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 .
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 1-20 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.
Amended claim 1 recites,
“ selecting one of a plurality of candidate positions for the first 3D model in the virtual environment, wherein the plurality of candidate positions respectively corresponds to a plurality of physical candidate position of the robotic surgical system in a physical operating room;
simulating movements or rotations of the first 3D model in the virtual environment based on each of the plurality of candidate position and the planned surgical pathway;
determining whether a collision associated with the first 3D model occurs in the virtual environment based on the simulated movements or rotations; and
generating status information of each of the first plurality of candidate positions based on the determining.”
Applicant does not have position the amended claims, emphasis added. There is no disclosure in applicant’s invention wherein, “plurality of candidate positions respectively” corresponds to a “plurality of physical candidate position”
This is now matter.
The rest of the claims are rejected for either having similar deficiencies as claim 1 of for depending on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 11896315 B2) in view of Steines (US pub 2022/0273450).
Regarding claim 1, Fuerst discloses a method to position a robotic surgical system (figs. 1-5; abstract; placements and orientation in a physical environment; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26), comprising:
generating a first three-dimensional (3D) model associated with the robotic surgical system (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; surgical system is generated virtually in three dimensions, surgical system could include, implants parts, instruments, equipment, etc; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-66; col. 13, lines 53 to col. 14, lines 26);
a second 3D model associated with a patient, and a planned surgical pathway (col. 5 discloses a trocar tool port or surgical pathway into patient, col. 5, lines 54-60; col. 14, lines 18-26, etc discloses a planned surgical pathway for an instrument associated with a patient in an operating room) in a virtual environment (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; surgical system includes patients, instruments, cart, etc generated virtually in three dimensions; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-59);
selecting one of a plurality of candidate positions for the first 3D model in the virtual environment, wherein each of the plurality of candidate positions respectively corresponds to a first physical candidate position of the robotic surgical system in a physical operating room (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; positions in the operating room for the surgical system are selected and designated including positions of patients, instruments, cart, etc generated virtually in three dimensions; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-66);
simulating movements or rotations of the first 3D model in the virtual environment based on the first candidate position (fig. 3; col. 6 lines 22 to col. 7, lines 33) and the planned surgical pathway (col. 14, lines 18-26, etc discloses a planned surgical pathway for an instrument associated with a patient in an operating room);
determining whether a collision associated with the first 3D model occurs in the virtual environment based on the simulated movements or rotations (the system determines there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; col. 5, lines 28-49; col. 10, lines 48-61); and
generating status information of the first candidate position (for example status of candidate position must be optimized to accommodate reachability of instruments; generating a status e.g. a virtual reality simulation status indicating whether positions or arms are in a stowed away position, locked position, et; col. 5, lines 50 to col. 6, lines 58; col. 10, lines 48-57) based on the determining (the system generates status information of the candidate position i.e. a first physical position or placement of the robotic surgical system based on the system determining that there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; col. 10, lines 62-66; col. 11, lines 17-42).
Fuerst did not particularly recite the limitation, “wherein the first 3D model is represented by a set of polygon meshes but not by any volumetric mesh”.
However, Steines teaches of a first and a second 3D model associated with a patient (fig. 18; sec 0049, 0164, 0250, 0278, 0297, 0316, 0317, 0332, 0791), and a planned surgical pathway in a virtual environment (sec 1180), wherein the first 3D model is represented by a set of polygon meshes but not by any volumetric mesh (figs. 76-83, etc; three-dimensional (3D) model associated with the robotic surgical system e.g. a tool, an implant; sec 0109, 1241);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fuerst as taught by Steines such that 3D models of the Fuerst instruments, tools, etc are represented by a set of polygon meshes for the purpose of improving performance of a surgical procedure using digitally created polygon mesh models that are preoperatively designed (see Steines; sec 0090, 0010).
Regarding claim 9, Fuerst discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining further includes determining whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is in a default pose (the system determines there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; collision in Fuesrt includes all collisions in the operating and thus it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the determining whether there is collision includes determining whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is in a default pose or another pose; col. 5, lines 28-49; col. 10, lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 10, Fuerst discloses the method of claim 9, in response to determining that the collusion occurs when the first 3D model is in a default pose, further comprising determining whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is in another pose different from the default pose (the system determines there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; collision in Fuesrt includes all collisions in the operating and thus it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the determining whether there is collision includes determining whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is in a default pose or in any other pose; col. 5, lines 28-49; col. 10, lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 11, Fuerst discloses a system to position a robotic surgical system (figs. 1-5; abstract; placements and orientation in a physical environment; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26), comprising:
a processor (col. 15, lines 12 to col. 16, lines 24; claim 16, lines 56-67); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing a set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor (col. 15, lines 12 to col. 16, lines 24; claim 16, lines 56-67), cause the processor to:
generate a first three-dimensional (3D) model associated with the robotic surgical system (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; surgical system is generated virtually in three dimensions, surgical system could include, implants parts, instruments, equipment, etc; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-66; col. 13, lines 53 to col. 14, lines 26) and a second 3D model associated with a patient and a planned surgical pathway (col. 5 discloses a trocar tool port or surgical pathway into patient, col. 5, lines 54-60; col. 14, lines 18-26, etc discloses a planned surgical pathway for an instrument associated with a patient in an operating room) in a virtual environment (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; surgical system includes patients, instruments, cart, etc generated virtually in three dimensions; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-59),
select a first candidate position for the first 3D model in the virtual environment, wherein the first candidate position corresponds to a first physical candidate position of the robotic surgical system in a physical operating room(figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; positions in the operating room for the surgical system are selected and designated including positions of patients, instruments, cart, etc generated virtually in three dimensions; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-66);
simulate movements or rotations of the first 3D model in the virtual environment based on the first candidate position and the planned surgical pathway (fig. 3; col. 6 lines 22 to col. 7, lines 33) and the planned surgical pathway (col. 14, lines 18-26, etc discloses a planned surgical pathway for an instrument associated with a patient in an operating room);
determine whether a collision associated with the first 3D model occurs in the virtual environment based on the simulated movements or rotations (the system determines there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; col. 5, lines 28-49; col. 10, lines 48-61); and
generate status information of the first candidate position (for example status of candidate position must be optimized to accommodate reachability of instruments; generating a status e.g. a virtual reality simulation status indicating whether positions or arms are in a stowed away position, locked position, et; col. 5, lines 50 to col. 6, lines 58; col. 10, lines 48-57) based on the determining (the system generates status information of the candidate position i.e. a first physical position or placement of the robotic surgical system based on the system determining that there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; col. 10, lines 62-66; col. 11, lines 17-42).
Fuerst did not particularly recite the limitation, “wherein the first 3D model is represented by a set of polygon meshes but not by any volumetric mesh”.
However, Steines teaches of a first and a second 3D model associated with a patient (fig. 18; sec 0049, 0164, 0250, 0278, 0297, 0316, 0317, 0332, 0791), and a planned surgical pathway in a virtual environment (sec 1180), wherein the first 3D model is represented by a set of polygon meshes but not by any volumetric mesh (figs. 76-83, etc; three-dimensional (3D) model associated with the robotic surgical system e.g. a tool, an implant; sec 0109, 1241);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fuerst as taught by Steines such that 3D models of the Fuerst instruments, tools, etc are represented by a set of polygon meshes for the purpose of improving performance of a surgical procedure using digitally created polygon mesh models that are preoperatively designed (see Steines; sec 0090, 0010).
Regarding claim 19, Fuerst discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing an additional set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is in a default pose (the system determines there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; collision in Fuesrt includes all collisions in the operating and thus it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the determining whether there is collision includes determining whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is a default pose or another pose; col. 5, lines 28-49; col. 10, lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 20, Fuerst discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing an additional set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
in response to determining that the collusion occurs when the first 3D model is in a default pose, determine whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is in another pose different from the default pose (the system determines there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; collision in Fuesrt includes all collisions in the operating and thus it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the determining whether there is collision includes determining whether the collision occurs when the first 3D model is in another pose or a default pose; col. 5, lines 28-49; col. 10, lines 48-61).
Claims 2-8, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 11896315 B2) and Steines (US pub 2022/0273450) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bulleit (US 12242777).
Regarding claim 2, Fuerst and Steines disclose the method of claim 1, but did not particularly recite the limitation, “…..generating the set of polygon meshes prior to generating the first 3D model…….,”.
However, Bulleit teaches of a method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the set of polygon meshes prior to generating the first 3D model, wherein the set of polygon meshes represents a surface of the first 3D model (figs. 6&7; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fuerst and Steines as taught by Bulleit for the purpose or effective creating an outline and shape of a surgical system using polygon meshes before producing well refined final product of the surgical system.
Regarding claim 3, Bulleit teaches of the method of claim 2, wherein generating the set of polygon meshes comprises:
loading a third 3D model associated with a component of the robotic surgical system, wherein a first polygon mesh is configured to represent a surface of the third 3D model and a first volumetric mesh is configured to represent an interior volume of the third 3D model; and creating a primitive mesh to enclose the third 3D model (figs. 6&7; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 4, Bulleit teaches of the method of claim 3, wherein the primitive mesh is a sphere mesh (col. 13, lines 65 to col. 14, lines 18; col. 20, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 5, Bulleit teaches of the method of claim 3, wherein generating the set of polygon meshes further comprises:
adjusting the primitive mesh to match a surface of the component (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20);
resampling the adjusted mesh (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20); and
simplifying the resampled mesh (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 6, Bulleit teaches of the method of claim 5, wherein the resampled mesh includes first uniform faces having the first same shape (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 7, Bulleit teaches of the method of claim 3, wherein generating the set of polygon meshes further includes generating a second polygon mesh corresponding to a physical working space for a surgeon (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 8, Bulleit teaches of the method of claim 7, wherein the second polygon mesh is a cylindrical polygon mesh and includes second uniform faces having the second same shape (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 12, Fuerst and Steines disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium contains an additional set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor (figs. 1-5; abstract; placements and orientation in a physical environment; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26).
Fuerst and Steines disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, but did not particularly recite the limitation, “….generate the set of polygon meshes prior to generating the first 3D model, wherein the set of polygon meshes represents a surface of the first 3D model…….”
However, Bulleit teaches of a system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing an additional set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
generate the set of polygon meshes prior to generating the first 3D model, wherein the set of polygon meshes represents a surface of the first 3D model (figs. 6&7; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
However, Bulleit teaches of a system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing an additional set of executable instructions (col. 37, lines 15-67) which, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
generating the set of polygon meshes prior to generating the first 3D model, wherein the set of polygon meshes represents a surface of the first 3D model (figs. 6&7; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fuerst and Steines as taught by Bulleit for the purpose or effective creating an outline and shape of a surgical system using polygon meshes before producing well refined final product of the surgical system.
Regarding claim 13, Bulleit teaches of the system of claim 12, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing an additional set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
load a third 3D model associated with a component of the robotic surgical system, wherein a first polygon mesh is configured to represent a surface of the third 3D model and a first volumetric mesh is configured to represent an interior volume of the third 3D model; and create a primitive mesh to enclose the third 3D model (figs. 6&7; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 14, Bulleit teaches of the system of claim 13, wherein the primitive mesh is a sphere mesh (figs. 6&7; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 15, Bulleit teaches of the system of claim 13, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing an additional set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
adjust the primitive mesh to match a surface of the component (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20);
resample the adjusted mesh (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20); and simplify the resampled mesh (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 16, Bulleit teaches of the system of claim 15, wherein the resampled mesh includes first uniform faces having the first same shape (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 17, Bulleit teaches of the system of claim 13, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing an additional set of executable instructions which, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
generate a second polygon mesh corresponding to a physical working space for a surgeon (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Regarding claim 18, Bulleit teaches of the system of claim 17, wherein the second polygon mesh is a cylindrical polygon mesh and includes second uniform faces having the second same shape (figs. 6-21; col. 23, lines 38 to col. 25, lines 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the rejections on the grounds that the claims have been amended to overcome the rejections. The examiner respectfully disagrees. These amendments are not supported on applicant’s original disclosure including applicant’s cited paragraphs 0050-0060 of the specification.
Applicant does not have position the amended claims, emphasis added. There is no disclosure in applicant’s invention wherein, “plurality of candidate positions respectively” corresponds to a “plurality of physical candidate position”
This is now matter
Fuerst discloses a method to position a robotic surgical system (figs. 1-5; abstract; placements and orientation in a physical environment; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26), comprising:
generating a first three-dimensional (3D) model associated with the robotic surgical system (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; surgical system is generated virtually in three dimensions, surgical system could include, implants parts, instruments, equipment, etc; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-66; col. 13, lines 53 to col. 14, lines 26);
a second 3D model associated with a patient, and a planned surgical pathway (col. 5 discloses a trocar tool port or surgical pathway into patient, col. 5, lines 54-60; col. 14, lines 18-26, etc discloses a planned surgical pathway for an instrument associated with a patient in an operating room) in a virtual environment (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; surgical system includes patients, instruments, cart, etc generated virtually in three dimensions; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-59);
selecting one of a plurality of candidate positions for the first 3D model in the virtual environment, wherein each of the plurality of candidate positions respectively corresponds to a first physical candidate position of the robotic surgical system in a physical operating room (figs. 1-5 shows a 3D model of the operating environment; positions in the operating room for the surgical system are selected and designated including positions of patients, instruments, cart, etc generated virtually in three dimensions; col. 1, lines 50 to col. 2, lines 26; col. 2, lines 66 to col. 3, line 39; col. 5, lines 27-66);
simulating movements or rotations of the first 3D model in the virtual environment based on the first candidate position (fig. 3; col. 6 lines 22 to col. 7, lines 33) and the planned surgical pathway (col. 14, lines 18-26, etc discloses a planned surgical pathway for an instrument associated with a patient in an operating room);
determining whether a collision associated with the first 3D model occurs in the virtual environment based on the simulated movements or rotations (the system determines there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; col. 5, lines 28-49; col. 10, lines 48-61); and
generating status information of the first candidate position (for example status of candidate position must be optimized to accommodate reachability of instruments; generating a status e.g. a virtual reality simulation status indicating whether positions or arms are in a stowed away position, locked position, et; col. 5, lines 50 to col. 6, lines 58; col. 10, lines 48-57) based on the determining (the system generates status information of the candidate position i.e. a first physical position or placement of the robotic surgical system based on the system determining that there will be occurrence of collisions, wherein the risk of collision is minimized; col. 10, lines 62-66; col. 11, lines 17-42).
Fuerst did not particularly recite the limitation, “wherein the first 3D model is represented by a set of polygon meshes but not by any volumetric mesh”.
However, Steines teaches of a first and a second 3D model associated with a patient (fig. 18; sec 0049, 0164, 0250, 0278, 0297, 0316, 0317, 0332, 0791), and a planned surgical pathway in a virtual environment (sec 1180), wherein the first 3D model is represented by a set of polygon meshes but not by any volumetric mesh (figs. 76-83, etc; three-dimensional (3D) model associated with the robotic surgical system e.g. a tool, an implant; sec 0109, 1241);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fuerst as taught by Steines such that 3D models of the Fuerst instruments, tools, etc are represented by a set of polygon meshes for the purpose of improving performance of a surgical procedure using digitally created polygon mesh models that are preoperatively designed (see Steines; sec 0090, 0010).
It is believed that the prior art reads on the claims.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights