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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)). For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-7, 10-20, 26-27, and 44-46 is 12/15/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein outputting further comprises transforming [[the]] a stage of the plurality of stages" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claims 14 and 19, which claim 20 depends on, do not recite a method step of “outputting”. For examination purposes, Examiner is interpreting the claim as “wherein a step of outputting further comprises transforming [[the]] a stage of the plurality of stages”..
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-20, 26-27, and 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20100151404 A1), herein referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method of transforming a current digital model of a patient's dental arch using a prior treatment plan having a plurality of stages (refer to Paragraphs [0069], [0071] and Figs. 5, 8; automatic alignment and matching of a tracking model to a plurality of plan models is disclosed), the method comprising:
using tooth numbering to form, for each stage of the prior treatment plan, matching pairs of teeth of the prior treatment plan and the current digital model (Step 404A) (refer to Paragraphs [0070], [0116], [0122], [0142], [0147]-[0148], Fig. 9; a plurality of planning models are “roughly” aligned to the tracking model; the rough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the planning model; each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model and is assigned a number (i) for forming an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering; the buccal ridge points are then used to form a buccal ridge ellipse for aligning the tracking and planning models),
wherein the prior treatment plan comprises [[a]]the plurality of stages that each include a prior digital model of a dental arch configuration having a plurality of numbered teeth (refer to Paragraph [0070]; the plan models are three-dimensional digital models of initial, intermediate and final arrangements in accordance with the treatment plan, where the arrangements are digital models of the teeth prior to beginning treatment; the teeth for the planning models are numbered based on identification of buccal ridge points as previously described), further wherein the current digital model of the patient's dental arch comprises a plurality of numbered teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0142], [0147]; the rough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the tracking model, wherein each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model, and each buccal ridge point is assigned a number (i) to form an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering);
setting, for each matched pair, one or more reference points on a surface of each tooth of the prior digital model
comparing, for each stage, an arrangement of the matched pairs of teeth using the one or more reference points to identify [[which]] a best matched prior digital model corresponding to a stage of the plurality of stages of the prior treatment plan that best matches the current digital model (Step 404B) (refer to Paragraphs [0162], [0166]; a best matching stage is selected based on the quality of tooth matching for each of the planning models, wherein the planning models represent digital models prior to beginning treatment; the quality of the match is determined using the mapped crown vertices from Step 404B); [[and]]
transforming a surface of one or more teeth of the best matched prior digital model in accordance with surface characteristics of corresponding one or more teeth of the current digital model to form a new current digital model (Step 404C) (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0164]-[0165]; the computed rigid body transform is applied to the individual teeth of the planning model, moving points located on the surface of the teeth of the planning model to a new position based on the tracking model, creating a new current digital model; the rigid body transform is computed using ICP surface matching to minimize the distances between the paired surface points on the planning and tracking models, thereby using the surface characteristics of the current digital model or tracking model); and
fabricating an appliance that is shaped to match the new current digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0071], [0165], [0234], Fig. 24C; the dental appliances are fabricated based on a treatment plan, where the initial arrangement of the revised/restarted treatment plan corresponds to the new current digital model from the teeth matching step (Step 206/Step 404C)).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising confirming a quality of match for each matching pair and rejecting each matching pair if the quality of match is below a threshold (Step 404B) (refer to Paragraph [0092]; if the distance between a pair of points is bigger than the matching range, the points are rejected; the matching range equates to the acceptability threshold, and the measured distance between points is the quality indicator).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising confirming a quality of match for each matching pair by comparing crown regions of teeth of the prior digital model teeth of the current digital model
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a tooth-to-crown transformation for each prior treatment plan tooth that is matched with a tooth of the current digital model (Step 404C) (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0107], [0165]; per Applicant’s specification, a tooth-to-crown transformation is the calculated difference between the current tooth and prior treatment plan tooth, wherein the difference is used to “transform” the teeth of the prior treatment plan to match the current teeth (refer to page 15, lines 1-2); a rigid body transform (rotation matrix and translation vector) is computed between each of the point pairs from the surface matching of the planning model and tracking model for moving the planning tooth model into position on the tracking model).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein comparing the arrangement of the matched pairs of teeth comprises determining a minimum sum of squared distances between the reference points of the set of reference points for each stage and the points of [[the]] a set of reference points for the current digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0072], [0171]; based on the previous matching step (Step 404), in Step 406, the square distance of all vertices in the tracking model and planning model is optimized using a cost function where the vertices are weighted and summed together; in this case, as the goal is to match the vertices, optimizing means minimizing the difference or total value of the cost function; see function below).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein comparing the arrangement of the matched pairs of teeth comprises generating a transformation between a set of reference points for each stage and a set of reference points for the current digital model (Step 404C) (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0105], [0107]-[0108]; a rigid body transform is computed to minimize the distances between each pair of reference points on the teeth of the planning model and teeth of the tracking model).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses the method of claim [[6]]1, wherein the transforming comprises determining a difference between the one or more teeth of the current digital model and the one or more teeth of the best matching prior digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0164], [0107]; ICP surface matching is used to match the teeth of the tracking and planning models calculating a difference between each of the point pairs, where each point pair is represented by a surface point on a tooth of the tracking and planning models), and using the difference as a tooth-to-crown transformation applied to the one or more teeth of the best matched prior digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0107], [0165]; per Applicant’s specification, a tooth-to-crown transformation is the calculated difference between the current tooth and prior treatment plan tooth, wherein the difference is used to “transform” the teeth of the prior treatment plan to match the current teeth (refer to page 15, lines 1-2); a rigid body transform (rotation matrix and translation vector) is computed between each of the point pairs from the surface matching of the teeth of the planning model and teeth of the tracking model for moving the teeth of the planning tooth model(s) into position on the tracking model(s)).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the current digital model of the patient's dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0070]; a tracking model of the patient’s teeth is obtained).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the prior treatment plan having the plurality of stages (refer to Paragraph [0070]; the one or more planning models are obtained, including initial, intermediate and final teeth arrangements).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising segmenting the current digital model of the patient's dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0123]-[0124] and Fig. 9; in the case the teeth are not segmented from the jaw in the tracking model, the jaw patch is segmented from the arch model).
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising numbering the teeth of the patient's dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0142], [0147] and Fig. 9; the rough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the planning model, wherein each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model, and each buccal ridge point is assigned a number (i) to form an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering).
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses a system (2400) comprising (refer to Paragraph [0231], Fig. 25):
one or more processors (2402);
a memory (2408) coupled to one or more processors (2402), the memory storing computer-program instructions, that, when executed by the one or more processors (2402), perform a computer-implemented
using tooth numbering to form, for each stage of [[the]] a prior treatment plan, matching pairs of teeth of the prior treatment plan and [[the]] a current digital model (Step 404A) (refer to Paragraphs [0070], [0116], [0122], [0142], [0147]-[0148], Fig. 9; a plurality of planning models are “roughly” aligned to the tracking model; the rough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the planning model; each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model and is assigned a number (i) for forming an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering; the buccal ridge points are then used to form a buccal ridge ellipse for aligning the tracking and planning models),
wherein the prior treatment plan comprises [[a]]the plurality of stages that each include a prior digital model of a dental arch configuration having a plurality of numbered teeth (refer to Paragraph [0070]; the plan models are three-dimensional digital models of initial, intermediate and final arrangements in accordance with the treatment plan, where the arrangements are digital models of the teeth prior to beginning treatment; the teeth for the planning models are numbered based on identification of buccal ridge points as previously described), further wherein the current digital model of [[the]] a patient's dental arch comprises a plurality of numbered teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0142], [0147]; the rough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the tracking model, wherein each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model, and each buccal ridge point is assigned a number (i) to form an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering);
setting, for each matched pair, one or more reference points on a surface of each tooth of the prior digital model
comparing, for each stage, an arrangement of the matched pairs of teeth using the one or more reference points to identify [[which]] a best matched prior digital model corresponding to a stage of the plurality of stages of the prior treatment plan that best matches the current digital model (Step 404B) (refer to Paragraphs [0162], [0166]; a best matching stage is selected based on the quality of tooth matching for each of the planning models, wherein the planning models represent digital models prior to beginning treatment; the quality of the match is determined using the mapped crown vertices from Step 404B); and
transforming a surface of one or more teeth of the best matched prior digital model in accordance with surface characteristics of corresponding one or more teeth of the current digital model to form a new current digital model (Step 404C) (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0164]-[0165]; the computed rigid body transform is applied to the individual teeth of the planning model, moving points located on the surface of the teeth of the planning model to a new position based on the tracking model, creating a new current digital model; the rigid body transform is computed using ICP surface matching to minimize the distances between the paired surface points on the planning and tracking models, thereby using the surface characteristics of the current digital model or tracking model); and
an appliance fabrication system (2422) that is configured to fabricate an appliance that is shaped to match the new current digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0071], [0165], [0234], Fig. 24C; the dental appliances are fabricated based on a treatment plan, where the initial arrangement of the revised/restarted treatment plan corresponds to the new current digital model from the teeth matching step (Step 206/Step 404C)).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses the system
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses the systemteeth of the prior digital model teeth of the current digital model
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses the system
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses the system
PNG
media_image1.png
458
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses the system
Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses the systempoints for each stage and the set of reference points for the current digital model (Step 404C) (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0165]; the computed rigid body transform is applied to the planning model to make the planning model move to a new position in the tracking model, creating a new current digital model) and outputting the transformed stage of the plurality of stages as the new current digital model (refer to Paragraph [0071] and Fig. 5; the transformed model from Step 404C is output for further optional realignment in Step 406).
Regarding claim 26, Wu discloses the systemrough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the planning model, wherein each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model, and each buccal ridge point is assigned a number (i) to form an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering).
Regarding claim 27, Wu discloses a method of transforming a current digital model of a patient's dental arch using a prior treatment plan having a plurality of stages (refer to Paragraphs [0069], [0071] and Figs. 5, 8; automatic alignment and matching of a tracking model to a plurality of plan models, including initial, intermediate and final teeth arrangements is disclosed), the method comprising:
using tooth numbering to form, for each stage of the prior treatment plan, matching pairs of teeth of the prior treatment plan and the current digital model (Step 404A) (refer to Paragraphs [0070], [0116], [0122], [0142], [0147]-[0148], Fig. 9; a plurality of planning models are “roughly” aligned to the tracking model; the rough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the planning model; each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model and is assigned a number (i) for forming an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering; the buccal ridge points are then used to form a buccal ridge ellipse for aligning the tracking and planning models),
wherein the prior treatment plan comprises [[a]]the plurality of stages that each include a prior digital model of a dental arch configuration having a plurality of numbered teeth (refer to Paragraph [0070]; the plan models are three-dimensional digital models of initial, intermediate and final arrangements in accordance with the treatment plan, where the arrangements are digital models of the teeth prior to beginning treatment; the teeth for the planning models are numbered based on identification of buccal ridge points as previously described), further wherein the current digital model of the patient's dental arch comprises a plurality of numbered teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0142], [0147]; the rough matching step identifies a total number of buccal ridge points (N) for the tracking model, wherein each individual buccal ridge point corresponds to an identified tooth in the non-segmented model, and each buccal ridge point is assigned a number (i) to form an array, equating to a form of tooth numbering);
rejecting each matching pair if a quality of match is below a threshold (Step 404B) (refer to Paragraph [0092]; as part of the fine matching process, which occurs after the rough matching step, if the distance between a pair of points is bigger than the matching range, the points are rejected; the matching range equates to the acceptability threshold, and the measured distance between points is the quality indicator);
setting, for each matched pair, one or more reference points on a surface of each tooth of the prior digital model
comparing, for each stage, an arrangement of the matched pairs of teeth using the one or more reference points to identify a best matched prior digital model corresponding to a stage of the plurality of stages of the prior treatment plan that best matches the current digital model (Step 404B) (refer to Paragraphs [0162], [0166]; a best matching stage is selected based on the quality of tooth matching for each of the planning models, wherein the planning models represent digital models prior to beginning treatment; the quality of the match is determined using the mapped crown vertices from Step 404B) wherein
transforming a surface of one or more teeth of the best matched prior digital model in accordance with surface characteristics of corresponding one or more teeth of the current digital model (Step 404C) (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0164]-[0165]; the computed rigid body transform is applied to the individual teeth of the planning model, moving points located on the surface of the teeth of the planning model to a new position based on the tracking model, creating a new current digital model; the rigid body transform is computed using ICP surface matching to minimize the distances between the paired surface points on the planning and tracking models, thereby using the surface characteristics of the current digital model or tracking model); and
fabricating an appliance that is shaped to match the new current digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0071], [0165], [0234], Fig. 24C; the dental appliances are fabricated based on a treatment plan, where the initial arrangement of the revised/restarted treatment plan corresponds to the new current digital model from the teeth matching step (Step 206/Step 404C)).
Regarding claim 44, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein setting the one or more reference points on the surface of each tooth of the prior digital model comprises (Step 404B) (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0161]; the fine matching process uses an iterative closest point algorithm to select crown vertices from the roughly matched tooth surfaces of the planning model):
determining a first reference point on the surface of each tooth of the prior digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0161]; vertices of the crown portion of the tooth are selected, wherein the vertices are located on the model surface) ;
determining a second reference point that is shifted from the first reference point along an x axis of a coordinate system of the prior digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0105], [0107]-[0108], Fig. 8; a rigid body transform (rotation matrix and translation vector) is computed and applied to the planning model vertex or point; translation includes movement in the x and y directions, as shown in Fig. 8); and
determining a third reference point that is shifted from the first reference point along a y axis of the coordinate system of the prior digital model (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0105], [0107]-[0108], Fig. 8; a rigid body transform (rotation matrix and translation vector) is computed and applied to the planning model vertex or point; translation includes movement in the x and y directions, as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 45, Wu discloses the method of claim 44, wherein the first reference point is a crown center of each tooth of the prior digital model (refer to Paragraph [0118]; feature points on the tooth surface initially selected for the rough matching process (404A), which is subsequently fed into the fine matching process (404B), include a center pointer of the Facial Axis of Clinical Crown Curve).
Regarding claim 46, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the patient has already undergone the prior treatment plan, wherein the new current digital model supports or corrects previous results of the prior treatment plan (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0228], [0229], Figs. 3, 24C; a patient undergoes the initial, prior treatment plan, with a revised treatment plan based on the new current digital model being implemented in the case a patient’s teeth are not progressing on track (Step 210)).
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) 8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20100151404 A1), herein referred to as Wu, in view of Claessen et al. (US 20210174543 A1), herein referred to as Claessen.
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent to confirming the mapped reference points of the matched pair are not in a line.
Claessen discloses a method for automated superimposition of objects in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraphs [0002], [0006]). The method comprises matching pairs of teeth in two dental models based on surface reference points (refer to Paragraphs [0150], [0154] and Figs. 10A-10B; the CBCT and intraoral 3D scans are matched by key points) and generating a tooth-to-crown transformation between the models (refer to Paragraph [0154]; a set of transformation parameters for each matching tooth set is determined), wherein the generation of the tooth-to-crown transformation further comprises confirming that the one or more reference points mapped are not in a line (refer to Paragraph [0155]; at least three non-colinear points need to be determined for alignment transformation parameters).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wu with confirming the reference points are not colinear as taught by Claessen in order to determine alignment transformation parameters between the two dental models.
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses the system
Claessen discloses a method for automated superimposition of objects in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraphs [0002], [0006]). The method comprises matching pairs of teeth in two dental models based on surface reference points (refer to Paragraphs [0150], [0154] and Figs. 10A-10B; the CBCT and intraoral 3D scans are matched by key points) and generating a tooth-to-crown transformation between the models (refer to Paragraph [0154]; a set of transformation parameters for each matching tooth set is determined), wherein the generation of the tooth-to-crown transformation further comprises confirming that the one or more reference points mapped are not in a line (refer to Paragraph [0155]; at least three non-colinear points need to be determined for alignment transformation parameters).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method executed by the system (2400) of Wu with confirming the reference points are not colinear as taught by Claessen in order to determine alignment transformation parameters between the two dental models.
Claim(s) 9 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20100151404 A1), herein referred to as Wu, in view of Cai et al. (US 20160175068 A1), herein referred to as Cai.
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent to the number of matching pairs being greater than three.
Cai discloses a method of generating tooth arrangements in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0002]). Similar to Applicant’s method, the method of Cai includes selecting a group of digital models that represents the best tooth arrangement with an optimization model (refer to Paragraphs [0007], [0010]), wherein one of the parameters of the model is the curve of a dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0012]. The model of the dental arch is created using four reference points (refer to Paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pair matching method of Wu to include a minimum of four reference points, as Cai demonstrates that a best fit model for a tooth arrangement can be generated using four reference points, the same purpose of Applicant’s method.
Regarding claim 22, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, but is silent to the number of matching pairs being greater than three.
Cai discloses a method of generating tooth arrangements in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0002]). Similar to Applicant’s method, the method of Cai includes selecting a group of digital models that represents the best tooth arrangement with an optimization model (refer to Paragraphs [0007], [0010]), wherein one of the parameters of the model is the curve of a dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0012]. The model of the dental arch is created using four reference points (refer to Paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pair matching method as executed by the system (2400) of Wu to include a minimum of four reference points, as Cai demonstrates that a best fit model for a tooth arrangement can be generated using four reference points, the same purpose of Applicant’s method.
Response to Arguments
The outstanding claim objections of claims 7, and 14-27 are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendments.
The outstanding drawing and specification objections are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted drawing and specification amendments.
The outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn in view of the submitted claim amendments to include a fabrication step.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Wu does not teach transforming a surface of one or more teeth of the best matched digital model in accordance with the surface characteristics of the one or more teeth of the current digital model, Examiner points to Paragraphs [0076], [0164]-[0165] of Wu. Wu teaches using points on the surface of teeth of a planning model with an ICP surface algorithm to generate a new, transformed model, based on a rigid body transform generated from the tracking, or current model. Further, this new, transformed model, is subsequently used for comparison to the planned model for creation of a revised treatment plan, with the new, transformed model, acting as the initial arrangement for the revised treatment plan (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0071], [0165], [0234], Fig. 24C).
These arguments follow for the rejection of claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 which rely on a combination of Wu in view of Claessen and Wu in view of Cai.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 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, 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772