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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are drawn to a device and a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1 recites receive an indication of a surgical procedure that involves a first surgical instrument cooperating with a second surgical instrument, wherein the surgical procedure comprises a plurality of surgical steps; determine a first candidate action and a second candidate action associated with the first surgical instrument, wherein the first candidate action and the second candidate action allow the first surgical instrument to complete a first step of the plurality of the surgical steps; determine a first effect, caused by the first candidate action, on the second surgical instrument's ability to perform a second step of the plurality of surgical steps; determine a second effect, caused by the second candidate action, on the second surgical instrument's ability to perform the second step of the plurality of surgical steps; select, based on the first effect and the second effect, an action, from the first candidate action and the second candidate action, for the first surgical instrument to perform; and generate a control signal configured to indicate the selected action.
Independent claim 10 recites receiving an indication of a surgical procedure that involves a first surgical instrument cooperating with a second surgical instrument, wherein the surgical procedure comprises a plurality of surgical steps; determining a first candidate action and a second candidate action associated with the first surgical instrument, wherein the first candidate action and the second candidate action allow the first surgical instrument to complete a first step of the plurality of the surgical steps; determining a first effect, caused by the first candidate action, on the second surgical instrument’s ability to perform a second step of the plurality of surgical steps; determining a second effect, caused by the second candidate action, on the second surgical instrument’s ability to perform the second step of the plurality of surgical steps; selecting, based on the first effect and the second effect, an action, from the first candidate action and the second candidate action, for the first surgical instrument to perform; and generating a control signal configured to indicate the selected action.
The respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, but for the inclusion of the additional elements specifically addressed below, provide recitations further limiting the invention of the independent claim(s).
Said recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states the invention is to a “device may select a candidate action to perform based on steps of a surgical procedure and the effects of the candidate action” (see: specification abstract). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address problems where the “choice the HCP is making may cause only arm-to-arm interaction outcomes…may affect the orientation and position of the trocar and the internal surgical site…may affect the remaining amount of head rotation or articulation angle of a robotic arm (e.g., beyond what is currently being used)…may affect the remaining degrees of freedom the end-effector has to get to locations beyond its current position” (see: specification paragraph 97). The recited limitations provide “options [which] may help the HCP or operating room (OR) team understand the decisions the robot is making, and assist/control these decisions (e.g., as needed)” (see: specification paragraph 28). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including an “a processor configured to:…” (claim 1), “the processor is further configured to:…” (claim 2 and 7), “the processor is further configured to:…a format of a graphical representation…generate the graphical representation based on the determined format, wherein the control signal is configured to instruct a display to display the generated graphical representation” (claim 3), “the processor being configured to…the processor being configured to…” (claim 4), “the processor is further configured to:…the processor being configured to…the processor being configured to…” (claim 5 and 8), “a format of a graphical representation…generate the graphical representation based on the determined format, wherein the control signal is configured to instruct a display to display the generated graphical representation” (claim 12), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “processor” is implemented though no more than a statement than that it is “configured to” to perform operations; the “graphical representation” is configured by a “format” though no more than a statement than that the format is “based on the data type”, and the “display” is configured though no more than a statement than that the control signal is “configured to instruct” said display to display said graphical representation) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer elements. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea(s) with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 11-18, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-11, 14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0280238 to Fuerst.
As per claim 1, Fuerst teaches a device comprising:
a processor configured to (see: Fuerst, Fig. 4; and paragraph 54, is met by processor): receive an indication of a surgical procedure that involves a first surgical instrument cooperating with a second surgical instrument, wherein the surgical procedure comprises a plurality of surgical steps (see: Fuerst, paragraph 32, 52-53, 56, 66, and 75, is met by input patient information within the input device, which may indicate a surgical procedure that is to be performed upon the patient using one or more robotic arms of the surgical robotic system, where each of the robotic arms may include a surgical tool attached to its distal end, where each arm may be associated with one or more trajectories for a given surgical procedure);
determine a first candidate action and a second candidate action associated with the first surgical instrument, wherein the first candidate action and the second candidate action allow the first surgical instrument to complete a first step of the plurality of the surgical steps (see: Fuerst, paragraph 52-53, 57-58, 66-67, and 76, is met by determines, for each of the robotic arms which may include a surgical tool attached to its distal end, a planned trajectory based on the surgical procedure that is from a current pose to a predefined procedure pose, where the trajectory selector may perform a table lookup into a data structure stored within the trajectory database that associates each of one or more surgical procedures with one or more planned trajectories for one or more of the robotic arms, with each planned trajectory starting from a different pose to the predefined procedure pose and/or having a different path from one pose to another, where at least some of the trajectories for a given arm may include different procedure poses);
determine a first effect, caused by the first candidate action, on the second surgical instrument's ability to perform a second step of the plurality of surgical steps (see: Fuerst, paragraph 53, 57-58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor that may determine whether an object, such as another robotic arm or a separate object not accounted for while the planned trajectory was defined, is obstructing (or will obstruct) the arm’s planned trajectory);
determine a second effect, caused by the second candidate action, on the second surgical instrument's ability to perform the second step of the plurality of surgical steps (see: Fuerst, paragraph 53, 58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor that may determine whether an object, such as another robotic arm or a separate object not accounted for while the planned trajectory was defined, is obstructing (or will obstruct) the arm’s planned trajectory, where at least some of the trajectories for a given arm may include different procedure poses);
select, based on the first effect and the second effect, an action, from the first candidate action and the second candidate action, for the first surgical instrument to perform (see: Fuerst, paragraph 53, 58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor is configured to adjust one or more of the selected planned trajectories if the adjustor determines for instance that there is an object within a planned trajectory, and/or may take into account other planned trajectories while adjusting one or more trajectories, such as assuring that the adjusted trajectory does not interfere with another trajectory of another robotic arm); and
generate a control signal configured to indicate the selected action (see: Fuerst, paragraph 67 and 69, is met by the controller drives each of the robotic arms along its respective planned trajectory (which may be adjusted) from its current pose to a respective predefined procedure pose).
As per claim 2, Fuerst teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the selected action is a first action, the control signal is a first control signal, the surgical procedure further comprises a third step, and the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the selected first action associated with the first surgical instrument, a third candidate action and a fourth candidate action associated with the second surgical instrument, wherein the third candidate action and the fourth candidate action allow the second surgical instrument to complete the second step (see: Fuerst, paragraph 32, 52-53, 57-58, 66-67, and 76, is met by determines, for each of the robotic arms including a surgical tool attached to its distal end, a planned trajectory based on the surgical procedure that is from a current pose to a predefined procedure pose, where the trajectory selector may perform a table lookup into a data structure stored within the trajectory database that associates each of one or more surgical procedures with one or more planned trajectories for one or more of the robotic arms, with each planned trajectory starting from a different pose to the predefined procedure pose and/or having a different path from one pose to another, where at least some of the trajectories for a given arm may include different procedure poses);
determine a third effect, caused by the selected candidate action associated with the first surgical instrument and the third candidate action, on a third surgical instrument's ability to perform the third step (see: Fuerst, paragraph 53, 57-58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor that may determine whether an object, such as another robotic arm or a separate object not accounted for while the planned trajectory was defined, is obstructing (or will obstruct) the arm’s planned trajectory);
determine a fourth effect, caused by the selected candidate action associated with the first surgical instrument and the fourth candidate action, on the third surgical instrument's ability to perform the third step (see: Fuerst, paragraph 53, 58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor that may determine whether an object, such as another robotic arm or a separate object not accounted for while the planned trajectory was defined, is obstructing (or will obstruct) the arm’s planned trajectory, where at least some of the trajectories for a given arm may include different procedure poses);
select, based on the third effect and the fourth effect, a second action, from the third candidate action and the fourth candidate action, for the second surgical instrument to perform (see: Fuerst, paragraph 53, 58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor is configured to adjust one or more of the selected planned trajectories if the adjustor determines for instance that there is an object within a planned trajectory, and/or may take into account other planned trajectories while adjusting one or more trajectories, such as assuring that the adjusted trajectory does not interfere with another trajectory of another robotic arm); and
generate a second control signal configured to indicate the second action (see: Fuerst, paragraph 67 and 69, is met by the controller drives each of the robotic arms along its respective planned trajectory (which may be adjusted) from its current pose to a respective predefined procedure pose).
As per claim 5, Fuerst teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to identify a reserved space occupied by a third surgical instrument, wherein the processor being configured to determine the first candidate action and the second candidate action associated with a first surgical instrument comprises the processor being configured to determine that the first candidate action and the second candidate action cause the first surgical instrument to remain outside of the reserved space (see: Fuerst, paragraph 32, 53, 58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor is configured to adjust one or more of the selected planned trajectories if the adjustor determines for instance that there is an object within a planned trajectory, and/or may take into account other planned trajectories while adjusting one or more trajectories, such as assuring that the adjusted trajectory does not interfere with another trajectory of another robotic arm with a surgical tool attached to its distal end).
As per claim 8, Fuerst teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: receive user preference information and a patient position associated with the surgical procedure (see: Fuerst, paragraph 5, 46, 51, 56, 60, 66, 68, and 81-82, is met by user input indicating which robot arms are to be driven is received before the plan trajectories are determined, user selection of a patient file indicating the procedure to be performed upon the patient, and a patient volume of a patient positioned on the surgical table); and
determine a surgical constraint based on at least one of the user preference information or the patient position, wherein the processor being configured to select the action, from the first candidate action and the second candidate action, for the first surgical instrument to perform comprises the processor being configured to select the action, from the first candidate action and the second candidate action, for the first surgical instrument to perform based on the surgical constraint (see: Fuerst, paragraph 5, 46, 51, 56, 60, 66, 68, 76, and 81-82, is met by the pose and trajectory are optimized to accommodate and adjust for patient different sized patients and the user selections).
As per claim 9, Fuerst teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the first candidate action comprises a first placement of a base associated with the first surgical instrument, or a first movement of the first surgical instrument, and the second candidate action comprises a second placement of the base associated with the first surgical instrument, or a second movement of the first surgical instrument (see: Fuerst, paragraph 52-53, 57-58, 66-67, and 76, is met by determines, for each of the robotic arms which may include a surgical tool attached to its distal end, a planned trajectory based on the surgical procedure that is from a current pose to a predefined procedure pose, where the trajectory selector may perform a table lookup into a data structure stored within the trajectory database that associates each of one or more surgical procedures with one or more planned trajectories for one or more of the robotic arms, with each planned trajectory starting from a different pose to the predefined procedure pose and/or having a different path from one pose to another, where at least some of the trajectories for a given arm may include different procedure poses).
Claims 10-11, 14, and 17-18 repeat the subject matter of claims 1-2, 5, and 8-9, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 10-11, 14, and 17-18 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 1-2, 5, and 8-9, which are incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0280238 to Fuerst in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0154073 to Bachinger-Colling.
As per claim 3, Fuerst teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a parameter change associated with the first effect and the second effect (see: Fuerst, paragraph 53, 58, 60, 66-67, and 81, is met by a trajectory adjustor is configured to adjust one or more of the selected planned trajectories if the adjustor determines for instance that there is an object within a planned trajectory, and/or may take into account other planned trajectories while adjusting one or more trajectories, such as assuring that the adjusted trajectory does not interfere with another trajectory of another robotic arm); determine a data type associated with the parameter change (see: Fuerst, paragraph 67 and 69, is met by the controller drives each of the robotic arms along its respective planned trajectory (which may be adjusted) from its current pose to a respective predefined procedure pose);
Fuerst teaches a display to display at last one graphical user interface (GUI) that may provide informative and/or interactive content, to thereby assist a user in performing a surgical procedure with one or more robotic instruments in the surgical robotic system (see: Fuerst, paragraph 22-23), but Fuerst fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Bachinger-Colling as cited:
determine a format of a graphical representation of the first effect and the second effect based on the data type; and generate the graphical representation based on the determined format, wherein the control signal is configured to instruct a display to display the generated graphical representation (see: Bachinger-Colling, Fig. 4; and paragraph 36-38, 42, and 44, is met by determine one or more alternate paths to prevent a collision, where the alternate paths may be indicated to the user by the prevention indicator, where several alternate paths may be provided to the user or operator with a default selection that the user or operator can adopt or change, where a notification display conveys a direction to move to avoid an object and prevent a potential collision).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the graphical user interface (GUI) provided informative and/or interactive content as taught by Fuerst to include a notification display where several alternate paths may be provided to the user to convey an alternative path indictor to indicate alternative paths the user can adopt or change to avoid an object and prevent a potential collision as taught by Bachinger-Colling with the motivation that the prevention indicator may be advantageous for guiding the user in adjusting or selecting an alternate path when the user may not be able to clearly see the sensed objects (see: Bachinger-Colling, paragraph 44).
As per claim 4, Fuerst and Bachinger-Colling teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein the processor being configured to determine the data type associated with the parameter change comprises the processor being configured to determine the data type associated with the parameter change based on: an absolute change in a parameter over a period of time; a relative change in the parameter over the period of time; data trends of summed data streams of interrelated parameters; or an impact, of the first or second effect, on one or more surgical instruments (see: Bachinger-Colling, Fig. 4; and paragraph 33, 38, and 44, is met by a collision warning notification signal provided to the user through the display to convey via a collision indicator a direction of movement in which a potential collision with the object is sensed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the graphical user interface (GUI) provided informative and/or interactive content as taught by Fuerst and Bachinger-Colling to include a collision warning notification signal provided to the user through the display to convey via a collision indicator a direction of movement in which a potential collision with the object is sensed as taught by Bachinger-Colling with the motivation that the notification alerts the user that the supply unit may cease movement or the movement path may be adjusted to the one or more alternate paths (see: Bachinger-Colling, paragraph 44).
Claims 12-13 repeat the subject matter of claims 3-4, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 12-13 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 3-4, which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0280238 to Fuerst in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0156538 to Roh.
As per claim 6, Fuerst teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Roh as cited:
wherein the first candidate action comprises placing a port in a first port location on a patient, the second candidate action comprises placing the port in a second port location on the patient, and the control signal is further configured to indicate one or more of: a first magnitude of access that a laparoscopic instrument will have to a surgical area if the first port location is used, a first number of orientation possibilities of the laparoscopic instrument if the first port location is used, a second magnitude of access that the laparoscopic instrument will have to a surgical area if the second port location is used, or a second number of orientation possibilities of the laparoscopic instrument if the second port location is used (see: Roh, paragraph 179, 208, 224, 240, and 254-255, is met by determining the location, number, angle, and depth of arthroscopic ports to place in a patient based on the maneuverability of the surgical robot, maneuverability of the end effectors of the surgical robot and/or the availability of the surgical tool to place the arthroscopic ports in the patient, and generating routes between the at least one incision site using constraints data for the parameters of each path, such as the maximum dimensions of implants or implant components that can be accommodated, route constraints determined for all valid routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the planned pose trajectory of a surgical procedure and associated controller drive thereof as taught by Fuerst to include determining the location, number, angle, and depth of arthroscopic ports to place in a patient based on the maneuverability of the surgical robot, maneuverability of the end effectors of the surgical robot and/or the availability of the surgical tool to place the arthroscopic ports in the patient, and generating routes between the at least one incision site using constraints data for the parameters of each path, such as the maximum dimensions of implants or implant components that can be accommodated, route constraints determined for all valid routes as taught by Roh with the motivation of achieving a pathway that minimizes the amount of tissue damage that occurs during surgery (see: Roh, paragraph 179).
As per claim 7, Fuerst teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the first surgical instrument comprises a joint (see: Fuerst, paragraph 28, 32-33, and 61, is met by joint of the arm with a surgical tool attached to its distal end), and the processor is further configured to determine a first effect…and a second effect…based on at least one of: a position of a health care provider relative to the first surgical instrument, an articulation angle of the joint, a joint length of the joint, or a degree of freedom of the joint (see: Fuerst, paragraph 28, 32-33, 46, 53, 57-58, 60-61, 66-67, and 81, is met by where the robotic arm's pose may be defined as a set of joint values of one or more of the joints that determines an exact configuration of the robotic arm, and the sensed motion of a user, or their presence or absence as an object, where a trajectory adjustor that may determine whether such is obstructing (or will obstruct) the arm’s planned trajectory).
Fuerst fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Roh as cited:
the first candidate action comprises placing a port in a first port location on a patient, the second candidate action comprises placing the port in a second port location on the patient,…associated with the first port location…associated with the second port location (see: Roh, paragraph 179, 208, 224, 240, and 254-255 is met by determining the location, number, angle, and depth of arthroscopic ports to place in a patient based on the maneuverability of the surgical robot, maneuverability of the end effectors of the surgical robot and/or the availability of the surgical tool to place the arthroscopic ports in the patient, and generating routes between the at least one incision site using constraints data for the parameters of each path, such as the maximum dimensions of implants or implant components that can be accommodated, route constraints determined for all valid routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the planned pose trajectory of a surgical procedure and associated controller drive thereof as taught by Fuerst to include determining the location, number, angle, and depth of arthroscopic ports to place in a patient based on the maneuverability of the surgical robot, maneuverability of the end effectors of the surgical robot and/or the availability of the surgical tool to place the arthroscopic ports in the patient, and generating routes between the at least one incision site using constraints data for the parameters of each path, such as the maximum dimensions of implants or implant components that can be accommodated, route constraints determined for all valid routes as taught by Roh with the motivation of achieving a pathway that minimizes the amount of tissue damage that occurs during surgery (see: Roh, paragraph 179).
Claims 15-16 repeat the subject matter of claims 6-7, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 15-16 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 6-7, which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the attached PTO-892 form, including:
U.S. Pat Pub 2024/0252263 to Robu (see abstract);
U.S. Pat Pub 2023/0389999 to Itkowitz (see abstract);
U.S. Pat Pub 2018/0071029 to Srimohanarajah (see abstract);
U.S. Pat Pub 2021/0393336 to Sganga (see para 10); and
U.S. Pat Pub 2023/0165649 to Fitzsimons (see para 42).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights