DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on September 16, 2025 concerning application No. 18/711,562 filed on May 17, 2024.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 regarding the claim objections have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the claim objections of claims 2 and 4 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 112a/b rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that the filed amendments to the specification are considered to introduce new matter because the specification did not previously disclose an inclinometer, clinometer, tilt meter, accelerometer, or gyroscope. Therefore the amendments to the specification are not entered and the 35 USC 112a/b rejection of claim 1 stands. See MPEP 2181(III)-(IV).
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 1 and 3-4.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “the control unit includes a coordinate correction module that receives the ultrasound echo signals from the ultrasound transducer, obtains initial coordinates (x, y) for the ultrasound echo signals based on an origin preset as a reference position of the ultrasound transducer, calculates error values indicating a degree to which the ultrasound transducer deviates from the origin using the tilt angle of the ultrasound probe provided from the tilt sensor, corrects the initial coordinates for the ultrasound echo signals using the error values, and provides the corrected coordinates (x', y') for the ultrasound echo signals by considering the tilt angle of the ultrasound probe by the manual manipulation”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues Song does not teach the argued limitation because Song discloses a first sensor and a second sensor while the claimed invention only discloses a tilt sensor. However, as disclosed in the previous rejection, [0130] of Song discloses a first sensor 550 which detects the rotation of the transducer which corresponds to the tilt angle of the ultrasound probe. [0133] further discloses the rotation (tilt angle) determined by the first sensor is utilized for perform the correcting. Examiner notes that the claims as currently written do not limit the invention to only use a tilt sensor and therefore allows for additional sensors to be present as long as one of the sensors is specifically being utilized for detecting a tilt angle which is further used for correcting coordinates of the ultrasound echo signals, which Song teaches as set forth in the previous office action.
In response to applicant’s arguments that if modified the Song reference cannot work for its purposes as originally intended, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of using a motor to rotate the ultrasound transducer of Song in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. Applying the motor of Kim to the apparatus of Song would not have made the apparatus of Song inoperable for its intended purpose as it would still allow for the apparatus of Song to obtain rotational ultrasound images, thereby allowing the apparatus to further perform correction of the obtained images.
Specification
The amendment filed 09/16/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “a tilt sensor is an instrument used to measure an angle such as the inclination of an object relative to the direction of gravity, and is also known as an inclinometer, a clinometer, or tilt meter. The tilt sensor is generally configured to measure inclination using an accelerometer, an inclinometer, a gyroscope or similar device” as newly recited on pg. 15, [0037]. Since the original disclosure does not previously recite the above recited material, the amendment is considered to introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Examiner further notes that the references provided in the reply dated 09/16/2025 are not incorporated by reference and therefore cannot be utilized in providing the structure and function of the tilt sensor.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“tilt sensor” in claim 1,
“control unit” in claim 1,
“coordinate correction module” in claim 1,
“2D ultrasound image acquisition module” in claim 2,
“3D information extraction module” in claim 5.
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. For the purpose of examination and this office action, “tilt sensor” is mentioned in the specification but the specification does not provide an adequate structure for the tilt sensor. Further, “control unit”, “coordinate correction module”, “2D ultrasound image acquisition module”, and “3D information extraction module” will be interpreted as a microprocessor or equivalent thereof (see [0036] of the present applications specification).
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are 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. The claim language used invokes a 112(f) interpretation of the claims as seen in the above interpretation section. However the language in the specification fails to describe a hardware associated with software steps for “a tilt sensor”. Therefore the claims are seen as lacking written description.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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 1-2 and 4-6 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.
Claim limitation “tilt sensor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not describe an adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The specification states the tilt sensor provides the tilt angle of the probe but there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the tilt angle determination. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20160135785) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110137172, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches an ultrasound scanner (the ultrasound imaging apparatus shown in figs. 1-2) comprising:
an ultrasound transducer that transmits ultrasound signals to a measurement object and receives ultrasound echo signals reflected from the measurement object ([0077] “the ultrasound probe 500…transmit ultrasonic signals to an object and receive echo signals reflected by the object”. [0108] transducer 510 in probe 500);
a single motor connected to a central axis of the ultrasound transducer ([0017] “the driving device may include a driving motor configured to generate a rotational force to rotate the transducer”. Figs. 8A-B shows the motor connected to the central axis of the ultrasound transducer);
an ultrasound probe equipped with the ultrasound transducer (fig. 8B shows the transducer 510 mounted within the probe 500);
a tilt sensor mounted on a central axis of the ultrasound probe to detect a tilt angle of the ultrasound probe with respect to a first direction ([0130] discloses first sensor 550 which detects the position of the transducer changed by rotation, where rotation corresponds to the tilt angle. See [0108] and fig. 8A, clockwise and counterclockwise rotation corresponds to the tilt); and
a control unit (the electronic circuitry of the systems shown in figs 1-2) acquiring sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images at a plurality of tilt angles in response to a change in the tilt angle of the ultrasound probe by manual manipulation ([0058] “an image processor 350 that converts the echo ultrasound received by the ultrasound probe 500 into an ultrasound image”. [0100] and fig. 6 disclose a plurality of images are obtained for each of the tilt angle (clockwise and counterclockwise rotations). [0084] further discloses the volume data is acquired using a freehand (manual) method. [0095] further discloses the images are 2D cross-sectional images),
wherein the control unit (the electronic circuitry of the systems shown in figs 1-2) receives the ultrasound echo signals from the ultrasound transducer ([0058] “an image processor 350 that converts the echo ultrasound received by the ultrasound probe 500 into an ultrasound image”), corrects coordinates of the ultrasound echo signals by considering the tilt angle of the ultrasound probe by the manual manipulation ([0149] discloses an image correction unit 325 that shifts the images, thereby correcting the coordinates of the image in order to correct the images for backlash (change in angle in which an alignment axis of the ultrasound devices moves, see [0012])), and acquires sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images using the ultrasound echo signals with the corrected coordinates (x’, y’) ([0149] discloses outputting an image after correcting for the backlash, thereby using the corrected coordinates. [0095] further discloses multiple images are obtained and the images are 2D cross-sectional images), and
wherein the control unit includes a coordinate correction module that receives the ultrasound echo signals from the ultrasound transducer ([0022] discloses the controller corrects the images, thereby receiving the ultrasound echo signals), obtains the initial coordinates (x, y) for the ultrasound echo signals based on an origin preset as a reference position of the ultrasound transducer ([016] and [0112] disclose determining the backlash (error) based on a change in swing angle in which an alignment axis of an ultrasound device moves, the initial position of the alignment axis is considered the obtained initial coordinates of the ultrasound signals based on the origin), calculates error values (Δx, Δy) indicating a degree to which the ultrasound transducer deviates from the origin using the tilt angle (θ) of the ultrasound probe provided from the tilt sensor ([0146] discloses calculating the backlash (error) values by calculating the variations between the signals. [0012] “the backlash is a change in a swing angle of a swing motion, in which alignment axis of an ultrasound device moves in a predetermined angle” and [0104] “backlash is calculated as an error between a theoretical change in an angle of an alignment axis of an ultrasound transmitting and receiving device”, the initial position of the alignment axis is considered the origin and the swing angle represents the tilt angle of the ultrasound probe. As discussed above the first sensor 550 measures the tilt angle), corrects the initial coordinates for the ultrasound echo signals using the error values ([0149] discloses the image correction unit 325 shifts the images by taking in to account the backlash of the device, thereby correcting the coordinates of the image), and provides the corrected coordinates (x', y') for the ultrasound echo signals by considering the tilt angle of the ultrasound probe by the manual manipulation ([0149] the shifted image location corresponds to the corrected coordinates for the ultrasound echo signals).
Song does not specifically teach the sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images are obtained by rotating the ultrasound transducer using a single motor in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However,
Kim in a similar field of endeavor teaches obtaining sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images by rotating the ultrasound transducer using a single motor in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction ([0031] “to acquire ultrasonic signals for a plurality of scan planes, the first stepping motor 120 rotates the transducer assembly about a central vertical axis through a total angle theta”. Abstract discloses the images are 2D and [0047] discloses the scans are of a sector, therefore the images are sector shaped. fig. 2 further shows the rotation (second) direction is perpendicular to the tilt (first) direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of obtaining sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images by rotating the ultrasound transducer using a single motor in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of Kim to the apparatus of Song to allow for the predictable results of ensuring images from the correct angles are obtained, thereby improving the quality of the obtained results.
Regrading claim 2, Song in view of Kim teaches the scanner of claim 1, as set forth above. Song further teaches the control unit further includes:
a 2D ultrasound image acquisition module (the electronic circuitry of the systems shown in figs 1-2) that acquires ultrasound echo signals according to the rotation movement ([0058] “an image processor 350 that converts the echo ultrasound received by the ultrasound probe 500 into an ultrasound image” and [0095] “2D cross-sectional images of the object are acquired in accordance with the echo signals received by the ultrasound probe 500”), corrects the coordinates of the ultrasound echo signals using the coordinate correction module ([0149] discloses image correction unit 325 which corrects the image location (coordinates)), and acquires the sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images using the ultrasound echo signals with the corrected coordinates (x’, y’) ([0149] discloses an image is output after correcting for the backlash, thereby using the corrected coordinates. [0095] further discloses the images are 2D cross-sectional images).
Kim further teaches a 2D ultrasound image acquisition module that rotates the ultrasound transducer along the second direction by driving the single motor ([0031] “to acquire ultrasonic signals for a plurality of scan planes, the first stepping motor 120 rotates the transducer assembly about a central vertical axis through a total angle theta”. Abstract discloses the images are 2D). fig. 2 further shows the rotation (first) direction is perpendicular to the tilt (second) direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the 2D ultrasound image acquisition module rotate the ultrasound transducer along the second direction by driving the single motor of Kim to the 2D ultrasound image acquisition module of Song to allow for the predictable results of ensuring images from the correct angles are obtained, thereby improving the quality of the obtained results and making the process of obtaining the images more efficient.
Regrading claim 5, Song in view of Kim teaches the scanner of claim 2, as set forth above. Song further teaches the control unit further includes a 3D information extraction module (the electronic circuitry of the systems shown in figs 1-2) that acquires the sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images at the plurality of tilt angles by repeatedly executing the 2D ultrasound image acquisition module in response to changes in the tilt angle due to the manual manipulation, and extracts a preset 3D information using the sector-shaped 2D ultrasound images ([0095] “in order to three-dimensionally visualize the object, 2D cross-sectional images of the object are acquired in accordance with the echo signals received by the ultrasound probe 500, and the 2D cross-sectional images are sequentially stacked in the corresponding order thereof to generate a set of discrete 3D alignments”. Fig. 6 shows that an image is acquired at each of the plurality of tilt angles and [0084] discloses the volume data is acquired using a freehand method, thereby having the probe be manually manipulated).
Regrading claim 6, Song in view of Kim teaches the scanner of claim 2, as set forth above. Kim further teaches the 3D information extracted by the control unit is volume of urine calculated from volume of a bladder ([0049] discloses obtaining a three-dimensional volume using a plurality of two-dimensional areas in order to accurately measure the volume of urine in the bladder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the 3D information extracted by the control unit be volume of urine calculated from volume of a bladder or Kim to the control unit of Song in view of Kim to allow for the predictable results of increasing the number of regions the apparatus is able to analyze, thereby making the apparatus more versatile.
Examiner’s note
Claim 4 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.
The prior art of record fails to reasonably teach or in combination render obvious the following limitations when the claims taken as a whole to include, “The ultrasound scanner according to claim 3, wherein the corrected coordinates (x', y') of the coordinate correction module are obtained by the equations below,
PNG
media_image1.png
282
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
here, (x, y) is the initial coordinate for the ultrasound echo signal based on the origin, (x', y') is the corrected coordinate for the ultrasound echo signal considering the tilt of the ultrasound probe, and Δd is the amount of movement in the axial direction of the ultrasound probe, and R is a radius of the lower covering of the ultrasound probe”.
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 ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798