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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 7/29/2026, to claims 1, 4, and 18 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claims 12 and 16.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17-19 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection under Hejkal instead of Koenig has been applied to the claim language of previous claim 16 amended into claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against Strein as not having the newly claimed not rotatable pillar. However, Examiner disagrees under the new interpretation applied to Strein below, wherein the base member 100 of Strein as seen in the Annotated Fig. 9 has now been interpretated as having its bottom/lower portion being a base 100-B with the top/upper portion being then the extending pillar 100-B extending upwards from the base 100-B. Such interpretation has been applied throughout the new claim set, and provides for the newly amended language of “the stationary base supports the rotatable upper surgical platform via the pillar, the pillar does not rotate”.
Applicant further argues against the magnet teachings of Park as combined with Strein does not provide for the amended claim language of “the rotatable upper surgery platform further comprises an adjustable strap operably connected via a magnet to the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform, the magnet is repositionable across the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform”. Examiner disagrees in accordance with the updated rejection below of the combination of Park and Strein. Strein provides for posts 1215 that are repositionable across the upper surface 405 of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 (Fig. 12, the posts 1215 are placeable in one of the many holes 1210 in the upper surface 405, thus are repositionable within the holes 1210 across the upper surface 405, wherein there may be openings at any location of the upper surface 405, see [0063]), wherein thus the teachings of Park providing a modification of the posts 1215 and holes 1210 of Strein to contain magnets for improved coupling would thus provide for the magnet post 1215 being repositionable across the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform.
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
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(s) is/are: “braking mechanism… to prevent rotation and/or tilting or to maintain a position” in claim 13 (instant paragraph [0034] generic braking or rotation damping system and equivalents thereof).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strein (US 20180206962 A1) in view of Park (US 20230062009 A1) and Hejkal (US 20090126113 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Strein discloses a system for the surgery of small vertebrates (Fig. 1-11 and [0002], surgical table for small animals) comprising
a stationary base 100-B (Fig. 1 and 10, [0046], see Annotated Fig. 9, wherein the lower portion of the base member 100 is a base 100-B below the drawn line),
a rotatable upper surgery platform 400 (Fig. 1-11 and [0051]) having an upper surface 405 and lower surface 500 (Fig. 9, [0046, 0051]), and
a pillar 100-P (Fig. 5, upper half 100-P of base member 100 forms an upwardly extending pillar from the lower portion 100-B), wherein the pillar 100-P extends upward from the base 100-B (Annotated Fig. 9, upper portion 100-P extends upward from lower portion 100-B) and connects to the lower surface 500 of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 (Fig. 9, the pillar 100-P extends upward from the base 100-B and connects to the lower surface 500 of the platform 400),
the stationary base 100-B supports the rotatable upper surgical platform 400 via the pillar 100-P (Annotated Fig. 9),
the pillar 100-P does not rotate (Annotated Fig. 9 and Fig. 1-9, the base member 100 does not rotate, only the platform 400 is rotating).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Strein does not disclose wherein the rotatable upper surgery platform further comprises an adjustable strap operably connected to a magnet on the upper surface, the magnet is repositionable across the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform.
Strein does disclose the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 comprises an adjustable strap operably connected to a post 1215 on the upper surface (Fig. 12-13 and [0063-0064], elastic bands are attached to posts 1215 on the upper surface of the platform 400 for securing the animal to the table, elastic bands are adjustable straps, Fig. 12-13 posts 1215 fit into the holes 1210), wherein the posts 1215 are repositionable across the upper surface 405 of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 (Fig. 12, the posts 1215 are placeable in one of the many holes 1210 in the upper surface 405, thus are repositionable within the holes 1210 across the upper surface 405, wherein there may be openings at any location of the upper surface 405, see [0063]).
Furthermore, Park teaches an analogous animal anesthetic table (Abstract, Fig. 1), wherein Park teaches coupling components together via magnetic coupling wherein both components comprises a magnet of differing polarities for coupling them together (Park [0054, 0068, 0080, 0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified both of the posts 1215 and holes 1210 of Strein to be a magnet for enabling magnetic attachment therein as taught by Park in order to provide a more secure connection of the elastic bands to the upper platform 400 therein (Park [0054, 0068, 0080, 0094]), thus providing the rotatable upper surgery platform further comprises an adjustable strap operably connected to a magnet on the upper surface as combined, the magnet is repositionable across the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform.
Strein as combined does not disclose the pillar is extendible to thereby adjustably raise and lower the rotatable upper surgery platform.
However, Hejkal teaches an analogous rotatable surgery table (title) (Fig. 9) having an analogous rotatable surgery platform 87 (Fig. 9 and [0040]) being held by an analogous pillar 93 (Fig. 9 and [0040], vertical support 93 being a pillar as shown), wherein the pillar 93 is extendible to thereby adjustably raise and lower the rotatable upper surgery platform 87 (Fig. 9 and [0040] “vertical support 93 may optionally be adjustable to various heights”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the pillar 100-P of Strein to be extendible to thereby adjustably raise and lower the rotatable upper surgery platform as taught by Hejkal in order to provide height adjustment to the table and thus make the table user to use for people of different heights and different heights that the table is placed on (Hejkal Fig. 9 and [0040, 0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 1.
Strein further discloses a transport line 120/515 (Fig. 3, 6, 9 and [0054], there is a fluid transport line of channels 515 and 120), wherein the transport line 120/515 comprises at least one of a gas line ([0044, 0048] the channels are fluid channels for enabling gas anesthetic therethrough) and/or an electric line (see [0061] wherein there may also be an electrical line connected between the base 100 and platform 400 through the swivel therein) and wherein the transport line 120/515 passes from a distal end through the base 100-B (Fig. 3, channel 120 passes from a distal end being a periphery of the base, see Annotated Fig. 9, channel 120 travels through the base 100-B) and the pillar 100-P (Fig. 3, 5, and 9, the transport line 120/515 extends centrally through the pillar 100-P) to a proximal end at the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 (Fig. 6, the channel 515 extends through the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 to a top side surface being a proximal end).
Regarding claim 3, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 2.
Strein further discloses a swivel 505/510 deposited along the transport line 120/515 (Fig. 1-11 and [0051] the swivel 505/510 fits into the base member 100 forming a swivel by enabling rotation therein, the transport line 120/515 passes through the pillar 100-P and the inside of the swivel 505/510, thus a swivel deposited along the transport line).
Regarding claim 4, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 3.
Strein further discloses wherein the swivel 505/510 is located within an interior space of the pillar 100-P (Fig. 1-11 and [0051], the swivel 505/510, as seen in Annotated Fig. 9, the swivel 505/510 is located within an interior space of the pillar 100-P).
Regarding claim 5, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 2.
Strein further discloses wherein the transport line 120/515 is a gas line and is operably connected to an anesthetic gas and/or oxygen gas source ([0044, 0048] the channels are fluid channels for enabling gas anesthetic therethrough) at the distal end 125 (Fig. 2) and a nose cone 410 and/or an endotracheal tube at the proximal end (Fig. 6-7, nose cone 410 at the proximal end).
Regarding claim 6, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 2.
Strein further discloses wherein the transport line is an electrical line and is operably connected at the distal end to an electric source of current (see [0061] wherein the total transport line may include electrical communication being an electrical line between the base 100 and platform 400 via a swivel connection, wherein the base 100 being a distal end of the device may be connected to an electric source of current).
Regarding claim 8, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 2.
Strein further discloses a water line (see [0044] the channels and thus transport lines of Strein are able to transport liquids, thus the channels are also water lines therein able to transport water).
Regarding claim 9, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 1.
Strein further discloses wherein the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 is configured to rotate in a circular direction about a circumference of the pillar 100-P ([0051] the platform 400 rotates and as shown in Fig. 1-11, the rotation is about the axis formed by the swivel walls 505/510, thus also rotates in a circular direction based on the circumference of the pillar 100-P which fits with the swivel 505/510).
Regarding claim 14, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 1.
Strein does not disclose wherein a braking mechanism is operably connected to the rotatable upper surgery platform to prevent rotation and or tilting or to maintain a position of the rotatable upper surgery platform.
However, Hejkal teaches an analogous rotatable surgery table (title) having an analogous rotatable surgery platform 39 having a braking mechanism 55 is operably connected to the rotatable upper surgery platform 39 to prevent rotation and maintain a position of the rotatable upper surgery platform (see [0007, 0033-0034, 0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the braking mechanism 55 as taught by Hejkal to the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 of Strein in order to ensure the platform only rotates when desired (Hejkal [0007, 0033-0034, 0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses a method for performing comprising placing a subject on the system of claim 1 (see above rejection under Strein/Park/Hejkal for the system of claim 1) (see Strein, [0015] specimen is placed on the system apparatus therein) and rotating the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 about the pillar 100-P (see Strein, [0079] rotating platform member 400 relative to the base member 100 being the pillar 100-P, see Annotated Fig. 9, thus rotating about the pillar 100-P).
Regarding claim 18, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the method of claim 17.
Strein further discloses wherein the system further comprises a gas line (Fig. 3, 6, 9 and [0054], there is a fluid transport line of channels 515 and 120; [0044, 0048] the channels are fluid channels for enabling gas anesthetic therethrough) (Fig. 1-11 and [0051] the swivel 505/510 fits into the pillar 100-P forming a swivel by enabling rotation therein, the transport line 120/515 passes through the swivel 505/510, thus a swivel deposited along the transport line)
and an electric line with a swivel disposed along each (see [0061] wherein there may also be an electrical line connected between the base/pillar 100 and platform 400 through a swivel 505/515 therein),
wherein the gas line is operably connected to an anesthetic gas and/or oxygen gas source ([0044, 0048] the channels are fluid channels for enabling gas anesthetic therethrough) and wherein the electric line is operably connected to a power source (see [0061] wherein the total transport line may include electrical communication being an electrical line between the base 100 and platform 400 via a swivel connection, wherein the base 100 being a distal end of the device may be connected to an electric source of current).
Regarding claim 19, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the method of claim 18.
Strein further discloses wherein the electric line is operably connected to a heating pad on the rotatable upper surgery platform (Fig. 12 and [0062] there may be a heating surface on the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 being a heating pad powered by the electrical line).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strein (US 20180206962 A1) in view of Park (US 20230062009 A1) and Hejkal (US 20090126113 A1) in view of Andersson (US 20170014214 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 6.
Strein further discloses wherein the electrical line operably connected at the proximal end to a heating pad on the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform (Fig. 12 and [0062] there may be a heating surface on the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 being a heating pad powered by the electrical line).
Strein does not disclose the heating pad being a circulating water pump, a heating gel or an infrared heating pad.
However, Andersson teaches an analogous surgery table for small animals (abstract), comprising an analogous heated table surface in the form of a circulating water pump heating pad (see [0004, 0020], the heating surface uses a circulating loop of heated water as a waterborne heating system which is synonymous with being pumped water for providing a heated surface for the animal patient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the heating pad of Strein to be a circulating water pump heating pad as taught by Andersson as heated water is able to hold more heat energy thus providing a more comfortable thermal temperature therein (Andersson [0004, 0020]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strein (US 20180206962 A1) in view of Park (US 20230062009 A1) and Hejkal (US 20090126113 A1) in view of Briggs (US 3318597 A).
Regarding claim 10, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 9.
Strein does not disclose wherein the rotatable upper surgery platform is operably rotated by an electronic or pneumatic foot pedal.
However, Brigg teaches an analogous rotatable upper surgery platform 29 (Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 34-55) wherein the platform 29 is operably rotated by an electronic foot pedal 35 (Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 34-55, rotated by electric motor with electric connection cable 46 connected to the foot pedal 35 for control of rotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 of Strein to be operably rotated by an electronic foot pedal as taught by Brigg in order to not need to use hands to rotate the platform (Briggs Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 34-55).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strein (US 20180206962 A1) in view of Park (US 20230062009 A1) and Hejkal (US 20090126113 A1) in view of Conkey (US 0809358 A).
Regarding claim 11, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 9.
Strein does not disclose the rotatable upper surgery platform is operably tiltable in a vertical or horizontal direction.
However, Conkey teaches an veterinary surgeon’s table (title) with an analogous upper surgery platform 1 (Fig. 1-6), wherein the platform 1 is rotatable with pillar support 23 (Page 1 lines 99-105), and is further operably tiltable in a vertical or horizontal direction (Fig. 6 and Page 2 lines 1-23, upper platform 1 provided with hinges enabling the platform to be tiltable in vertical and horizontal directions)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 of Strein operably tiltable in a vertical or horizontal direction as taught by Conkey in order to provide different positions at which an animal may be operated on (Conkey Fig. 2 and 6).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strein (US 20180206962 A1) in view of Park (US 20230062009 A1) and Hejkal (US 20090126113 A1) in view of Deprez (US 20250000052 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 1.
Strein does not disclose further comprising at least one of one or more mirrors positioned around a perimeter of the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform, a light source, a magnification source, a pulse oximeter, an electrocardiogram, or a combination thereof.
Strein does disclose there being a heating pad therein on the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 (Fig. 12 and [0062] there may be a heating surface on the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 being a heating pad powered by the electrical line)
However, Deprez teaches an analogous animal heating pad surface (title and abstract), wherein the heating pad may comprise an ECG (electrocardiogram) and pulse oximeter (hear rate monitor) (see [0049, 0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an electrocardiogram and pulse oximeter as taught by Deprez to the heating pad and thus upper surface upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform 400 of Strein in order to monitor the health status of the surgery patient (Deprez [0049, 0053]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strein (US 20180206962 A1) in view of Park (US 20230062009 A1) and Hejkal (US 20090126113 A1) in view of Staudinger (US 20170326014 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Strein/Park/Hejkal discloses the system of claim 1.
Strein does not disclose further comprising one or more image capturing devices positioned on the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform.
However, Staudinger teaches an analogous surgery platform/table (Fig. 1A) having an upper surface 14 of the analogous upper surgery platform (Fig. 1A and [0070] patient supporting surface 14), wherein one or more image capturing devices positioned on the upper surface 14 of the upper surgery platform (see [0070] camera integrated into the patient supporting surface 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided one or more image capturing devices (camera) as taught by Staudinger to be positioned on the upper surface of the rotatable upper surgery platform of Strein in order to provide sensors to detect if there is a patient or not on the upper surface therein (Staudinger [0070]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights