Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 10 of the claim “a first interproximal” is believed to be in error for -the first interproximal-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of the claim “a first interproximal” is believed to be in error for -the first interproximal-. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 13, 2026. These drawings are accepted and entered.
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: 26a, 24a, 24b, 26a, 26b, 28a, 28b. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Support for the stored images being of “2-dimensional or 3-dimensional images” is not found in the originally filed specification.
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 24-29 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.
With respect to claim 24, the claimed “a second surface”, “a first interproximal portion” and “a second interproximal portion” of the second mold body in view of the claimed portions with the same names in the independent claim are unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim a different second surface and interproximal portions or simply referencing the claimed surfaces of the independent claim. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations of claim 24 are being interpreted as the same surfaces claimed in the independent claim such as -the second surface- and so on, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further it is unclear how the different interproximal surfaces including the first surface that is claimed being based on a scanned image of the tooth of the patient and the second surface which is selected or synthesized from data not affiliated with the patient is related to the claimed at least first interproximal portion of the second mold being engineered as claimed in the independent claim. It is noted that for examination purposes, the interproximal portion is being interpreted has having 2 interproximal surfaces, such as either side of the interproximal portion that would contact a tooth on either side of the interproximal portion. Such that with respect to claim 25, the surface of the interproximal portion is specifically designed as claimed, however, that applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed
Claims 25-28 are rejected for depending from claim 24 and contain the same limitations regarding the interproximal surfaces and should be amended accordingly. Such that it is unclear if the applicant is trying to further limit the surface (i.e. the surface for creating the interproximal surface of the tooth) or the entire portion (i.e. the portion with both interproximal surfaces).
Further with respect to claim 28, the claimed limitation “a different set of geometrical rules or algorithms” is unclear. It is unclear what the rules or algorithms are different from. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as different form the first interproximal portion, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 29, the three teeth and all the interproximal spaces being claimed are unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim three adjacent teeth such for example if the first tooth is between the second and third, the first interproximal portion of the first tooth would be shared with one of the second or third tooth and the second interproximal portion of the first tooth would be shared with the other of the second or third tooth. The claimed interproximal portions of the second and third tooth are unclear in view of the claimed interproximal portions of the first tooth as to how they are related to each other. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as an interproximal portion is between each adjacent tooth, and that interproximal portion has a first and second interproximal surface, such that one surface is facing the first tooth and the other is facing the second tooth and so on, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarity what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 29 the claimed interproximal portions of the mold relative to the “second tooth” and “third tooth” are unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim the actual tooth or the surface of the mold associated with the tooth. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the surface of the mold being associated with either the second or third tooth, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
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) 8-16, 20 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al. (2018/0280116).
With respect to claim 8, Hansen discloses a method of forming a dental restoration, the method comprising positioning a first mold body 211 providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of a patient, wherein the first mold body includes a portion corresponding with at least a first surface of the tooth and a first interproximal portion 216 corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second interproximal portion 216 corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the tooth (see annotated figure below, par. 52 regarding positioning in mouth, figs. 7-10); and positioning a second mold body 219 providing for a customized fit with the at least one tooth of the patient, wherein the second mold body includes a portion corresponding with a second surface of the tooth, and a first interproximal portion corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second interproximal portion corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the tooth (see figs. 7-10, pars. 43, 52, see annotated figure below), wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body each have a patient-specific customized fit (par. 41-42 regarding customized fit, therefore it is a patient specific customized fit) and wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body each have a patient-specific customized fit pars. 41-42), wherein the first mold body and second mold body combine with the tooth of the patient to form a mold cavity encompassing a portion of missing tooth structure of the tooth (see figs.8-10, pars. 44-48) and wherein a first portion of the missing tooth structure includes missing interproximal tooth structure (pars. 26, 48); and wherein at least one of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body or the first interproximal portion of the second mold body is engineered to have a structure that is configured to form an engineered space in an interproximal space between the at least one tooth and an adjacent tooth after the dental restoration (see pars. 26, 32-33, 37, 48, 52, 67, 71-72, 80-81). Such that the mold cavity, including the interproximal portion is designed to restore a tooth that includes a missing interproximal portion. The geometry of the mold is determined based at least in part on knowledge derived through analysis of historical cases or virtual models of exemplary cases, without receiving a complete 3D representation of the case in question (par. 80) and further adjusted by a user to define the repaired surface (par. 71). Therefore, at least one of the first the interproximal portions is engineered such that it is designed based on data such as historical cases and exemplary cases or user preference (i.e. the user adjusting). Hansen further teaches introducing restorative material into the mold cavity (see step 304 in fig. 10, par. 52); curing the restorative material (see step 306 in fig. 10, par. 52); and removing the first mold body and second mold body from the at least one tooth (see step 308 in fig. 10, par. 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body are designed to fit together to provide a selected interproximal tooth structure and wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body are each designed to fit together to provide a selected interproximal tooth structure, wherein the selected interproximal tooth structure allows a dentist to separate the interproximal tooth structure formed between adjacent teeth (see annotated figure above, par. 43, such that elements 221 and 213 on the interproximal portions mate to hold mold into place, each portion forms an individual mold cavity so that the portion formed by the mold is separated from adjacent teeth, par. 47 regarding distinct mold cavities).
With respect to claim 10, wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body are substantially offset from one another along the mesial-distal axis (see annotated figure, such that the lower portion of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body is offset relative to the middle portion of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body).
PNG
media_image2.png
436
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region and a second region along the occlusal-gingival axis (see annotated figure below).
With respect to claim 12, Hansen further discloses wherein the first region includes a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the second region includes a second thickness measured along the occlusal-gingival axis, and wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness (see annotated figure above, such that the thickness of the second portion along the occlusal-gingival axis is the length of the portion extending along the occlusal-gingival axis, such that the second portion extends along a length greater than the thickness of the first portion along the mesial-distal axis..
With respect to claim 13, Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region and a second region, wherein the first region includes a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the second region includes a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, and wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness (see annotated figure below).
With respect to claim 14, Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body further includes third region along the occlusal-gingival axis, wherein the third region includes a third thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, and wherein the second thickness is less than the third thickness (see annotated figure below, such that the thickness of the third portion along the mesial-distal axis is greater than the thickness, i.e. a length of the second portion along the occlusal-gingival axis).
PNG
media_image3.png
509
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal of the first mold body has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, and the first interproximal of the second mold body has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, and the first thickness is less than the second thickness (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
509
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16, Hanssen further discloses wherein the second interproximal portion of the second mold body has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
512
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Hanssen further discloses wherein the second mold body provides for a customized fit with at least three teeth of the patient, including a first tooth, a second tooth, and a third tooth, and wherein the second mold body includes a portion corresponding with a second surface of the first tooth, a second surface of the second tooth, and a third surface of the third tooth, wherein the first tooth corresponds to the at least one tooth (see figs. 7-9, such that is provides a customized fit with four teeth, each cavity of the first mold body 215a/215b and 212a/212b and 225a/22b and 220a/220b on the second mold body provides a customized surface of fitting with a tooth).
With respect to claim 23, Hanssen further discloses wherein a first region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and first region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body each includes a first depth measured along a facial-lingual axis, wherein a second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and a second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body each includes a second depth measured along the facial-lingual axis, wherein the second depth is less than the first depth (see annaoted figure below such that the depth is along the facial lingual axis, such that the portion on the first mold with the protrusion has a greater depth than the portion without it and the portion on the second mold without the recess has a greater depth than the portion with the recess).
PNG
media_image6.png
482
559
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 24, Hanssen further discloses wherein the second mold body includes the portion corresponding with a second surface of the tooth, the first interproximal portion corresponding with a first interproximal surface of a scanned three dimensional image of the tooth of the patient (see annaoted figure above with respect to claim 8, par. 80, such that shape and dimensions of the tool, including the interproximal surface is determined using digital representations of the tooth, pars. 64, 66 regarding scanning the teeth to obtain the digital representations) and a second interproximal portion corresponding with the second interproximal surface of a tooth selected or synthesized from geometric data not affiliated with the patient (see par. 80 regarding that the shape can be determined using historical cases or virtual models of exemplary cases, see pars. 26. 48 such that the surface to be repaired is a single interproximal surface, therefore, the one interproximal surface would correspond to the scan of the tooth and the other would be synthesized from geometric data not affiliated with the patient, i.e. the historical or exemplary cases).
With respect to claim 25, Hanssen further discloses wherein the second interproximal portion of at least one of the first mold body or the second mold body is based on anatomical averages and algorithms (see pars. 37, 59, 61-62, 67-68, 71-72, 80-81, such that computerized algorithms are used in the creation of the interproximal spaces).
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) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (2018/0280116) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Grove et al. (2014/0172375).
Hansen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the first interproximal portion of at least one of the first mold body or the second mold body is selected from existing contact from a patient scan, a contact in a digital wax up, a contact below a lengthened contact in a wax up, a contact based on doctor preference, or an open contact and wherein the second interproximal portion of the second mold body is selected from existing contact from a patient scan, a contact in a digital wax up, a contact below a lengthened contact in a wax up, a contact based on doctor preference, an open contact, or based on a different set of geometrical rules or algorithms.
Grove teaches a method for creating an interproximal portion between two adjacent teeth, wherein the interproximal portion includes a first surface (the surface of on tooth at the interproximal portion) and a second surface (the surface of the second tooth at the interproximal portion) (abstract, pars. 26, 31, 41, 63, 65).
With respect to claim 26, Grove further teaches the interproximal portion is based on digitally stored images in a library of 2 or 3-dimensional images (see par. 64, such that a database of teeth contours is a library and they are 3D).
With respect to claims 27-28, Hansen further teaches using scans of the patient’s teeth before treatment (i.e. before removal of a cavity) to determine the shape of the mold, including the interproximal portion (see par. 29).
With respect to claim 27, Grove further teaches wherein the first interproximal portion of at least one of the first mold body or second mold body is selected from existing contact from a patient scan (par. 65, such that the interproximal shape can be determined based on contours of other of the patient’s teeth).
With respect to claim 28, Grove further teaches wherein the second interproximal portion of the second mold body is selected from existing contact from a patient scan (par. 65, such that the interproximal shape can be determined based on contours of other of the patient’s teeth).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Hansen with the library taught by Groove in order to use well known interproximal shapes in order to create a natural tooth using the mold.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (2018/0280116) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Vuillemot (2011/0212420).
Hansen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the first mold body has a customized fit with at least three teeth of the patient, wherein the at least one tooth is a first tooth, wherein the first mold body includes a portion corresponding to a first surface 212a of the first tooth, a first surface 212b of a second tooth and a third surface 215a of a third tooth (see fig. 7), wherein the first mold body further includes a first interproximal portion and as second interproximal portion of the second tooth and a first interproximal portion of the third tooth, wherein the first interproximal portion and the second interproximal portion of the second tooth each have a patient-specific customized fit, and wherein the first interproximal portion of the third tooth have a patient specific customized fit (see fig. 7, annotated figure below, pars. 26, 32-33, 37, 48, 52, 67, 71-72, 80-81), and wherein the second mold body further includes a first interproximal portion and a second interproximal portion of the second tooth, and a first interproximal portion of the third tooth, wherein the first interproximal portion and second interproximal portion of the second tooth each have a patient specific customized fit, and wherein the first interproximal portion of the third tooth has a patient specific customized fit (see annotated figure below, pars. 26, 32-33, 37, 48, 52, 67, 71-72, 80-81). Hansen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the third tooth portion including a second interproximal portion on both the first and second mold.
PNG
media_image7.png
578
508
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Vuillemot teaches a method of forming a dental restoration, the method comprising positioning a first mold body 410 providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of a patient (see fig. 8, such that it provides a fit with tooth 114, wherein the first mold body includes a portion corresponding with at least a first surface of the tooth (see fig. 8, abstract, pars. 20, 34) and a first interproximal portion corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second interproximal portion corresponding with a second interproximal surface of the tooth (see annotated figure below, pars. 30-31, such that the cavities are closed around the tooth and therefore have interproximal surfaces) and positioning a second mold body 420 providing for a customized fit with the at least one tooth of the patient (see fig. 8), wherein the second mold body includes a portion corresponding with a second surface of the tooth (see fig. 8)and a first interproximal portion corresponding with the first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second interproximal portion corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the tooth (see annaoted figure below, pars. 30-31, such that the cavities are closed around the tooth and therefore have interproximal surfaces).
With respect to claim 29, Vuillemot further teaches the first mold body has a customized fit with at least three teeth of the patient, wherein the at least one tooth is a first tooth, wherein the first mold body includes a portion corresponding to a first surface of the first tooth, a first surface of a second tooth and a third surface of a third tooth (see figs. 1-9), wherein the first mold body further includes a first interproximal portion and a second interproximal portion of the second tooth and a first interproximal portion and a second interproximal portion of the third tooth, wherein the first interproximal portion and the second interproximal portion of the second tooth each have a patient-specific customized fit, and wherein the first interproximal portion and second interproximal portion of the third tooth have a patient specific customized fit (see figs. 1-9, abstract), and wherein the second mold body further includes a first interproximal portion and a second interproximal portion of the second tooth, and a first interproximal portion and a second interproximal portion of the third tooth, wherein the first interproximal portion and second interproximal portion of the second tooth each have a patient specific customized fit, and wherein the first interproximal portion and second interproximal portion of the third tooth has a patient specific customized fit (see figs. 1-9, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the mold for treating only two teeth as taught by Hansen with the mold for treating three or more teeth as taught by Vuillemot in order to create a mold to treat the number of teeth that needs to be treated in order to carry out the desired treatment outcome.
PNG
media_image8.png
378
941
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach with respect to claim 17, wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region along the occlusal- gingival axis and wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region, and wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture and the second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture in combination with the other claimed limitations.
The prior art fails to teach with respect to claim 18, wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region, a second region and a third region along the occlusal-gingival axis and wherein the second interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region along the occlusal-gingival axis, and wherein the second region of the second interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture and the second region of the second interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Claim 30 is allowed over the prior art but objected to for a minor issue as highlighted above.
With respect to claim 30, the prior art fails to teach the claimed method wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art of Hansen does not teach at least one of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body or the first interproximal portion of the second mold body is engineered as claimed. However, it is noted that Hansen teaches the mold can be used on a tooth structure that is missing an interproximal portion (pars. 26, 48) and the mold cavity is for repairing the missing portion of the tooth (pars. 23, 25-26, 52) and that the shape/geometry of the cavity, including the interproximal spaces when the missing portion of the tooth includes an interproximal portion can be shaped based on knowledge derived through analysis of historical cases or virtual models of exemplary cases, without receiving a complete 3D representation of the case in question (see par. 80). Further Hanson teaches the shape of the tool, which would include the interproximal portions as disused above, may be “fabricated off of initial tooth geometry or digitally optimized tooth geometry (e.g. hole filling close gaps in the data, pulling and scaling data from tooth libraries, testing in a virtual articulator)” (par. 81). Therefore, as disclosed by the applicant the interproximal surfaces are “engineered” since they shaped based on other factors such at historical cases or exemplary cases and not just based off the current shape of the interproximal portion of the tooth. It is noted that the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive as discussed above in detail and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 4/28/2026
Prosecution Insights