DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment dated 06/17/2024 has been formally entered and amended claims 1-10 submitted with Preliminary Amendment dated 06/17/2024 are being examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “210” has been used to designate both “plug” (see instant application specification as-filed page 9 line 8) and “cap” (see instant application specification as-filed page 9 line 8).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…Therefore, the main object of the present invention consists in general… in page 4 line 21 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is --Therefore, the main objective of the present invention consists in general--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 ‘Magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is –A [[M]]magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus--.
In each of claims 2-10 line 1 “Magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – The [[M]] magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus” in light of antecedent basis for the term “Magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus” in claim 1 line 1.
Each of claims 1-10 include reference characters which are enclosed within parentheses. The use of reference characters is considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. Since the reference characters are not afforded patentable weight, the reference characters enclosed within parentheses should be deleted from the claims.
Claim 6 “said dedicated software is adapted to be configured by the operator at the start of the session by means of the computer terminal and in that said configuration occurs based on the data present in the memory and obtained from the preceding sessions of the patient under treatment and in that said dedicated software is adapted to be configured by the operator at the start of the session so as to set the value of the speed of the rotor …and the intensity of the pulses of the inducer device” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- said dedicated software is in a manner as to set the value of the speed of the rotor …and the intensity of the pulses of the inducer device— [a] to avoid intended result/functional limitation interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04) which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “so as to” necessarily follows from preceding limitations and thus unclear as to whether this limitation is even required or not required and [b] to fix informality arising from “adapted to be configured by” clause.
Claim 1 line 1-2 “Magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus for the tissues comprising” needs to be corrected to --Magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus for the tissues comprising:-- since the preamble in claim 1 lines 1-2 applies to all the limitations recited in the claim body.
Claim 1 “adapted to” encompassing limitations needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is to replace “adapted to “ with –configured to – to avoid potential intended use/functional limitation interpretation as detailed in MPEP 2111.04 which states inter alia that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (See MPEP 2111.04 discussion especially regarding “Adapted to,” “Adapted for,” “Wherein,” and “Whereby” and Contingent Clauses). For example amend claim 1 lines 2-5 “a handpiece … constituted by a head portion …, by a body … and by a handle …, in which in the head portion … and in the body … there is a recess adapted to house a rotor … adapted to carry out work in the radial direction with respect to the axis of the access hole made on said head portion” to – a handpiece … constituted by a head portion …, by a body … and by a handle …, in which in the head portion … and in the body … there is a recess [[adapted]] configured to house a rotor … [[adapted]] configured to carry out work in the radial direction with respect to the axis of the access hole made on said head portion--.
In each of claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9 “adapted to” encompassing limitations needs to be corrected to by replacing adapted to “ with –configured to – to avoid potential intended use/functional limitation interpretation as detailed in MPEP 2111.04 which states inter alia that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (See MPEP 2111.04 discussion especially regarding “Adapted to,” “Adapted for,” “Wherein,” and “Whereby” and Contingent Clauses).
Claim 8 lines 1-5 “…apparatus for the tissues according to claim 1 characterized in that said dedicated software is adapted for the recognition of the patient by means of the attribution of a unique recognition QR to the patient himself/herself and detected by a reader placed in the computer terminal” needs to be corrected to – … apparatus for the tissues according to claim 1, wherein software is [[adapted]] configured for the recognition of the patient by means of the attribution of a unique recognition QR to the patient himself/herself and detected by a reader placed in the computer terminal--.
Claim 2 in lines 5-7 “at the time when they cyclically enter into contact with the body tissue and in that the presence of the rigid balls … and of the balls … during the rotation of the rotor” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- at the time [[when]] while they cyclically enter into contact with the body tissue and in that the presence of the rigid balls … and of the balls … during the rotation of the rotor -- to avoid conditional limitation recitation which would raise question as to what occurs when the condition is not met.
Claim 8 include acronyms/abbreviations. At least first occurrence of each acronym/abbreviation should be spelled out in full.
Claim 1 “in which the rotation of the rotor …is such to cause the passive rotation of each single ball … on itself each time” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- in which the rotor rotates in a manner as to cause the passive rotation of each single ball … on itself each time-- to avoid intended result/functional limitation interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04) which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding such to follows from preceding limitations and thus unclear as to whether this limitation is even required or not required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 in each of line 9, line 24, line 28, line 34 recites “the balls” and “said balls” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 1 line 9 “the balls” and “said balls” is referencing claim 1 line 8 “at least four ball” and/or claim 1 line 6 “plurality of balls”.
Claim 2 recites “the balls”, “said balls’ and in line 2 recites “rigid balls” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 2 “the balls” and/or “said balls” is referencing claim 1 line 8 “at least four ball” and/or claim 1 line 6 “plurality of balls”. Additionally, it is unclear as to whether claim 2 “rigid balls” are among claim 1 line 8 “at least four ball” and/or claim 1 line 6 “plurality of balls” or in addition or different.
Claim 3 recites “the rigid balls’ and “the aforesaid balls” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear as to whether claim 3 “rigid balls” are among claim 1 line 8 “at least four ball” and/or claim 1 line 6 “plurality of balls” or in addition or different. Lastly, it is unclear to “the aforesaid balls” is referencing which of the preceding balls i.e. “the rigid balls’, “the balls”, claim 1 line 8 “at least four ball” and/or claim 1 line 6 “plurality of balls”.
Claim 5 recites “the balls” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 1 line 9 “the balls” is referencing claim 1 line 8 “at least four ball” and/or claim 1 line 6 “plurality of balls”.
Claim 1 recites “the radial direction”, “the axis”, “the access hole”, “the lateral surface”, “the longitudinal central channels”, “the rotation axis”, “the rotation “, “the passive rotation”, “the cavity”, “the data”, “the execution”, “said longitudinal central channels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Each of claim 4, 6, 8, 9 recite at least one or more of the term “the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the muscle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the tissue temperature”, “said resistance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites ”the data processing system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the speed”, “the intensity”, “the feedback mechanism”, “the values”, “the temperature”, “the body zones”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the speed”, “the session”, “the preceding sessions”, “the value” “the speed”, “the intensity”, “the memory”, and “the pulses”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the session”, “the parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the memory”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the body zones”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the interaction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Each of claim 2 and claim 6 recite “treatment” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether each of claim 2 and claim 6 “treatment” is the same as, different than or in addition to “treatment” recited in base independent claim 1 and if different in what way the two differ.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 recites one of more instances of the term “the patient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Each of claims 1-10 recites “the tissues”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites multiple instances of “the tissue”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear as to which of the plurality of “the tissues” recited in claim 1 line 1 is being referenced in the claim body.
Claim 2 recites “the body tissue”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Each of claim 3-5 recites one of more instances of “the tissue”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear as to which of the plurality of “the tissues” recited in claim 1 line 1 is being referenced in the claim body.
Claim 4 recites “the various tissue zones” and “the tissue temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Each of claims 6-7, 10 recite one of more instances of the limitation "the operator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 16-17 recites “that this comes into contact with the tissue of the patient” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, in the context used, it is unclear the term “this” is referencing what preceding structures.
Each of claims 1-10 use the language “characterized by” which is indefinite in that it is unclear whether this is intended to be an inclusive or exclusive recitation, language such as comprising or consisting of should be used based upon what is intended.
Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification at least page 8 lines 3-8 and page 13 lines 1-7.
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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.
More specifically, the following terms are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims that invoke 35 U.S.C 112 (f)
Means term
Specification Support in instant application specification as-filed dated 01/08/2024
1
“isolating …support means”
At least fig. 5 “420”
1
“tightening…support means”
At least fig. 5 “410”
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.
Contingently Allowable Subject-Matter
As per independent claim 1, independent claim 1 would be contingently allowable if rewritten or amended 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 in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
As per dependent claims 2-10, dependent claims 2-10 would be contingently allowable if rewritten or amended 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 by further including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
As per dependent claims 2-10, dependent claims 2-10 each is being 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 in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per independent Claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a magnetotherapy and compressive microvibration apparatus for the tissues comprising a handpiece constituted by a head portion, by a body and by a handle, in which in the head portion and in the body there is a recess … to carry out work in the radial direction with respect to the axis of the access hole made on said head portion, in which said rotor has the form of a hollow cylinder, having on the lateral surface a plurality of balls that are free to rotate on themselves and inserted on pins by means of the longitudinal central channels…and by means of a wireless connection obtained by means of a wireless card, in that said electronic control unit is situated in proximity to and behind said interface and manages, by means of said connection device, the power supply to said inducer device, in that at the area of the body comprised between the handle and the rectangular opening, there is a temperature sensor connected to the electronic control unit … to detect zones of greater or lesser perfusion of the tissue of the patient during the execution of the treatment including all the other features, structures, specific arrangement and combination of features and structures in independent Claim 1.
Prior art US 20200054890 A1 to Schwarz et al. discloses device and methods using the influence of magnetic and induced electric field on biological structure. The magnetic field is time-varying and high powered therefore the method is based on a value of magnetic flux density sufficient to induce at least muscle contraction. The invention proposes further to combine the magnetic field with radiofrequency, light, mechanical or pressure source in order to provide an apparatus for improved treatment.
Prior art US 20080249350 A1 to Marchitto et al. discloses methods, devices, and compositions for inducing changes in tissues for inducing alterations in tissues such as skin, for cosmetic purposes. More specifically, Marchitto discloses improving the cosmetic appearance of skin by controllably heating a superficial layer of skin thereby inducing acute tissue contraction or shrinkage and a wound response leading to the production of biomolecules, all of which result in improved cosmesis by incorporating a source of radiofrequency electrical energy coupled to coil, with requisite impedance matching network, thereby resulting in the production of an alternating magnetic field. When tissue is brought into proximity of the alternating magnetic field, inductive heating of the tissue results as a consequence of either or both of dipole formation and oscillation, and eddy current formation.
Prior art US 6155966 A to Parker discloses an apparatus and method for toning skin with a focused, coherent electromagnetic field. More specifically, Parker discloses apparatus and method for toning tissue and particularly skin with a focused, coherent electromagnetic field that employs a housing, a user-accessible switch positioned on the housing, and electronics and an electromagnet assembly positioned within the housing. The electromagnet assembly includes a static magnet and an electromagnet which are assembled relative to each other and positioned within the housing such that negative magnetic poles of the static magnet and the electromagnet both face outwardly from an end portion of the housing. The electronics provide a periodic current depending upon a setting of the switch. The electromagnet assembly generates a focused, coherent electromagnetic field in response to the periodic current.
Prior art US 20150157873 A1 to Sokolowski discloses a device and a method for repetitive nerve stimulation in order to break down fat tissue by means of inductive magnetic fields, which device and method permit easy patient-related adjustability and control in order to reduce fat tissue in defined body regions, such as the abdomen, buttocks, or thighs, in a targeted manner and without body contact using the effect of the stimulation of muscle contractions by contactless induction of electric fields by means of pulsed magnetic fields in the tissue. By influencing the electric currents, pulsating magnetic fields are also able to stimulate ion transport and measurably increase metabolism.
Prior art US 20170182334 A1 to Altshuler et al. discloses method and apparatus for treating tissue in a region at depth while protecting non-targeted tissue by cyclically applying cooling to the patients skin and by applying radiation to the patient's skin above the region to selectively heat tissue during and/or after cooling is applied. Treatment may also be enhanced by applying mechanical, acoustic or electrical stimulation to the region.
Prior art to US 20090171266 A1 to Harris discloses a system for combination therapy for producing lysis of adipose tissue that includes a transducer adapted to apply focused ultrasonic energy to said adipose tissue and at least one additional unit adapted to provide a therapeutic procedure to said adipose tissue or surrounding tissue.
Prior art US 20070293849 A1 to Hennings et al. discloses a treatment of cellulite and adipose tissue via method and apparatus that will alter the fibrous strands in the fatty layers of the skin to reduce the appearance of cellulite and adipose tissue. Electromagnetic energy is used to selectively shrink or alternatively photoacoustically ablate the collagen in the constricting bands of connective tissue that causes the dimpled appearance of cellulite and adipose tissue while avoiding damage to the surrounding fatty cells.
Prior art US 20060259102 A1 to Slatkine discloses method and apparatus for enhancing the absorption of light in targeted skin structures. After applying a vacuum to a vacuum chamber placed on a skin target and pressure modulating the applied vacuum, the concentration of blood and/or blood vessels is increased within a predetermined depth below the skin surface of the skin target. Optical energy associated with light directed in a direction substantially normal to a skin surface adjoining the skin target is absorbed within the predetermined depth.
However, patentable subject-matter as now explicitly, positively and specifically recited by the Applicants in independent device claim 1 has neither been disclosed nor is rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Additionally, as per dependent claims 2-10, dependent claims 2-10 would be contingently allowable based on their direct/indirect dependency on contingently allowable respective base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and/or the claims.
Prior art US 20050261584 A1 to Eshel discloses methodology and system for treating or breaking down cellulite and fat similar to that disclosed. More specifically, method and system for treating or breaking down cellulite and fat including directing ultrasonic energy at a multiplicity of target volumes within the region, which target volumes contain cellulite and fat, thereby to selectively lyse or induce apoptosis in the cellulite and fat in the target volumes and generally not lyse or not induce apoptosis in non-cellulite and non-fat tissue in the target volumes and computerized tracking of the multiplicity of target volumes notwithstanding movement of the body.
Prior art US 20030220674 A1 to Anderson et al. discloses methods for use in the selective disruption of lipid-rich cells similar to that disclosed.. More specifically, a device for use in carrying out the methods for selective disruption of lipid-rich cells by controlled cooling.
Prior art US 20070060989 A1 to Deem et al. discloses methods and apparatus are provided for disruption/destruction of subcutaneous structures in a mammalian body for the treatment of skin irregularities, and other disorders such as excess adipose tissue, cellulite similar to that disclosed. More specifically, methods and apparatus are provided for disruption/destruction of subcutaneous structures in a mammalian body for the treatment of skin irregularities, and other disorders such as excess adipose tissue, cellulite, and scarring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights