the abstract ideas of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind and mathematical concepts, and thus directed to the mental processes grouping and mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Specifically, the abstract idea include the limitations of:
“obtaining one or more three-dimensional (3D) geometrical models for a plurality of teeth of a patient; obtaining one or more 3D geometrical models for a plurality of brackets to be arranged on respective teeth of the plurality of teeth; determining values for a plurality of positional parameters that optimize a master cost function, wherein the plurality of positional parameters are each indicative of a position of one or more of the plurality of brackets; and arranging the one or more 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets relative to the one or more 3D geometrical models for the plurality of teeth according to the determined values of the plurality of positional parameters” in claim 1,. Analogous claims are found in respective independent claims 22 and 23, and analyzed the same as claim 1.
The limitations in question can essentially be interpreted to include a mentally obtaining, for example by observation, three dimensional models of a patient’s teeth and models of brackets on the teeth. Then, mentally and mathematically determining values for a plurality of position parameters that are for a position of the brackets, and that optimize a cost function, meaning a mental and mathematical optimization problem is considered. Finally, a mental arrangement, that can include with an aid such as paper and pencil, of the plurality of bracket models relative to the teeth models, is determined based on the mentally and mathematically determined positional parameters. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping and mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
At step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 22, and 23 respectively recite “using at least one processor.” Claims 22 and 23 further recite “at least one non-transitory computer readable medium.”
At Step 2B, while the claims include additional elements as noted above in Step 2A prong 2, they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of processors and mediums amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. These are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that the represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims 2-21, similarly recite an abstract idea of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind and mathematical concepts, without significantly more. Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, respectively recite further aspects of the cost functions and characteristics of the models that can be mentally and mathematically considered in optimization problem. Claim 7 also recites mentally and mathematically of optimization and enforcement constraints in consideration mentally considering archwire characteristics. Claims 8, 9, 10 respectively recite consideration of various other parameters. Claim 11 recites limitations of mere data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), and also recites mental determination of cost function based on the data gathering. Claim 12 recites a mental determination of a path based on values, and determining an arrangement of the models. Claim 13 recites mental identification of control points by determining values and a spline. Claim 14 recites mental determination of values for optimization. Claim 15 recites mental considerations of the parameters. Claim 16 recites mentally devising modified models based on arranged models. Claims 17 and 20 respectively recite mentally determining instructions, for example code or programs, that can be used for fabrication. Claims 18 and 21 respectively recite post solution activity. Claim 19 recites mentally devising a model of a tray based on mentally derived modified models.
The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,098,709 to Kitching et al., (hereinafter Kitching), in view of “Constraint Optimization” Chapter 13, Constraint Processing, 2003 pp 363-397, by Dechter (hereinafter Dechter).
Regarding claim 1, Kitching teaches a computer-implemented method of arranging orthodontic brackets, the method comprising: using at least one processor:
obtaining one or more three-dimensional (3D) geometrical models for a plurality of teeth of a patient (Teeth displayed in design application, see C8 L58-60, C11 L7-15, C15 L20-32, Kitching);
obtaining one or more 3D geometrical models for a plurality of brackets to be arranged on respective teeth of the plurality of teeth (Brackets displayed in design application, see C15 L20-32, C8 L58-60, Kitching);
determining values for a plurality of positional parameters that optimize a master cost function, wherein the plurality of positional parameters are each indicative of a position of one or more of the plurality of brackets (Constrained optimization problem with an overall (master) problem with position placement optimization and design parameters, thus there is a master objective cost function, by the nature of a constrained optimization problem, with positional parameters in view of minimization, see C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching); and arranging the one or more 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets relative to the one or more 3D geometrical models for the plurality of teeth according to the determined values of the plurality of positional parameters (Brackets are positioned while manufacturing and design constraints are met, meaning an arrangement based on the optimization values, see C11 L5-64, 9C8L65-67, C9L 10-34, C16 L17-35, Kitching).
Although, a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that a constrained optimization problem encompasses objective/cost functions, Dechter, from the same or similar field of optimization, more explicitly teaches a cost function (Formalizing a constraint optimization problem entails formulation of a cost function, also known as an objective function, see pg. 363 paras 1-2, Pg. 364-365 Sec. 13.1, Pg. 363-364, Dechter)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic design and optimization as described by Kitching and incorporating a cost function, as taught by Dechter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to properly formulate an optimization problem into its mathematical form considering desired objective to be minimized (or maximized) (see Pg. 363-364, Dechter; C16 L14-30, C6, C4, Kitching).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein: a master cost function is a function of one or more bracket cost functions for each of a plurality of brackets (An overall multi-objective (thus encompassing a plurality of objective/cost functions), is a constrained optimization problem with mathematical formulation, and includes bracket position optimization, see C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching); and one or more bracket cost functions for a respective bracket of the plurality of brackets are each a function of one or more of a plurality of positional parameters (An overall multi-objective (thus encompassing a plurality of objective/cost functions), is a constrained optimization problem with mathematical formulation, and includes bracket position optimization, and thus position parameters, see C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein the one or more bracket cost functions for the respective bracket comprise one or more of: an in-out cost function that is a function of the respective bracket's facial-lingual position (In-out consideration, see C13 L22-55, C6 L54-58, C12 L20-23, Fig. 6, Fig. 19H, C6L64-65, Kitching); a bracket wall thickness cost function that is a function of the respective bracket's facial-lingual position (Facial-lingual, and wall and thickness considerations, see C6L64 to C7L12, C13 L57 to C14L10, Fig. 3, Kitching); a bracket boundary cost function that is a function of the respective bracket's mesial- distal position (Consideration of labial distance constraint, C13 L22-55, C14 L11-19, Kitching ); and a facial axis (FA) point cost function that is a function of the respective bracket's mesial-distal position (Facial axis direction, mesio-distal considerations, see C11 L20-28, C6 L54 to C7 L16, 58, Fig. 7, C13 L35-45, C6 L54-58, Fig. 6, Fig. 19G, Fig. 20, Fig. 2, Kitching).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein the one or more bracket cost functions for the respective bracket comprise an upper teeth and lower bracket intersection cost function( Intersection considered in optimization, see C13 L24-35, C14 L20-35, Kitching )
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches teaches a master cost function of one or more bracket cost functions for each of a plurality of brackets (An overall multi-objective (thus encompassing a plurality of objective/cost functions), is a constrained optimization problem with mathematical formulation, and includes bracket position optimization, see C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching).
Dechter further teaches a weighted sum (Weighted sum, see pg. 364 3rd para., Dechter)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic design and optimization as described by the combination that includes Kitching and incorporating a weighted sum, as taught by Dechter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better prioritized desired parameters of a multi-objective optimization (see pg. 364 3rd para, Dechter).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein a plurality of positional parameters comprise at least one positional parameter for each of a plurality of brackets that indicate a position of the bracket relative to a tooth of the plurality of teeth on which the bracket is to be arranged (position parameters on teeth, see C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein determining values for a plurality of positional parameters that optimize a master cost function comprises: optimizing at least one positional parameter for each of a plurality of brackets while enforcing a condition that each of the plurality of brackets is aligned on an archwire plane, and wherein the positional parameters include one or more one or more parameters indicating an orientation of the archwire plane (Archwire considerations of archwire plane, in a multi-objective mathematical optimization of bracket placement, see C14 L20-39, Fig. 8, Fig. 20, C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching ).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein a positional parameters include one or more facial-lingual offset parameters(Facial- lingual clearances, thus offset parameters considered, see C1 L59-63, C7 L1-7, Fig 3, Fig. 7, Kitching).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein the positional parameters include one or more mesial-distal offset parameters (Mesio-distal movement consideration, thus offset, see Fig. 19C, G, C11 L49-58, C13 L5-21, Fig. 6, Kitching)..
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein a positional parameters include one or more one or more archwire plane parameters (Archwire considerations, see C11 L49-58, Fig. 8, Kitching).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches further comprising, using a at least one processor: receiving user input specifying initial positions of the 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets with respect to the one or more 3D geometrical models for the plurality of teeth (Initial positioning, see C11L7-15, C7L23-27, C7L37-40, Fig. 9, fig. 15, Kitching); and determining an initial value of a master cost function based on values of a plurality of positional parameters indicated by a specified initial positions of the 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets (Optimization is performed based on initial positions, and iteratively thereafter, see C11 L7-15, C16, C7L23-27, C7L37-40, Fig. 9, fig. 15, Kitching).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein arranging the 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets comprises: determining an archwire path based on the determined values of the plurality of parameters; and arranging the 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets along the archwire path (Archwire curve path determined , where the archwire has brackets, see C11L32-39, C8 L21-30, C8L42-50, Kitching ).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein determining values of a plurality of parameters that optimize a master cost function comprises determining values of a plurality of parameters that minimize a master cost function (Constrained optimization problem with an overall (master) problem with position placement optimization and design parameters, thus there is a master objective cost function, by the nature of a constrained optimization problem, with positional parameters in view of minimization, see C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, KitchingC6L64 to C7L12, LC8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching ).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein a positional parameters include positional parameters indicative of a position of one or more brackets for an upper arch of a patient and positional parameters indicative of the position of one or more brackets for a lower arch of a patient (Position optimization, that includes mandibular and maxillary (lower upper) arch consideration, see C7 L37-44, C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, C15 L17-20, C16 L17-35, C11 L49-58, C8L52-57, C9L 10-16, Kitching).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches further comprising, using at least one processor, generating modified 3D geometrical models of a plurality of brackets based on relative positions of the arranged 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets and the one or more 3D geometrical models for the plurality of teeth (Modifying design and model, see C9L 10-34, Fig. 16, 17, Kitching).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches further comprising, using the at least one processor, generating instructions that, when executed by an additive fabrication device, fabricates a plurality of patient brackets according to the modified 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets (Machine code for manufacturing brackets, see C3 L60-65, Kitching ).
Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claims 13 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching, in view of Dechter, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0304774 to Wratten, Jr. et al., (hereinafter Wratten)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches wherein determining an archwire path comprises identifying a plurality of control points indicated by a determined values of a plurality of parameters (An arch wire curve path, and control, see Fig. 19A, C7 L36-45, C14 L20-39, Fig. 8, Fig. 20, C6 L31-40, C4 L6-14, Kitching)
Kitching does not explicitly teach generating a spline based on the identified plurality of control points.
However, Wratten from the same or similar field of orthodontic treatments teaches generating a spline based on identified plurality of control points (A model can be on spline on basis of determine data points, see 1025-26, Wratten)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic design and optimization as described by the combination that includes Kitching and incorporating spline generation, as taught by Wratten.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to visually represent an object of interest with a known visual model type (see 1025-26, Wratten).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches further comprising fabricating a plurality of patient brackets using a fabrication device (Manufacturing brackets, see C3 L60-65, Kitching ).
Kitching does not explicitly teach additive fabrication device.
However, Wratten from the same or similar field of orthodontic treatments teaches additive fabrication device (Additive manufacturing, see 816, Wratten)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic design and optimization as described by the combination that includes Kitching and incorporating additive manufacturing, as taught by Wratten.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to form a needed physical object with a known deposition technique and device that permits adding material, and is known for rapid prototyping of physical models (see 816, Wratten).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches a modified 3D geometrical models of the plurality of brackets (Modifying design and model with brackets, see C9L 10-34, Fig. 16, 17, Kitching)
Kitching does not explicitly teach generating a 3D geometrical model of a bonding tray based on 3D geometrical models.
However, Wratten from the same or similar field of orthodontic treatments teaches generating a 3D geometrical model of a bonding tray based on 3D geometrical models (Bonding tray determined based on brackets, 771-772, Fig. 10, 11, Wratten).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic design and optimization as described by the combination that includes Kitching and incorporating bonding tray, as taught by Wratten.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider a device that facilitates attaching braces to a patient in specified determined locations (see 771-772, Fig. 10, 11, Wratten).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kitching and Dechter teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Kitching further teaches using at least one processor, generating instructions that, when executed by an additive fabrication device, fabricates an object according to a 3D geometrical model of the object (Machine code for manufacturing designed objects, see C3 L60-65, Kitching ).
Kitching does not explicitly teach a bonding tray and additive fabrication device for the tray.
However, Wratten from the same or similar field of orthodontic treatments teaches a bonding tray and additive fabrication device for the tray (Additive manufacturing a bonding tray can be fabricated , see 773, 816, Wratten)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic design and optimization as described by the combination that includes Kitching and incorporating additive manufacturing and bonding tray manufacturing, as taught by Wratten.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to form a needed physical object with a known deposition technique and device that permits adding material, and is known for rapid prototyping of physical models, order to form a needed physical object with a known deposition technique and device that permits adding material, better user a device that facilitates attaching braces to a patient in specified determined locations (see 771-772, 816, Fig. 10, 11, Wratten) .
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kitching, Dechter, Wratten teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Wratten further teaches fabricating a bonding tray using an additive fabrication device. (Bonding tray can be fabricated with additive manufacturing, 773, , 816, Wratten)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic design and optimization as described by the combination that includes Kitching and incorporating additive manufacturing and bonding tray manufacturing, as taught by Wratten.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to form a needed physical object with a known deposition technique and device that permits adding material, and is known for rapid prototyping of physical models, order to form a needed physical object with a known deposition technique and device that permits adding material, better user a device that facilitates attaching braces to a patient in specified determined locations (see 771-772, 816, Fig. 10, 11, Wratten) .
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sachdeva et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2004/0214129 teaches orthodontic appliance optimization that includes retrieving models of orthodontic structure of a patient (i.e. teeth) and archwire receptacles (i.e. bracket), and optimizing for force.
Moss et al,, US. Patent No. 8,401,686 teaches fabricating dental appliance where teeth are digitized, virtual brackets are added, a digital model is produced and fabricated.
Griffin III, US. Patent Publication No. 2020/0401104 teaches fabrication and customization of labial and lingual orthodontic brackets.
Wang et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2020/0100864 teaches a cost function and use of least squares to find a local minimum of the cost function (e.g., using the Levenberg-Marquardt method).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117