DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,969. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the limitations of the presently pending claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 13-16: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. (see MPEP 608.01 (i) and 37 CFR 1.75(i)) The first line of each sub-paragraph of claims 1 and 13-16 should be indented.
Claim 6, line 1: “said a” should be changed to --said--.
Claims 13-16: --and-- should be inserted between the last two sub-paragraphs.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “distal operator device” and “calculation unit” in claim 1; and “means of displacement” in claims 13-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7-12, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10, it is not clear if “a distal operator device” is intended to be the same distal operator device as recited at claim 1, line 4, or if this distal operator device is intended to be a distinct distal operator device. “a” should be changed to --the-- or --a second-- or similar to make this distinction.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites:
7. The robot device according to claim 1, wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising two optics, so as to reconstruct a depth map associated with the images acquired simultaneously by the two optics, said images being indexed to the surface of said parameterized body model.
It is not clear if “the images acquired simultaneously by the two optics” is referring to a new set of images produced by the two optics at the distal operator device as suggested by the language “by the two optics”; or if “the images” is referring to the 3D images acquired by the at least two optical devices integral with said frame as first introduced in claim 1, as suggested by the language “reconstruct a depth map associated with the images”.
The phrase “so as to” does not make it clear if “reconstruct a depth map…” is required by the claim language, or is merely a function made possible by the positively claimed “two optics”.
In claims 7 and 10, “said parameterized body model” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected parent claims 7 and 10.
In claims 13-15, “the optical system” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) in view of Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”).
Vaughan teaches:
Re claim 1. A robot device ensuring an automatic guiding of a robotic arm, the robot device comprising:
a frame holding a robotic arm articulated along a plurality of axes of freedom (gantry 13 holding articulated arm 23, Figure 4A), said robotic arm comprising a distal operator device for generating a human-machine interaction (ultrasound transducer 29, Figure 4A),
an image acquisition system comprising at least two optical devices integral with said frame and arranged in at least two distinct positions of the frame (cameras 15, Figure 1), and
a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient and a guiding trajectory referenced to the surface of said human body model, the wherein movements of said robotic arm are enslaved to said guiding trajectory (paragraphs [0063, 0086, and 0088]; and Steps 804 and 810, Figure 8).
Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices, and a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraph [0063], using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of cameras 15 to determine the shape of a patient.
Zhang teaches, at section 3.1, each camera may acquire a 3D image; and at section 4.2, using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
In view of Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 1) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices, and a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images; since Vaughan teaches using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of cameras to determine the shape of a patient; and Zhang teaches each camera may acquire a 3D image; and using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campmol Ametller et al. (US Publication No 2022/0202353).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 2) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device; (re claim 3) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising two local optics and a millimetric or bidirectional removal microscopic optic; and (re claim 4) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising two local optics and a Dermatoscope optical device.
Campmol Ametller teaches, at paragraphs [0038 and 0040], such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions. The system may include the dermatoscopic camera 23 and two stereoscopic cameras 21, 22 as illustrated in Fig. 2.
In view of Campmol Ametller’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 2) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device; (re claim 3) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising two local optics and a millimetric or bidirectional removal microscopic optic; and (re claim 4) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising two local optics and a Dermatoscope optical device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Campmol Ametller teaches such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fedyukov et al. (US Publication No 2021/0049811).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 5) wherein said calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images; and (re claim 6) wherein said a calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images, wherein the training of said trained network is performed from a parametric model of said human body defined by parameters such as parameters of shapes and rotations of articulations.
Fedyukov teaches, at paragraphs [0152 and 0170], using a neural network to output a parametric model of a human body based on depth maps. Such a method of outputting a model of a human body may be applied to the apparatus of Vaughan with a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling the shape of the human.
In view of Fedyukov’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 5) wherein said calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images; and (re claim 6) wherein said a calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images, wherein the training of said trained network is performed from a parametric model of said human body defined by parameters such as parameters of shapes and rotations of articulations, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Fedyukov teaches using a neural network to output a parametric model of a human body based on depth maps. Such a method of outputting a model of a human body may be applied to the apparatus of Vaughan with a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling the shape of the human.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) and Campmol Ametller et al. (US Publication No 2022/0202353) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krieger et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0194117).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 10) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device configured to acquire dermatoscopic images, said dermatoscopic images being indexed to the surface of said parameterized body model; (re claim 11) wherein the generated human body model comprises a meshing of points, and wherein said dermatoscopic images are indexed with at least one node or mesh of the meshing of the generated human body model; and (re claim 12) wherein the robot device is configured to implement self-calibration of said dermatoscope optical device of said distal operator device with respect to a referential associated with the at least two optical devices of the acquisition system.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraphs [0082-0083], imaging a patient using different techniques, and geometrically co-registering the different imaging modalities to so that the different imaging modalities may have a common coordinate system.
Campmol Ametller teaches, at paragraphs [0038 and 0040], such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions.
Krieger teaches, at the abstract and Fig. 4B, acquiring a 3D scan of a patient and determining landmarks for localizing and positioning an ultrasound probe in relation to these specific coordinates within the 3D scan. Krieger further teaches, at paragraph [0195], the system can be used in dermatology applications. This allows for quickly positioning a medical probe on a patient in relation to a coordinate system of the patient determined from a 3D scan of the patient such that the medical probe can scan a known area of the patient.
In view of Krieger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan and Campmol Ametller, (re claim 10) wherein said robotic arm comprises a distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device configured to acquire dermatoscopic images, said dermatoscopic images being indexed to the surface of said parameterized body model; (re claim 11) wherein the generated human body model comprises a meshing of points, and wherein said dermatoscopic images are indexed with at least one node or mesh of the meshing of the generated human body model; and (re claim 12) wherein the robot device is configured to implement self-calibration of said dermatoscope optical device of said distal operator device with respect to a referential associated with the at least two optical devices of the acquisition system, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Vaughan teaches imaging a patient using different techniques, and geometrically co-registering the different imaging modalities to so that the different imaging modalities may have a common coordinate system. Campmol Ametller teaches such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions; and Krieger teaches acquiring a 3D scan of a patient and determining landmarks for localizing and positioning an ultrasound probe in relation to these specific coordinates within the 3D scan. The system of Krieger can be used in dermatology applications. This allows for quickly positioning a medical probe on a patient in relation to a coordinate system of the patient determined from a 3D scan of the patient such that the medical probe can scan a known area of the patient.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hulford et al. (US Publication No 2020/0253678).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 13) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the optical system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; said base comprises a counterweight, a plurality of casters, and at least one operable brake to stabilize said robot device at a fixed position.
Hulford teaches, at Figs. 2B, 2C and paragraphs [0114 and 0141], such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base 202 with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; and such bases may provide a counterweight to increase the robotic arm’s reach over an operating table.
In view of Hulford’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 13) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the optical system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; said base comprises a counterweight, a plurality of casters, and at least one operable brake to stabilize said robot device at a fixed position, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hulford teaches such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; and such bases may provide a counterweight to increase the robotic arm’s reach over an operating table.
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 14) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the optical system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; said frame comprises means for pivoting the main body with respect to the base and a means for blocking the pivoting of said main body so as to orientate said main body with respect to the base at a desired angle.
Hulford teaches, at Figs. 2B, 2C and paragraph [0114], such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base 202 with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; Hulford further teaches, at Fig 2A and paragraph [0127], joint 236 provides an pivoting interface between the column 210 and the robotic arm 204; and at paragraph [0214], joint 236 may be locked or unlocked via a joint lock control button. This allows such robotic arms to be positioned as desired relative to a patient and the mobile base.
In view of Hulford’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 14) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the optical system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; said frame comprises means for pivoting the main body with respect to the base and a means for blocking the pivoting of said main body so as to orientate said main body with respect to the base at a desired angle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hulford teaches such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base 202 with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; and Hulford further teaches joint 236 provides an pivoting interface between the column 210 and the robotic arm 204; and at paragraph [0214], joint 236 may be locked or unlocked via a joint lock control button. This allows such robotic arms to be positioned as desired relative to a patient and the mobile base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and upon filing of a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656