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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A-2 and B-4 in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged. Although the arguments are not persuasive, upon further consideration examiner has withdrawn the election requirement.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: case 110. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US 2021/0275151, September 9, 2021, applicant submitted prior art via the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Clark discloses an ultrasonic probe (ultrasound probe 10 in e.g., Fig. 1, reproduced below with annotations, and corresponding description) comprising:
a case (housing 22 in Fig. 1) comprising a handle part and a head part coupled to the handle part (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
an acoustic module disposed inside the case to transmit an ultrasonic signal to an object and receive an echo signal reflected from the object (transducer module 30 in Fig. 1; also see Fig. 11 and corresponding description; e.g., [0061]);
an electronic circuit disposed inside the case (PCA 18 in Fig. 1, and corresponding description, e.g., [0023]) to be electrically connected to the acoustic module (“The PCA 18 may be coupled to a flexible circuit (not shown) or other electrical components of the transducer assembly 30.” [0025]); and
an inner impact reducing member (compliant component 16 in Fig. 1) disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“The compliant component 16 may be coupled to the proximal end of the transducer assembly 30 (e.g., to the proximal portion of the backing subassembly 14) and to the distal end of a printed circuit assembly (PCA) 18.” [0024]) to reduce an impact transmitted to the electronic circuit (“The compliant component 16 may be resiliently deformable such that a dimension (e.g., a length) of the compliant component 16 decreases when force is applied along that dimension and the dimension (e.g. length) returns to its nominal in the absence of the application of force.” [0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Clark further discloses wherein the inner impact reducing member further comprises an elastic member disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“In some embodiments, the compliant component 16 includes a spring, for example a compression spring.” [0024]).
Regarding claim 8¸ Clark further discloses wherein the case further comprises a handle part frame disposed inside the handle part to cover the electronic circuit (“the PCA 218 is additionally and optionally constrained between posts 205a-b protruding from interior surfaces 221a-b of housing 222a-b at the distal end of the PCA 218” [0033]), and a head part frame disposed inside the head part to cover the acoustic module (stop feature 219 in Fig. 3 and corresponding description; also see tabs 505 in Fig. 5 and corresponding description; also see “metal frame” in [0002]).
Regarding claim 9, Clark further discloses wherein the handle part frame and the head part frame are disposed to be spaced apart from each other (see Figs. 2-3 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 10, Clark further discloses further comprising a case elastic member disposed between the handle part frame and the handle part to reduce the impact transmitted to the electronic circuit (see e.g., compliant component 216 in Figs. 2-3 and corresponding descriptions).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2019/0159758, May 30, 2019, applicant submitted prior art via the IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above but fails to disclose further comprising a head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the head part.
However, Hwang teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the head part (“The ultrasonic probe 20 may include an impact mitigating member 200 to protect the cap 100 from an external impact. The impact mitigating member 200 may be disposed along a circumference of the cap 100. The impact mitigating member 200 may be disposed between the upper cap 110 and the lower cap 120.” [0071]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with further comprising a head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the head part as taught by Hwang so that “degradation of reliability on an ultrasound image or damage to the internal components may be prevented” ([0079] of Hwang).
Regarding claim 14, Clark modified by Hwang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as stated above but fails to disclose wherein a deformation amount of the inner impact reducing member is provided to be larger than or equal to a deformation amount of the head impact reducing member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a deformation amount of the inner impact reducing member that is larger than or equal to a deformation amount of the head impact reducing member, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, i.e., the deformation amount involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Clark modified by Hwang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the head impact reducing member is positioned within a section corresponding to the deformation amount of the inner impact reducing member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the head impact reducing member within a section corresponding to the deformation amount of the inner impact reducing member, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See 2144.04 VI.C.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Randall (US 2008/0194960, August 14, 2008, applicant submitted prior art via the IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Although Clark suggests wherein the inner impact reducing member further comprises a flexible circuit board disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to electrically connect the acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“The PCA 18 may be coupled to a flexible circuit (not shown)” [0025]; also see [0037]), Clark does not explicitly disclose wherein the inner impact reducing member further comprises a flexible circuit board disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to electrically connect the acoustic module and the electronic circuit.
However, Randall teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the inner impact reducing member further comprises a flexible circuit board disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to electrically connect the acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“Each of the first and second circuit board assemblies 22, 24 is communicatively coupled to the transducer array 20 by an associated electrical connector 25 and an associated cable, as shown in FIG. 3. The cable can be a flexible printed wire board (PWB) 26 or other type of non-rigid connecting means that can withstand repeated flexing.” [0076]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with wherein the inner impact reducing member further comprises a flexible circuit board disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to electrically connect the acoustic module and the electronic circuit as taught by Randall in order to provide an electrical connection that can withstand repeated flexing ([0076] of Randall).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Randall as applied to claims 1 and 3 above and further in view of Wall (US 2025/0031577, filed July 18, 2023).
Regarding claim 4, Clark modified by Randall discloses the limitations of claim 3 as stated above but fails to disclose further comprising an energy storage device disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to supply electric power, wherein the flexible circuit board is disposed outside the energy storage device to prevent an impact from being transmitted to the energy storage device.
However, Wall teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an energy storage device (battery 416 in e.g., Fig. 4, reproduced below, and corresponding description) disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to supply electric power (“The battery 416 is interposed between the piezoelectric transducer 410 and the PCB 208.” [0045]), wherein the flexible circuit board is disposed outside the energy storage device to prevent an impact from being transmitted to the energy storage device (flex circuit 202 in e.g., Fig. 4 and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with further comprising an energy storage device disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to supply electric power, wherein the flexible circuit board is disposed outside the energy storage device to prevent an impact from being transmitted to the energy storage device as taught by Wall in order to support wireless capability of the probe ([0058] of Clark).
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark as applied to claims 1, 5 and 8, 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Wall.
Regarding claim 6, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 5 as stated above but fails to disclose further comprising an energy storage device disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to supply electric power to the acoustic module or the electronic circuit, wherein the elastic member is disposed outside the energy storage device to prevent an impact from being transmitted to the energy storage device.
However, Wall teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an energy storage device (battery 416 in e.g., Fig. 4, reproduced below, and corresponding description) disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to supply electric power to the acoustic module or the electronic circuit (“The battery 416 is interposed between the piezoelectric transducer 410 and the PCB 208.” [0045]), wherein the elastic member is disposed outside the energy storage device to prevent an impact from being transmitted to the energy storage device (flex circuit 202 in e.g., Fig. 4 and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with further comprising an energy storage device disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit to supply electric power to the acoustic module or the electronic circuit, wherein the elastic member is disposed outside the energy storage device to prevent an impact from being transmitted to the energy storage device as taught by Wall in order to support wireless capability of the probe ([0058] of Clark).
Regarding claim 7, Clark modified by Wall discloses the limitations of claim 6 as stated above, in particular Wall was relied on to teach the energy storage device. Clark further discloses wherein a plurality of the elastic members is provided, and the plurality of elastic members is provided to be spaced apart along a longitudinal direction of the energy storage device (“the compliant component 716 comprises two metal C-shaped springs. As shown in FIG. 7, the C-shaped springs may comprise strips of metal. The compliant component 716 (e.g., C-shaped springs in this embodiment) may couple the transducer assembly 730 to the PCA 718 and may bias the transducer assembly 730 away from the PCA 718 and towards the housing 722. For example, each of the C-shaped springs may be connected, at one end, to a proximal portion of the transducer assembly 230 and at an opposite end, to a distal end of the PCA 718.” [0042]; also see Fig. 7 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 11, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 10 as stated above but fails to disclose further comprising an energy storage device provided to supply electric power to the acoustic module or the electronic circuit, wherein the energy storage device is disposed between the handle part frame and the head part frame to be spaced apart from the handle part frame and the head part frame, respectively.
However, Wall teaches, in the same field of endeavor, further comprising an energy storage device provided to supply electric power to the acoustic module or the electronic circuit (battery 416 in e.g., Fig. 4 and corresponding description), wherein the energy storage device is disposed between the handle part frame and the head part frame to be spaced apart from the handle part frame and the head part frame, respectively (“The battery 416 is interposed between the piezoelectric transducer 410 and the PCB 208.” [0045]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with further comprising an energy storage device provided to supply electric power to the acoustic module or the electronic circuit, wherein the energy storage device is disposed between the handle part frame and the head part frame to be spaced apart from the handle part frame and the head part frame, respectively as taught by Wall in order to support wireless capability of the probe ([0058] of Clark).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Marteau et al. (US 2014/0364730, December 11, 2014).
Regarding claim 12, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Clark further discloses wherein the head part comprises a first head part coupled to one side of the handle part (annotated section of housing 22 in Fig. 1, reproduced above with respect to the rejection of claim 1), and the acoustic module comprises a first acoustic module disposed in the first head part (transducer module 30 in Fig. 1).
Clark fails to disclose a second head part coupled to the other side of the handle part, and a second acoustic module disposed in the second head part.
However, Marteau teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a second head part coupled to the other side of the handle part, and a second acoustic module disposed in the second head part (see multi-headed probe 52 with two physical separated transducers 106 and 107 in Fig. 4, reproduced below, and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with a second head part coupled to the other side of the handle part, and a second acoustic module disposed in the second head part as taught by Marteau in order to reduce issues related to time and effort required to change probes when different probe geometries are required for an examination ([0002] of Marteau).
Regarding claim 13, Clark modified by Marteau discloses the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. In particular, Marteau was relied on to teach the second acoustic module. Clark further discloses wherein the inner impact reducing member comprises a first inner impact reducing member (compliant component 16 in Fig. 1) disposed between the first acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“The compliant component 16 may be coupled to the proximal end of the transducer assembly 30 (e.g., to the proximal portion of the backing subassembly 14) and to the distal end of a printed circuit assembly (PCA) 18.” [0024]).
Clark fails to disclose a second inner impact reducing member disposed between the second acoustic module and the electronic circuit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a second inner impact reducing member in a second head part, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Marteau.
Regarding claim 16, Clark discloses an ultrasonic probe (ultrasound probe 10 in e.g., Fig. 1, reproduced below with annotations, and corresponding description) comprising:
a case (housing 22 in Fig. 1) comprising a handle part, a first head part coupled to one side of the handle part (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
an acoustic module provided to transmit an ultrasonic signal to an object and receive an echo signal reflected from the object and comprising a first acoustic module disposed in the first head part (transducer module 30 in Fig. 1; also see Fig. 11 and corresponding description; e.g., [0061]);
an electronic circuit disposed inside the case (PCA 18 in Fig. 1, and corresponding description, e.g., [0023]) to be electrically connected to the first acoustic module and the second acoustic module (“The PCA 18 may be coupled to a flexible circuit (not shown) or other electrical components of the transducer assembly 30.” [0025]); and
an inner impact reducing member (compliant component 16 in Fig. 1) provided to reduce an impact transmitted to the electronic circuit (“The compliant component 16 may be resiliently deformable such that a dimension (e.g., a length) of the compliant component 16 decreases when force is applied along that dimension and the dimension (e.g. length) returns to its nominal in the absence of the application of force.” [0024]) and comprising a first inner impact reducing member disposed between the first acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“The compliant component 16 may be coupled to the proximal end of the transducer assembly 30 (e.g., to the proximal portion of the backing subassembly 14) and to the distal end of a printed circuit assembly (PCA) 18.” [0024]).
PNG
media_image4.png
420
323
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Clark fails to disclose a second head part coupled to the other side of the handle part; a second acoustic module disposed in the second head part; and a second inner impact reducing member disposed between the second acoustic module and the electronic circuit.
However, Marteau teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a second head part coupled to the other side of the handle part; a second acoustic module disposed in the second head part (see multi-headed probe 52 with two physical separated transducers 106 and 107 in Fig. 4, reproduced below, and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with a second head part coupled to the other side of the handle part; a second acoustic module disposed in the second head part as taught by Marteau in order to reduce issues related to time and effort required to change probes when different probe geometries are required for an examination ([0002] of Marteau). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a second inner impact reducing member disposed between the second acoustic module and the electronic circuit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Marteau as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 17, Clark modified by Marteau discloses the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. In particular Marteau was relied on to teach the second head part. Clark fails to disclose further comprising: a first head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the first head part; and a second head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the second head part.
However, Hwang teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the head part (“The ultrasonic probe 20 may include an impact mitigating member 200 to protect the cap 100 from an external impact. The impact mitigating member 200 may be disposed along a circumference of the cap 100. The impact mitigating member 200 may be disposed between the upper cap 110 and the lower cap 120.” [0071]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with further comprising a head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the head part as taught by Hwang so that “degradation of reliability on an ultrasound image or damage to the internal components may be prevented” ([0079] of Hwang). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a first head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the first head part; and a second head impact reducing member disposed between the handle part and the second head part, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Marteau as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Randall.
Regarding claim 18, Clark modified by Marteau discloses the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Although Clark suggests the first inner impact reducing member comprises a first flexible circuit board disposed between the first acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“The PCA 18 may be coupled to a flexible circuit (not shown)” [0025]; also see [0037]), Clark does not explicitly disclose wherein the first inner impact reducing member comprises a first flexible circuit board disposed between the first acoustic module and the electronic circuit, and the second inner impact reducing member comprises a second flexible circuit board disposed between the second acoustic module and the electronic circuit.
However, Randall teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the inner impact reducing member further comprises a flexible circuit board disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“Each of the first and second circuit board assemblies 22, 24 is communicatively coupled to the transducer array 20 by an associated electrical connector 25 and an associated cable, as shown in FIG. 3. The cable can be a flexible printed wire board (PWB) 26 or other type of non-rigid connecting means that can withstand repeated flexing.” [0076]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with wherein the inner impact reducing member further comprises a flexible circuit board disposed between the acoustic module and the electronic circuit as taught by Randall in order to provide an electrical connection that can withstand repeated flexing ([0076] of Randall). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide wherein the first inner impact reducing member comprises a first flexible circuit board disposed between the first acoustic module and the electronic circuit, and the second inner impact reducing member comprises a second flexible circuit board disposed between the second acoustic module and the electronic circuit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding claim 19, Clark modified by Marteau and Randall discloses the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Clark further discloses wherein the first inner impact reducing member comprises a first elastic member disposed between the first acoustic module and the electronic circuit (“In some embodiments, the compliant component 16 includes a spring, for example a compression spring.” [0024]).
Clark fails to disclose the second inner impact reducing member comprises a second elastic member disposed between the second acoustic module and the electronic circuit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a second elastic member, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Marteau and Randall as applied to claims 16, 18, and 19 above and further in view of Wall.
Regarding claim 20, Clark modified by Marteau and Randall discloses the limitations of claim 19 as stated above. Clark further discloses wherein the case comprises a handle part frame disposed inside the handle part to cover the electronic circuit and the energy storage device (“the PCA 218 is additionally and optionally constrained between posts 205a-b protruding from interior surfaces 221a-b of housing 222a-b at the distal end of the PCA 218” [0033]; also see stop feature 219 in Fig. 3 and corresponding description; also see tabs 505 in Fig. 5 and corresponding description; also see “metal frame” in [0002]) but fails to disclose further comprising an energy storage device provided to supply electric power to the acoustic module and the electronic circuit.
However, Wall teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an energy storage device provided to supply electric power to the acoustic module and the electronic circuit (battery 416 in e.g., Fig. 4 and corresponding description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clark with further comprising an energy storage device provided to supply electric power to the acoustic module and the electronic circuit as taught by Wall in order to support wireless capability of the probe ([0058] of Clark).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights