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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-6 & 9-17 are rejected.
Claims 7-8 are objected to.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is:
"an operation unit to receive an operation" in Claim 1, as described in Para. [0046] of Applicant’s specification.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “each operator” on Line 4. While only previously reciting “a [single] operator” on Line 13 of Claim 1, it is unclear whether there are additional operators of the system as “each” requires a group of operators. For the purpose of examination, “each operator” is being interpreted as “the operator”.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites the limitation “each operator” on Line 4. While only previously reciting “a [single] operator” on Line 13 of Claim 1, it is unclear whether there are additional operators of the system as “each” requires a group of operators. For the purpose of examination, “each operator” is being interpreted as “the operator”.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites the limitation “the surgical instrument includes an endoscope” on Line 2. It is unclear whether this endoscope of the surgical instrument is the same as the “endoscope” previously recited on Line 3 of Claim 14, or a separate, different endoscope. For the purpose of examination, there is only one endoscope required and the limitation on Line 2 of Claim 15 is assumed to be duplicative.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-13 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nowlin et al. (hereinafter "Nowlin") (US 2006/0241414).
Regarding Claim 1, Nowlin discloses a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1, 10; [0055]) comprising:
a surgical apparatus (Fig. 1, 300; [0055]) including a robot arm (Fig. 4, 302; [0064]) to allow a surgical instrument to be attached thereto (Fig. 4, 304; [0064]);
an operation apparatus (Fig. 1, 200; [0055]) including an operation unit (Fig. 3B, 210B; [0060]) to receive an operation for the surgical instrument (Fig. 11, fh; [0116]), the operation unit having a coordinate system (Fig. 10, a master cartesian space coordinate system X2, Y2, and Z2; [0093]) rotated by a predetermined angle (Figs. 3B, 4, 11 & 13, an angular offset between a master position Xh of 210B and a slave position Xe of 304, wherein an initial angular offset is defined as the angular offset between Xh of 210B, at Xm, and Xe of 304, at Xs; [0102], [0103] & [0107]) with respect to a coordinate system of the surgical apparatus (Fig. 10, 902; [0096]);
a controller (Fig. 11, 400; [0097]) configured or programmed to perform a control (Fig. 11, fs; [0106]) to move the surgical instrument by the robot arm based on the operation received by the operation unit ([0106]); and
a receiver (Fig. 11, a processor including 422; [0137]) to receive a change in the predetermined angle (Figs. 3B, 4, 11 & 13, Xh of 210B is moved from Xm to Xa thereby creating a new angular offset defined as the angular offset between Xh of 210B, at Xa, and Xe of 304, at Xs; [0138]) by an operator (Fig. 1, O; [0057]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses wherein the predetermined angle is an angle by which the coordinate system of the operation unit is rotated in a direction away from the operator with respect to a line perpendicular to a surface on which the operation apparatus is placed (Figs. 3B, 11 & 13, movement of Xh of 210B from Xm to Xa is about axis 4 which is closer or further away from O; [0061] & [0138]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses wherein the receiver is operable to receive the change in the predetermined angle in fixed angular increments ([0139]).
Regarding Claim 5, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes an endoscope (Fig. 4, 304 is an endoscope; [0064]); and
the robotic surgical system comprises a display (Fig. 1, 14; [0057]) to display an image captured by the endoscope ([0057]) in accordance with the coordinate system of the surgical apparatus ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a storage (Fig. 13, 424; [0138]) to store the predetermined angle received for the operator (Fig. 13, Xd; [0138]); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
retrieve the predetermined angle received for the operator and stored in the storage ([0138]); and
set the coordinate system of the operation unit based on a retrieved predetermined angle ([0138]).
Regarding Claim 9, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses a monitoring controller (Fig. 19, 472; [0142]) configured or programmed to monitor command values of the controller for the robot arm and the surgical instrument ([0142]), and actual axis values of the robot arm and the surgical instrument ([0142]); wherein
the monitoring controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to issue a warning when differences between the command values of the controller and the actual axis values exceed a predetermined threshold ([0142]).
Regarding Claim 12, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses wherein the predetermined angle is an angle by which the coordinate system of the operation unit is rotated in a direction away from the operator with respect to a line perpendicular to a surface on which the operation apparatus is placed ([0139]);
the surgical instrument includes an endoscope (Fig. 4, 304 is an endoscope; [0064]); and
the robotic surgical system comprises a display (Fig. 1, 14; [0057]) to display an image captured by the endoscope ([0057]) in accordance with the coordinate system of the surgical apparatus ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 12. Nowlin further discloses a storage (Fig. 13, 424; [0138]) to store the predetermined angle received for the operator (Fig. 13, Xd; [0138]); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
retrieve the predetermined angle received for the operator and stored in the storage ([0138]); and
set the coordinate system of the operation unit based on a retrieved predetermined angle ([0138]).
Regarding Claim 16, Nowlin discloses a control method ([0009]) for a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1, 10; [0055]), the control method comprising:
receiving a change by an operator ([0137] & [0138]) in a predetermined angle (Figs. 3B, 4, 11 & 13, an angular offset between a master position Xh of 210B and a slave position Xe of 304, wherein an initial angular offset is defined as the angular offset between Xh of 210B, at Xm, and Xe of 304, at Xs; [0102], [0103] & [0107]) of a coordinate system (Fig. 10, a master cartesian space coordinate system X2, Y2, and Z2; [0093]) of an operation unit (Fig. 3B, 210B; [0060]) rotated by the predetermined angle with respect to a coordinate system (Fig. 10, 902; [0096]) of a surgical apparatus (Fig. 1, 300; [0055]);
changing the predetermined angle of the coordinate system of the operation unit based on a received change in the predetermined angle (Figs. 3B, 4, 11 & 13, Xh of 210B is moved from Xm to Xa thereby creating a new angular offset defined as the angular offset between Xh of 210B, at Xa, and Xe of 304, at Xs; [0138]);
receiving an operation with the operation unit (Fig. 11, fh; [0116]) for a surgical instrument (Fig. 4, 304; [0064]) attached to a robot arm (Fig. 4, 302; [0064]) in a state in which the coordinate system of the operation unit has been changed ([0146]); and
moving the surgical instrument by the robot arm based on a received operation ([0106] & [0107]).
Regarding Claim 17, Nowlin discloses a storage medium operable to store a program ([0016]) for a control method ([0009]) for a robotic surgical system, the control method comprising:
receiving a change by an operator ([0137] & [0138]) in a predetermined angle (Figs. 3B, 4, 11 & 13, an angular offset between a master position Xh of 210B and a slave position Xe of 304, wherein an initial angular offset is defined as the angular offset between Xh of 210B, at Xm, and Xe of 304, at Xs; [0102], [0103] & [0107]) of a coordinate system (Fig. 10, a master cartesian space coordinate system X2, Y2, and Z2; [0093]) of an operation unit (Fig. 3B, 210B; [0060]) rotated by the predetermined angle with respect to a coordinate system (Fig. 10, 902; [0096]) of a surgical apparatus (Fig. 1, 300; [0055]);
changing the predetermined angle of the coordinate system of the operation unit based on a received change in the predetermined angle (Figs. 3B, 4, 11 & 13, Xh of 210B is moved from Xm to Xa thereby creating a new angular offset defined as the angular offset between Xh of 210B, at Xa, and Xe of 304, at Xs; [0138]);
receiving an operation with the operation unit (Fig. 11, fh; [0116]) for a surgical instrument (Fig. 4, 304; [0064]) attached to a robot arm (Fig. 4, 302; [0064]) in a state in which the coordinate system of the operation unit has been changed ([0146]); and
moving the surgical instrument by the robot arm based on a received operation ([0106] & [0107]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 10-11 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowlin et al. (hereinafter "Nowlin") (US 2006/0241414) in view of Goldberg et al. (hereinafter "Goldberg") (US 2010/0225209).
Regarding Claim 3, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the receiver includes a touch panel on the operation apparatus to receive a setting for the robotic surgical system.
However, Goldberg teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1A, 100A; [0042]) comprising:
a surgical apparatus (Fig. 1A, 152; [0043]) including a robot arm (Fig. 1A, 153; [0043]) to allow a surgical instrument to be attached thereto (Fig. 1A, 101; [0043]);
an operation apparatus (Fig. 1A, 150; [0043]) including an operation unit (Fig. 9, 905L; [0090]) to receive an operation for the surgical instrument ([0094]);
a controller (Fig. 3A, 302; [0088]) configured or programmed to perform a control to move the surgical instrument by the robot arm based on the operation received by the operation unit ([0094]);
a receiver (Fig. 1A, 151; [0043]); and
wherein the receiver includes a touch panel (Fig. 9, 912; [0134]) on the operation apparatus ([0134]) to receive a setting for the robotic surgical system (ergonomic settings; [0134]).
The advantage of the touch panel is to permit easy access and adjustment of ergonomic settings by the operator (Goldberg; [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the receiver as disclosed by Nowlin, to include the touch panel taught by Goldberg, to permit easy access and adjustment of ergonomic settings by the operator (Goldberg; [0134]).
Regarding Claim 10, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses wherein the predetermined angle is an angle by which the coordinate system of the operation unit is rotated in a direction away from the operator with respect to a line perpendicular to a surface on which the operation apparatus is placed (Figs. 3B, 11 & 13, movement of Xh of 210B from Xm to Xa is about axis 4 which is closer or further away from O; [0061] & [0138]). Nowlin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the receiver includes a touch panel on the operation apparatus to receive a setting for the robotic surgical system.
However, Goldberg teaches a robotic surgical system (Fig. 1A, 100A; [0042]) comprising:
a surgical apparatus (Fig. 1A, 152; [0043]) including a robot arm (Fig. 1A, 153; [0043]) to allow a surgical instrument to be attached thereto (Fig. 1A, 101; [0043]);
an operation apparatus (Fig. 1A, 150; [0043]) including an operation unit (Fig. 9, 905L; [0090]) to receive an operation for the surgical instrument ([0094]);
a controller (Fig. 3A, 302; [0088]) configured or programmed to perform a control to move the surgical instrument by the robot arm based on the operation received by the operation unit ([0094]);
a receiver (Fig. 1A, 151; [0043]); and
wherein the receiver includes a touch panel (Fig. 9, 912; [0134]) on the operation apparatus ([0134]) to receive a setting for the robotic surgical system (ergonomic settings; [0134]).
The advantage of the touch panel is to permit easy access and adjustment of ergonomic settings by the operator (Goldberg; [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the receiver as disclosed by Nowlin, to include the touch panel taught by Goldberg, to permit easy access and adjustment of ergonomic settings by the operator (Goldberg; [0134]).
Regarding Claim 11, Nowlin, as previously modified by Goldberg, teaches the robotic surgical system according to Claim 10. Nowlin further discloses wherein the receiver is operable to receive the change in the predetermined angle in fixed angular increments ([0139]).
Regarding Claim 14, Nowlin, as previously modified by Goldberg, teaches the robotic surgical system according to Claim 11. Nowlin further discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes an endoscope (Fig. 4, 304 is an endoscope; [0064]); and
the robotic surgical system comprises a display (Fig. 1, 14; [0057]) to display an image captured by the endoscope ([0057]) in accordance with the coordinate system of the surgical apparatus ([0057]);
the robotic surgical system comprises a storage (Fig. 13, 424; [0138]) to store the predetermined angle received for the operator (Fig. 13, Xd; [0138]); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
retrieve the predetermined angle received for the operator and stored in the storage ([0138]); and
set the coordinate system of the operation unit based on a retrieved predetermined angle ([0138]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 7, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes an endoscope (Fig. 4, 304 is an endoscope; [0064]); and
the operation apparatus includes a monitor (Fig. 2, 202; [0059]) to display an image captured by the endoscope (Fig. 20, 800; [0170]) and allow a head of the operator to be inserted thereinto ([0059]).
Nowlin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the monitor has a rotation angle adjusted around an axis along a right-left direction of the operator who operates the operation apparatus; and the receiver is operable to receive the change in the predetermined angle independently of adjustment of the rotation angle of the monitor.
Regarding Claim 8, Nowlin discloses the robotic surgical system according to Claim 1. Nowlin further discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes an endoscope (Fig. 4, 304 is an endoscope; [0064]); and
the operation apparatus includes a monitor (Fig. 2, 202; [0059]) to display an image captured by the endoscope (Fig. 20, 800; [0170]) and allow a head of the operator to be inserted thereinto ([0059]).
Nowlin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the monitor has a rotation angle adjusted around an axis along a right-left direction of the operator who operates the operation apparatus; the predetermined angle is changed in conjunction with rotation of the monitor; and the receiver is operable to receive a further change in the predetermined angle that has been changed in conjunction with the rotation of the monitor.
Regarding Claim 15, Nowlin, as previously modified by Goldberg, teaches the robotic surgical system according to Claim 14. Nowlin further discloses wherein the surgical instrument includes an endoscope (Fig. 4, 304 is an endoscope; [0064]); and
the operation apparatus includes a monitor (Fig. 2, 202; [0059]) to display an image captured by the endoscope (Fig. 20, 800; [0170]) and allow a head of the operator to be inserted thereinto ([0059]).
Nowlin, as previously modified by Goldberg, fails to explicitly teach wherein the monitor has a rotation angle adjusted around an axis along a right-left direction of the operator who operates the operation apparatus; the predetermined angle is changed in conjunction with rotation of the monitor; and the receiver is operable to receive a further change in the predetermined angle that has been changed in conjunction with the rotation of the monitor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Di Guardo et al. (US 2024/0115337) teaches controlling a surgical robot system having a mechanically unconstrained master device.
Sweeney et al. (US 2023/0064265) teaches a movable display system for a surgical robot system.
Itotani et al. (US 2022/0060678) teaches a control device for a master slave surgical robot system.
Ishihara et al. (US 2020/0100852) teaches a remote operation unit for robotic surgery having standing and sitting configurations.
Hondori et al. (US 2020/0015598) teaches a surgical robotic system having an anthropometry-based user console.
Cohen et al. (US 2018/0256267) teaches a multi-joint input arm for control of a surgical mechanical arm.
Nakanishi et al. (US 2017/0165014) teaches a remote control surgical system having different handle postures.
De Mathelin (US 2016/0338789) teaches a master interface device for a motorized endoscope system.
Hiroe et al. (US 2015/0038984) teaches a surgical manipulator system.
Hannaford et al. (US 2011/0238079) teaches a surgical cockpit comprising multisensory and multimodal interfaces for robotic surgery.
Itkowitz et al. (US 2010/0332031) teaches a ratcheting system for master alignment of a teleoperated surgical instrument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights