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 .
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 6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 6:
Step 1 – The claim is drawn to “a system for orthodontic treatment” and is therefore a process.
Step 2A – The claim is drawn to an abstract idea. The abstract idea being a mental process. The
limitations of:
• receiving 3D digital representation
• determining a 3D treatment plan
• determining an intended movement
• deriving an applied force system
• deriving 3D geometries of oral appliances
generating a plurality of appliances
are all data manipulation steps and can be performed by a human mind (i.e. a mental process).
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B- There are no further elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). The steps as disclosed are performed on a generic use computer (i.e. judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 8-15, these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 16:
Step 1 – The claim is drawn to “a system for orthodontic treatment planning” and is therefore a process.
Step 2A – The claim is drawn to an abstract idea. The abstract idea being a mental process. The
limitations of:
• receiving 3D digital representation
• accessing a treatment database
• outputting 3D geometries
are all data manipulation steps and can be performed by a human mind (i.e. a mental process).
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B- There are no further elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). The steps as disclosed are performed on a generic use computer (i.e. judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 17-20, these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-14,16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morton (US 2017/0273760 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morton teaches a method of orthodontic treatment planning (abstract) comprising:
receiving a 3D digital representation of an initial arrangement and a final arrangement of a plurality of teeth ([0006-0007], [0067]).
Morton teaches using a model of resistance (Figs. 7A-7D) to determine tooth movements based on an axis of rotation and an axis of resistance by calculating a distance between them to calculate a preferred velocity value per treatment stage ([0138-0143]). Morton teaches a line of resistance passes through the tooth (see Figures 7A-7D). Morton discloses that although the models in Figures 7A-7D illustrate the axis of resistance and the axis of rotation in a single Cartesian direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the techniques can be applied to all three Cartesian directions in order to characterize tooth movements in three dimensions ([0138], [0143]).
Morton further teaches determined velocity values are stored in a suitable data structure for use in the treatment planning methods described, including data sets and databases. During treatment planning, the data structure(s) can be accessed by a clinician or treatment planning system in order to identify the appropriate velocity value for a particular patient type, tooth type, movement type, and/or movement direction. In some embodiments, in describing the movement of a tooth with discrete names for movement, there may be a loss of precision. Tooth movements in three - dimensional space occur in along a continuum, and determination of axes of rotation and the velocities about these axes can provides for a more precise tooth movement system ([0153-0157]) and the data structure may include simulation or modeling in combination with other types of modifiers or matrices ([0157]).
Therefore, Morton discloses accessing a treatment database comprising data from a plurality of patient treatments ([0153-0157]) and determining tooth movements and velocities by using resistance models each having three lines of resistance in three-dimensions for each treatment stage ([0138-0143]) and the lines of resistance pass through the tooth (see Figures 7A-7C). Morton further teaches storing said determined data in a data structure and using them in the planning ([0153]) and outputting 3D geometries of a plurality of stages in response to a correspondence between the initial arrangement, the final arrangement, and one or more of the plurality of patient treatments (see steps 1120-1150; the appliances according to each stage are designed and generated to be fabricated) and fabricating a plurality of appliances based on the 3D geometries (step 1360, [0175]).
Although Morton does not explicitly disclose the lines of resistance change at each stage in response to tooth movement forces, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the lines of resistance would change at each stage in response to tooth movement forces in the respective stage, because the movements are determined for each stage according to lines of resistance (i.e., resistance to forces) as to achieve incremental repositioning of a tooth and/or teeth. The steps include redetermination of the movements at each stage based on changed lines of resistance and hence different forces, as to move the tooth/teeth from the initial arrangement to a final desired arrangement.
Regarding claim 2, Morton teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the plurality of patient treatments comprise treatments determined by applying an applied force system to a resistance model ([0144], [0153-0157], [0166]).
Regarding claim 3, Morton teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein each of the plurality of patient treatments comprises a plurality of stages derived from resistance model calculations ([0138-0143] and [0153-0157]); the movement velocities determined using the resistance models are stored in a data structure and are used for treatment planning).
Regarding claim 4, Morton teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein each of the plurality of patient treatments comprises a plurality of stages with geometries derived from a center of resistance determined for each of the plurality of stages ([0138-0144] and [0153-0157]); the movement velocities are determined using the resistance models including an axis or center of resistance at each stage and are stored in a data structure).
Regarding claim 5, Morton teaches the method of claim 2 (see rejection above), wherein applying the applied force system further comprises applying a clinical treatment protocol to a three-dimensional (3D) model of the plurality of teeth ([0166]]; the determined movement velocities are intended to be applied to the actual teeth of the patient via physical appliances. The force system is determined by virtual modeling using models of 3D digital models of the teeth such that a treatment plan is simulated and modified using the digital models to determine forces to achieve a desired outcome).
Regarding claim 6, Morton teaches a system for orthodontic treatment (abstract) comprising:
a processor (1502) configured for electronic communication with a fabrication device ([0117], [0107]); and
memory (1508) comprising a tangible medium and including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to carry out a method ([0034]) comprising:
receiving a 3D digital representation of an initial arrangement and a final arrangement of a plurality of teeth ([0006-0007], [0067]).
determining a 3D treatment plan comprising a plurality of 3D stages for rearranging the plurality of teeth from the initial arrangement toward the final arrangement ([0160]);
determining, in accordance with the 3D treatment plan, an intended movement of at least one tooth for each of the plurality of stages ([0144], [0162-0163]);
Morton teaches using a model of resistance (Figs. 7A-7D) to determine tooth movements based on an axis of rotation and an axis of resistance by calculating a distance between them to calculate a preferred velocity value per treatment stage ([0138-0143]). Morton teaches a line of resistance passes through the tooth (see Figures 7A-7D). Morton discloses that although the models in Figures 7A-7D illustrate the axis of resistance and the axis of rotation in a single Cartesian direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the techniques can be applied to all three Cartesian directions in order to characterize tooth movements in three dimensions ([0138], [0143]).
Morton further teaches determined velocity values are stored in a suitable data structure for use in the treatment planning methods described, including data sets and databases. During treatment planning, the data structure(s) can be accessed by a clinician or treatment planning system in order to identify the appropriate velocity value for a particular patient type, tooth type, movement type, and/or movement direction. In some embodiments, in describing the movement of a tooth with discrete names for movement, there may be a loss of precision. Tooth movements in three - dimensional space occur in along a continuum, and determination of axes of rotation and the velocities about these axes can provides for a more precise tooth movement system ([0153-0157]) and the data structure may include simulation or modeling in combination with other types of modifiers or matrices ([0157]).
Therefore Morton teaches deriving, using a 3D resistance model, an applied force system (i.e., movement velocities) for achieving the intended movement of the at least one tooth for each of the plurality of stages, wherein the 3D resistance model comprises three lines of resistance of the at least one tooth at each of the plurality of stages ([0138-0143]), wherein the three lines of resistance pass through the at least one tooth (see Figures 7A-7D) and fabricating a plurality of oral appliances for the plurality of stages based on the applied force system and the 3D resistance model (step 1360, [0175]).
Although Morton does not explicitly disclose the lines of resistance change at each stage in response to tooth movement forces, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the lines of resistance would change at each stage in response to tooth movement forces in the respective stage, because the movements are determined for each stage according to lines of resistance (i.e., resistance to forces) as to achieve incremental repositioning of a tooth and/or teeth. The steps include redetermination of the movements at each stage based on changed lines of resistance and hence different forces, as to move the tooth/teeth from the initial arrangement to a final desired arrangement.
Regarding claim 8, Morton teaches the system of claim 6 (see rejection above), wherein the applied force system is configured to apply a substantially translational force to the at least one tooth in response to the three lines of resistance and a moment to the at least one tooth in response to the three lines of resistance for each of the plurality of stages ([0137], [0142-0143]; the movement velocities may include translational forces and rotational forces).
Regarding claim 12, Morton teaches the system of claim 6 (see rejection above), the method further comprises: calculating the force system in response to the intended movement; and calculating a resistance model representing the at least one tooth for providing the force system on the at least one tooth at each of the plurality of stages ([0137-0143]; the movement velocities are determined for each stage as to move the teeth into desired target positions).
Regarding claim 13, Morton teaches the system of claim 6 (see rejection above), wherein the intended movement is at least one of rotation and translation ([0137], [0142-0143]; the movement velocities may include translational forces and rotational forces).
Regarding claim 14, Morton teaches the system of claim 6 (see rejection above), wherein the resistance model further comprises a translational force and a moment to be applied to the at least one tooth for each of the plurality of stages ([0137], [0142-0143]; the movement velocities may include translational forces and rotational forces and are determined for each treatment stage).
Regarding claim 16, Morton teaches a system of orthodontic treatment planning (abstract) comprising:
a processor (1502) configured for electronic communication with a fabrication device ([0117], [0107]); and
memory (1508) comprising a tangible medium and including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to carry out a method ([0034]) comprising:
receiving a 3D digital representation of an initial arrangement and a final arrangement of a plurality of teeth ([0006-0007], [0067]).
Morton teaches using a model of resistance (Figs. 7A-7D) to determine tooth movements based on an axis of rotation and an axis of resistance by calculating a distance between them to calculate a preferred velocity value per treatment stage ([0138-0143]). Morton teaches a line of resistance passes through the tooth (see Figures 7A-7D). Morton discloses that although the models in Figures 7A-7D illustrate the axis of resistance and the axis of rotation in a single Cartesian direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the techniques can be applied to all three Cartesian directions in order to characterize tooth movements in three dimensions ([0138], [0143]).
Morton further teaches determined velocity values are stored in a suitable data structure for use in the treatment planning methods described, including data sets and databases. During treatment planning, the data structure(s) can be accessed by a clinician or treatment planning system in order to identify the appropriate velocity value for a particular patient type, tooth type, movement type, and/or movement direction. In some embodiments, in describing the movement of a tooth with discrete names for movement, there may be a loss of precision. Tooth movements in three - dimensional space occur in along a continuum, and determination of axes of rotation and the velocities about these axes can provides for a more precise tooth movement system ([0153-0157]) and the data structure may include simulation or modeling in combination with other types of modifiers or matrices ([0157]).
Therefore, Morton discloses accessing a treatment database comprising data from a plurality of patient treatments ([0153-0157]) and determining tooth movements and velocities by using resistance models each having three lines of resistance in three-dimensions for each treatment stage ([0138-0143]) and the lines of resistance pass through the tooth (see Figures 7A-7C). Morton further teaches storing said determined data in a data structure and using them in the planning ([0153]) and outputting 3D geometries of a plurality of stages in response to a correspondence between the initial arrangement, the final arrangement, and one or more of the plurality of patient treatments (see steps 1120-1150; the appliances according to each stage are designed and generated to be fabricated) and fabricating a plurality of appliances based on the 3D geometries (step 1360, [0175]).
Although Morton does not explicitly disclose the lines of resistance change at each stage in response to tooth movement forces, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the lines of resistance would change at each stage in response to tooth movement forces in the respective stage, because the movements are determined for each stage according to lines of resistance (i.e., resistance to forces) as to achieve incremental repositioning of a tooth and/or teeth. The steps include redetermination of the movements at each stage based on changed lines of resistance and hence different forces, as to move the tooth/teeth from the initial arrangement to a final desired arrangement.
Regarding claim 17, Morton teaches the system of claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein the plurality of patient treatments comprise treatments determined by applying an applied force system to a resistance model ([0144], [0153-0157], [0166]).
Regarding claim 18, Morton teaches the system of claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein each of the plurality of patient treatments comprises a plurality of stages derived from resistance model calculations ([0138-0143] and [0153-0157]); the movement velocities determined using the resistance models are stored in a data structure and are used for treatment planning).
Regarding claim 19, Morton teaches the system of claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein each of the plurality of patient treatments comprises a plurality of stages with geometries derived from a center of resistance determined for each of the plurality of stages ([0138-0144] and [0153-0157]); the movement velocities are determined using the resistance models including an axis or center of resistance at each stage and are stored in a data structure).
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.
Claim(s) 9-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2017/0273760A1), and further in view of Cam (US 2019/0000593 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Morton teaches the system of claim 8 (see rejection above), but is silent to explicitly wherein the applied force system comprises a plurality of force vectors, the plurality of force vectors comprising a primary force vector and a resultant force vector to apply forces to the at least one tooth for at least one of the plurality of stages and wherein the plurality of force vectors comprises three or more force vectors for each of the plurality of stages.
Cam teaches a method for orthodontic treatment planning (abstract). The method considers a center of resistance of (a) tooth/teeth for each stage of treatment ([0099-0110]). Cam teaches the treatment planning includes determination of a force system to produce movement of the one or more teeth (step 220) and the force system comprises a plurality of force vectors (574, 586, 576, 575) comprising a primary force vector (574, 586, 576, 575) and a resultant force vector to apply forces to the at least one tooth for at least one of the plurality of stages such that a moment to force ratio is determined based on the model and the combined calculation determined the type of movement the tooth undergoes when forces are applied ([0102]), indicating that a resultant force vector is determined to achieve a ratio of moment-to-force for a desired movement. Cam shows the plurality of force vectors include more than three force vectors (see fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the force system of Morton to include a plurality of force vectors comprising a primary force vector and a resultant force vector, as taught by Cam, because they would provide a clear representation of the magnitudes and directions of forces within the force system.
Regarding claim 11, Morton in view of Cam teaches the method of claim 9 (see rejection above). Cam teaches the appliance may be formed having variable localized properties via, for example, integral components and/or power arms ([0079]) and therefore teaches wherein each of the plurality of oral appliances comprises a power arm. Cam also teaches the force system may include forces such as extrusive force, intrusive force, translational force, rotational force, tipping force, torqueing force, etc. ([0077]) and a moment force may be required to counter another force that causes tipping ([0113]) such forces are considered when a resultant force is determined to achieve a movement of a tooth. According to a definition of power arms in orthodontics, a “power arm” is a mechanical component used to create a moment force by applying a force at a specific distance from the center of resistance of a tooth (see attached NPL).
Although Cam is silent to explicitly wherein the resultant force vector comprises a force from a power arm for application of a force at a location away from a surface of the at least one tooth to provide a moment to the at least one tooth, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the power arms would apply a moment force at a location away from a tooth since power arms apply moment forces to rotate or tip the tooth away from its center of resistance and therefore if power arms are present, the force system would include a moment force caused by the power arms and said force would be at a distance away from the center of resistance of the tooth.
Regarding claim 15, Morton teaches the system of claim 8 (see rejection above), but is silent to explicitly wherein each of the plurality of oral appliances comprises a power arm for applying the translational force and the moment to be applied to the at least one tooth for each of the plurality of stages.
Cam teaches a method for orthodontic treatment planning (abstract). The method considers a center of resistance of (a) tooth/teeth for each stage of treatment ([0099-0110]). Cam teaches the treatment planning includes determination of a force system to produce movement of the one or more teeth (step 220) and the force system comprises a plurality of force vectors to apply forces to the at least one tooth for at least one of the plurality of stages ([0102]). Cam teaches the appliance may be formed having variable localized properties via, for example, integral components and/or power arms ([0079]). Cam also teaches the force system may include forces such as extrusive force, intrusive force, translational force, rotational force, tipping force, torqueing force, etc. ([0077]) and a moment force may be required to counter another force that causes tipping ([0113]) such forces are considered when a resultant force is determined to achieve a movement of a tooth.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include power arms that apply forces such as translational forces and moments to the teeth, as taught by Cam, because such components are well known in the art to offer precise force application and extra anchorage points, which may be necessary to improve and accelerate tooth movements during an orthodontic treatment.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2017/0273760A1), and further in view of Raby et al. (US 2006/0105286 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Morton teaches the system of claim 16 (see rejection above). Morton teaches the data structure used to access the data may include tables ([0153]), but it is silent to it being in the form of a look up table.
Raby et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning (abstract). Raby teaches using modeling software that interact with a database to access a variety of data and the database may be in the form of a look up table ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the database to be in the form of a look up table, as taught by Raby et al., such that it is a well-known form of a database having the data within the database organized and mapped in a manner that facilitates data manipulation and overall use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
The amendments to claims 6-20, directed to the system, do not necessarily recite a physical transformation, which is required to take the claims out of the judicial exception as the claimed limitations can be performed by a generic computer and therefore is considered an abstract idea. The claims recite “a processor configured for electronic communication with a fabrication device” and “the processor cause the system to carry out a method comprising… fabricating, by the fabrication device” are both recited functionally such that the processor must only be capable of communicating with a fabricating device and the system be capable of fabricating the appliances. Therefore, since the fabricating device isn’t positively claimed and the step of fabricating falls under the capabilities of the system, they only carry functional weight since the claims are apparatus claims. Please consider reciting the system comprising: a processor, a fabrication device, and memory comprising a tangible medium… in addition to the limitation of “fabricating, by the fabrication device, a plurality of oral appliances…”.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Applicant argues that the rejection fails to cite any teaching or suggestion in Morton that supports the conclusion of movements for each stage being determined according to lines of resistance (i.e., resistance to forces) and therefore it is not shown how a line of resistance might change at different stages.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Morton teaches the line of resistance being an axis of resistance (708, 728, 748, 768) that passes through a tooth (see Figures 7A-7D) and the axis of resistance being obviously applied to all three Cartesian directions in order to characterize tooth movements in three dimensions ([0138], [0143]) and therefore each of the x, y, and z directions can have an axis of resistance. Morton teaches that the axis of resistance is used to determine the movement type ([0140]) and the movement velocity per treatment stage (see at least [0131], [0137-0143]) and that a movement trajectory for a tooth is determined based on movement velocity ([0046]). Morton further teaches that said target movement velocity and movement trajectory are used to determine each of the plurality of movement stages for repositioning teeth ([0065]). Morton teaches that movements are determined for each tooth independently such that the planned repositioning can be completed independently and asynchronously ([0148]) and that for a tooth, some stages may have no movement and may reach its final position before other teeth do (see at least [0045], [0051], [0148-0149]). Therefore, since each stage for a tooth may require different movement trajectory and velocity for said tooth, and the axis of resistance is considered for said movements per treatment stage (whether it’s modified mid-treatment or planned based on predicted tooth behavior), it would be obvious that an axis of resistance for a tooth would behave differently (i.e., change) per stage, because the movements are different at different stages. As an example, if the stages include two movement stages for a tooth, and the tooth reaches its final position after the first stage, then it would be obvious that the first stage where the tooth has movement with a corresponding axis of resistance compared to the second stage where no or minimal movement is required and the axis of resistance may be zero or close to zero.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
5/22/2026
Prosecution Insights