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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendments submitted 09/17/2024 have been acknowledged
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 15 have been amended
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites “A computer implemented method according to claim 12,” A claim depending on itself violates the clarity and form requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will assume claim 12 will be dependent on claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sabina et al (Sabina hereinafter US 20180005371 A1)
As per claim 1
Sabina teaches A computer implemented method for updating a current digital 3D scan representing the surface of a physical object with an at least one new 3D scan (Figure 1, Paragraph [0013] “As additional intraoral images are received during the scan session, these intraoral images may be registered to previously received intraoral images from the current scan session or to the historical template. The three dimensional image may then be updated to reflect the new intraoral images.) where the updating of the current digital 3D scan provides an updated digital 3D scan representation of the surface of the physical object (Figures 3A and 3B) wherein the computer implemented method comprises the steps of:" obtaining the current digital 3D scan that includes surface information of an area of the surface of the physical object," (Figures 3A and 3B) obtaining the at least one new digital 3D scan that includes new surface information of at least a part of the area of the surface of the physical object (Figure 5 Paragraph [0013] “The three dimensional image may then be updated to reflect the new intraoral images.” Paragraph [0027] “In one embodiment, performing image registration includes capturing 3D data of various points of a surface in multiple images”) determining differences in the surface information of the current digital 3D scan and of the at least one new digital 3D scan (Paragraph [0034] “In one embodiment, areas of interest are determined by comparing images of a current scan session to a historical template to determine any differences . Such areas of interest may include voids…areas of conflict or flawed scan data (e.g., areas for which overlapping surfaces of multiple intraoral images fail to match), areas indicative of foreign objects… tooth wear, areas indicative of tooth decay, areas indicative of receding gums, unclear gum line, unclear patient bite, unclear margin line (e.g., margin line of one or more preparation teeth), and so forth. An identified void may be a void in a surface of an image. Examples of surface conflict…) wherein the determining of the differences includes comparing the surface information with the new surface information (Paragraph [0034] “areas of interest are determined by comparing images of a current scan session to a historical template to determine any differences.”) and where differences includes at least a part of the new surface information that does not overlap with at least a part of the surface information, (Paragraph [0033] “In one embodiment, historical template module 112 may receive an indication from computing device 105 that a current image of an intraoral scan session cannot or should not be registered to any other images of the current session. Registering may be improper when the current image does not adequately overlap any other existing image of the current scan. In this example” Paragraph [0034] “areas of conflict or flawed scan data (e.g., areas for which overlapping surfaces of multiple intraoral images fail to match” Paragraph [0049] “Images do not sufficiently overlap each other when there is insufficient overlapping data between the two images to be able to determine”) and determining the updated digital 3D scan representation which represent the physical object by applying the differences to the current digital 3D scan such that the at least part of the surface information of the current digital 3D scan is replaced with the at least part of the new surface information (Paragraph [0027] “Image registration module 111 is responsible for registering or stitching together images received during a scan session… The images may then be integrated into a common reference frame by applying appropriate transformations to points of each registered image. In one embodiment, the images may be registered together in real time, during the current scan session” Paragraph [0046] “Model generation module 125 may integrate all images into a single virtual 3D model by applying the appropriate determined transformations to each of the images. In one embodiment, model generation module 125 may determine that a historical template associated with the current scan session includes areas not yet scanned in a current scan session. In such a case, model generation module 125 may use data from the historical template to supplement the data of the current scan. “) and wherein the differences includes one or more of following: change in color of the surface of the object, change in shape of the surface of the object, progress in caries, and progress in cracks. (Paragraph [0035] “In an example, AOI identifying module 115 may generate a first historical template of a dental site based on a first scan session of the dental site taken at a first time and later generate a second virtual model of the dental site based on a second scan session of the dental site taken at a second time. The AOI identifying module 115 may then compare the first historical template to the second virtual model to determine a change in the dental site and identify an AOI to represent the change.” Paragraph [0044] AOIs representing changes in patient dentition may represent tooth decay, receding gums, tooth wear, a broken tooth, gum disease, gum color, moles, lesions, tooth shade, tooth color, an improvement in orthodontic alignment, degradation in orthodontic alignment, and so on”)
As per claim 2
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches A computer implement method according to claim 1, wherein the step of determining the inconsistent digital 3D scan further comprises: " establishing an inconsistency criterion which defines when the new digital 3D scan does not overlap the current digital 3D scan Paragraph [0049] “images whose overlapping area and/or number of overlapping points do not meet a predetermined threshold may not be registered.” Paragraph 0075] “The new image can be registered to a previous image if first registration criteria are satisfied. The first registration criteria may include a threshold number of curves, edges, point and/or other features of the new image that match curves, edges, points and/or other features of a previous image.”) checking the new digital 3D scan against the inconsistency criterion, (Paragraph [0075] “A match for a feature may be determined when the feature of the new image deviates from the feature of the previous image by less than a deviation threshold, such as 10%” ) and determining differences in the surface information of the current digital 3D scan and of the at least one new digital 3D scan as the part of the at least one new digital scan that comply with the inconsistency criterion. (Paragraph [0075] “A match for a feature may be determined when the feature of the new image deviates from the feature of the previous image by less than a deviation threshold, such as 10%. Collectively, the number of matching features and the degree of match may be referred to herein as an amount of overlap. Accordingly, images may be registerable if the amount of overlap between those two images satisfies an overlap threshold”)
As per claim 4
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches determining an overlapping digital 3D scan, where at least a part of the new digital 3D scan overlaps with at least a part of the current digital 3D scan. (Paragraphed [0028] “as each new image is received, that new image is compared to some or all previous images received during a current scan session. If there is sufficient overlap between the current image and one or more of the previous images, then the current image may be registered with those one or more previous images.” Figure 4)
As per claim 5
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 4’s 102 rejection. See claim 4’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches wherein the step of creating the updated digital 3D scan further comprises merging the overlapping digital 3D scan with the current digital 3D scan. (, Paragraph [0014] “Embodiments may apply to any type of scanner that takes multiple images and registers these images together to form a combined image or virtual model” Paragraph [0025] “Preferably, overlapping of the images or scans capable of being obtained at adjacent scanning stations is designed into the scanning protocol to enable accurate image registration, so that intraoral images can be registered to provide a composite 3D virtual model. “ Figure 4)
As per claim 6
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 4’s 102 rejection. See claim 4’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches A computer implemented method according to claim 4 wherein the step of determining an overlapping digital 3D scan further comprises, " establishing an overlap criterion which defines when the new digital 3D scan overlap the current digital 3D scan (Paragraph [0075] “A match for a feature may be determined when the feature of the new image deviates from the feature of the previous image by less than a deviation threshold, such as 10% Collectively, the number of matching features and the degree of match may be referred to herein as an amount of overlap.”) checking the new digital 3D scan against the overlap criterion (Paragraph [0075] “A match for a feature may be determined when the feature of the new image deviates from the feature of the previous image by less than a deviation threshold, such as 10%”) determining the overlapping digital 3D scan as the part of the at least one new digital 3D scan that comply with the overlap criterion. (Paragraph [0075] “Accordingly, images may be registerable if the amount of overlap between those two images satisfies an overlap threshold.” Paragraph [0075-0076] “If there are a sufficient number of features in the new image that match features of at least one previous image (amount of overlap meets or exceeds the overlap threshold), then the method continues to block 410. At block 410, processing logic registers the new image to one or more of the previous images using the first registration criteria. Processing logic may then update the 3D model of the dental site to include the new image stitched to the previous images and display the updated 3D model.)
As per claim 7
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches The computer implemented method according to claim 1 where the method further comprises the step of aligning the new 3D scan to the current digital 3D scan. (Paragraph [0028] “ new image is compared to some or all previous images received during a current scan session. If there is sufficient overlap between the current image and one or more of the previous images, then the current image may be registered with those one or more previous images. Image registration algorithms are carried out to register intraoral images, which essentially involves determination of the transformations which align one image with another image” Paragraph [0070] “To compare a virtual 3D model of a current scan session to a historical template and determine differences there between, processing logic determines an alignment between the virtual 3D model (or images used to generate the virtual 3D model) and the historical template based on geometric features shared by the virtual 3D model and the historical template. “)
As per claim 8
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 7’s 102 rejection. See claim 7’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches The computer implemented method according to claim 7, wherein the step of aligning the new 3D scan to the current digital 3D scan comprises using the overlapping digital 3D scan. (Figure 4. The cyclical nature of this figure insists that the overlapping digital scan that was previously registered will be used to align and register the new scan. The previously generated overlapping 3D scan (the combined registered scan) becomes the new current digital scan and is aligned with new incoming scans. Paragraph [0079] “If the scan session is not complete, the method returns to block 404 and another new image of the dental site is received. As new images are received, these new images may be registered to the previous images and/or to the historical template.” Examiner considers “the previous images” to be images that have gone through the overlapping pipeline.)
As per claim 10
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches The computer implement method according to claim 1 wherein the at least one new digital 3D scan is received from an intra oral scanner. (Paragraph [0013] “During a scan session, a user (e.g., a dental practitioner) of a scanner may generate multiple different images (also referred to as scans) of a dental site, model of a dental site, or other object” Paragraph [0019] The scanner 150 may be used to perform an intraoral scan of a patient's oral cavity. An intraoral scan application 108 running on computing device 105 may communicate with the scanner 150 to effectuate the intraoral scan. A result of the intraoral scan may be a sequence of intraoral images that have been discretely generated”)
As per claim 11
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches The computer implemented method according claim 1, wherein multiple new digital 3D scans are received continuously as a scan stream (Paragraph [0013] “During a scan session, a user (e.g., a dental practitioner) of a scanner may generate multiple different images (also referred to as scans) of a dental site, model of a dental site, or other object. The images may be discrete images (e.g., point-and-shoot images) or frames from a video (e.g., a continuous scan).”
As per claim 12
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches A computer implemented method according to claim 12, wherein the method further comprises the step of, " continuously stitching the multiple new digital 3D scans to each other.
(Figure 3B, Paragraph [0068] “At block 315 of method 310, processing logic may generate a virtual 3D model of a dental site from images taken during a current scan session. The virtual 3D model may be generated by registering and stitching together the images.” Paragraph [0071] “ Processing logic may then generate a moving image (e.g., a video) showing a change to the dental site over time. For example, a time lapse video may be generated that shows gradual wearing of a patient's teeth, yellowing of the teeth, receding gum lines, and so on.” Paragraph [0074] “At block 402 of method 400, processing logic receives one or more images of a dental site. Processing logic may perform image registration to stitch these images together if multiple images are received. As the images are stitched together, a virtual 3D model of the dental site that includes the stitched together images may be generated and displayed.” Figure 4)
As per claim 13
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches wherein at least the below steps of the computer implemented method is performed continuously determining differences in the surface information of the current digital 3D scan and of the at least one new digital 3D scan wherein the determining of the differences includes comparing the surface information with the new surface information, and where the inconsistent digital 3D scan includes at least a part of the new surface information that does not overlap with at least a part of the surface information, and determining the updated digital 3D scan representation which represent the physical object by applying the differences to the current digital 3D scan such that the at least part of the surface information of the current digital 3D scan is replaced with the at least part of the new surface information, and wherein the differences includes one or more of following change in color of the surface of the object, change in shape of the surface of the object, progress in caries, and progress in cracks. (Figure 4. Sabina’s entire workflow is continuous until the scan is complete. This is shown by the cyclical nature of the flowchart in figure 4. Much of this is defined in paragraphs [0072]-[0080]. In regards to the differences: Paragraph [0044] “AOIs may be classified as voids, changes, conflicts, foreign objects, or other types of AOI. AOIs representing changes in patient dentition may represent tooth decay, receding gums, tooth wear, a broken tooth, gum disease, gum color, moles, lesions, tooth shade, tooth color, an improvement in orthodontic alignment, degradation in orthodontic alignment, and so on.”)
As per claim 14
Sabina teaches all limitations previously rejected in claim 13’S 102 rejection . See claim 13’s 102 rejection.
Sabina wherein any one of the following steps of the method are performed continuously, " checking the at least one new digital 3D scan against the inconsistency criterion, and/or " determining an overlapping digital 3D scan where at least a part of the new digital 3D scan overlaps with at least a part of the current digital 3D scan. (Figure 4. Sabina’s entire workflow is continuous until the scan is complete. This is shown by the cyclical nature of the flowchart in figure 4. Much of this is defined in paragraphs [0072]-[0085])
As per claim 15
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Sabina teaches A computer implemented method according claim 1,wherein the step of creating the updated digital 3D scan, which represent the physical object by applying the differences in the surface information of the current digital 3D scan and of the at least one new digital 3D scan to the current digital 3D scan further comprises, " projecting the differences to the current digital 3D scan (Figure 5 Paragraph [0083] “the regions of the dental site for which current scan data is not yet available are shown based on data from the historical template. A surface of such regions may be represented by a 3D point cloud, or may be represented as an outline or translucent surface rather than a solid surface. In one embodiment, the virtual 3D model that includes data from the historical template 508 is provided to a user with surfaces 502-506 overlaid on the historical template” and " applying the data of the differences to the data of the projected area on the current digital 3D scan such that the at least part of the surface information of the current digital 3D scan is replaced with the at least part of the new surface information.” Further more Sabina states in paragraph [0028] that “Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair,” implying all registrations (which includes the differences between the new scan and historical template) are projections. ) applying the data of the differences to the data of the projected area on the current digital 3D scan such that the at least part of the surface information of the current digital 3D scan is replaced with the at least part of the new surface information. (Figure 5, Paragraph [0081] “Image data” in this paragraph includes differences found in new scan )
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al (Sabina hereinafter US 20180005371 A1) in view of Keeling et al (Keeling hereinafter US 20220346920 A1)
As per claim 3
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 2’s 102 rejection. See claim 2’s 102 rejection.
Sabina does not teach wherein the inconsistency criterion comprises a distance threshold, wherein the new digital 3D scan comply with the inconsistency criterion when the distance between the at least new digital 3D scan and the current digital 3D scan is above the distance threshold.
Keeling teaches wherein the inconsistency criterion comprises a distance wherein the new digital 3D scan comply with the inconsistency criterion when the distance between the at least new digital 3D scan and the current digital 3D scan is above the distance threshold. (Figure 10. Paragraph [0018] “The control unit may be configured to surface the point cloud to produce a 3D model, and uniformly sample the surfaced model to generate a uniformly sampled point cloud. The control unit may be configured to: identify a closest point in the point cloud to each point in the uniformly sampled point cloud, and flag the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud as below the predetermined detail level in response to a distance between the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud and the identified closest point exceeding a threshold distance.” Paragraph [0047] “identifying a closest point in the point cloud to each point in the uniformly sampled point cloud, and flagging the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud as below the predetermined detail level if a distance between the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud and the identified closest point exceeds a threshold distance” The 3D point cloud is compared to the uniformly sampled point cloud and when the identified closest point exceeds a threshold it is flagged as being compliant with inconsistency. The uniformly sample being the new scan)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the workflow of Sabina Keeling’s concept of using a distance threshold as the criterion for comparison of the sequential 3D scans. Sabina mentions in paragraph [0070] that “To compare a virtual 3D model of a current scan session to a historical template and determine differences there between, processing logic determines an alignment between the virtual 3D model (or images used to generate the virtual 3D model) and the historical template based on geometric features shared by the virtual 3D model and the historical template.” A person of ordinary skill in the art is aware that “distance” is a foundational and necessary geometric feature that “determines an alignment”. Sabina also states in paragraph [0028] “Image registration algorithms are carried out to register intraoral images, which essentially involves determination of the transformations which align one image with another image. Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair, surface fitting to the points of each image, and using local searches around points to match points of the two adjacent images…may match points of one image with the closest points interpolated on the surface of the other image, and iteratively minimize the distance between matched points…image registration include those based on determining point-to-point correspondences using other features and minimization of point-to-surface distances…registration algorithm may compute a transformation between two adjacent images that will minimize the distances between points on one surface, and the closest points to them found in the interpolated region on the other image surface used as a reference” With this disclosure of the necessity of a distance comparison for alignment, along with Keeling’s disclosure of point cloud comparison through a distance threshold, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood using a distance threshold between Sabina’s 3D scans would have been an efficient avenue for comparison and downstream decision making when it comes to integrating or disregarding scans.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al (Sabina hereinafter US 20180005371 A1) in view of Pesach et al (Pesach hereinafter US 20180028292 A1)
As per claim 9
Sabina teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 7’s 102 rejection. See claim 7’s 102 rejection.
Sabina does not teach wherein step of aligning the at least one new 3D scan to the current digital 3D scan comprises using alignment marker data from physical markers at the physical object.
Pesach teaches wherein step of aligning the at least one new 3D scan to the current digital 3D scan comprises using alignment marker data from physical markers at the physical object. (Figure 2, figure 3, Paragraph [0151] “ when the local single view 3-D models are stitched together, the location of, for example tooth 216 relative to tooth 218 is skewed and inaccurate. To rectify this error the fiducial element 100 may be inserted at any suitable location within the oral cavity” Paragraph [0169] “scans comprise images or image-like units of relatively well-determined (precise) points, with the most significant errors being introduced at the stitching stage (two images aligned out-of-true). This error potentially occurs not only during stitching of the standard scan images, but also when the fiducial scan images are registered to corresponding standard scans…This provides a potential advantage for reduction of errors by fiducial-to-standard scan registration, for example by ensuring that a high proportion of corresponding points are available, and/or by reducing potential ambiguity arising from registration to a composite region which was stitched out-of-true.” The fiducial element is a physical marker that helps align/ stitch current and new scans.)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to modify Sabina’s pipeline with Pesach’s concept of fiducial markers (a physical marker) being used to aid in alignment/stitching of the new and current scans. Pesach states in paragraph [0005] “Imaging inaccuracies introduced over extended regions of an oral arch potentially result from stitching errors, in which a plurality of stitched images, each of which may be both true and precise internally, are misaligned with respect to one another. This can produce an overall decrease in the accuracy of the reconstructed oral arch, since the errors can build in a “random walk” and/or systematically along the extent of the arch.” And that “The fiducial marker may be scanned by the intraoral scanner and used in an algorithm for correcting an accumulated scanning error, which may have otherwise been accrued during standard, unmarked, full or partial arch scanning.” As well as “Since the overall shape is held true at the fiducial marks, the risk of introducing corrections which unacceptably degrade the final fit is potentially reduced.” With this in mind a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that having a physical marker increases the fidelity of alignment of scans within Sabina’s workflow reducing error and subsequent scanning needed because of alignment error.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-8130. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights