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 Arguments
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, the amendments to claims 9 and 10 are acknowledged and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of cancelled claim(s) 18 which is now incorporated in claim 1 under a 103 rejection over Robertson in view of Bagwell, Szabo, Ryan, and Parihar have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that modified Robertson in view of Parihar fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the thumb wheel further comprises, opposite the extending portion and below the circumferential association with the circumferential flange, a window through which at least one of an irrigation line or an aspiration line may pass”, as required by amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Robertson et al. (US 20110196286) in view of Bagwell et al. (US 20170106128), Szabo (US 20210106377), Ryan et al. (US 20040073204), and Dorn (DE 19819432).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 (lines 4 and 6): “the plurality” should recite “the plurality of flexible tubing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “rotating coupler” in claim 11.
“a rotating coupler” in claim 11 “capable of coupling the proximal portion and the distal portion to enable independent axial rotation about the longitudinal axis of the proximal portion from the distal portion” (functional language). The limitation describing the rotating coupler in claim 11 fails to include sufficient structure to perform the recited function of "coupling". In the specifications, the rotating coupler is described as “any means known in the art, including, but not limited to a low friction stainless steel bearing that freely allows axial rotation between the proximal segment 505 and the distal segment 510, such as axial rotation up to 350 degrees” (see para. 0044 of the instant application). Therefore, the rotating coupler is interpreted as a stainless steel bearing or any structural equivalents thereof used to provide a swivel feature that allows the proximal segment and distal segment to rotate independently (para. 0044 of the instant application).
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
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(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 20110196286) [hereinafter Robertson] in view of Bagwell et al. (US 20170106128) [hereinafter Bagwell], Szabo (US 20210106377), Ryan et al. (US 20040073204) [hereinafter Ryan], and Dorn (DE 19819432) [English translation attached].
Regarding claim 1, Robertson a phacoemulsification handpiece 302 (Figs. 6-7, para. 0159; see note below) comprising:
a proximal portion (interpreted as portion of housing 302 that comprises slip ring assembly 150, Fig. 7, para. 0142) having a longitudinal axis A-A (Fig. 6, para. 0152), and a first end (interpreted as proximal end of housing 302) and a second end (interpreted as end comprising motor rotor 320), wherein a power input 76 enters the first end (Figs. 6-7, para. 0143, 0160);
a distal portion (interpreted as portion of housing that comprises ultrasonic transducer assembly 314) along the longitudinal axis A-A (Figs. 6-7, para. 0159, 0160) and comprising, at a distalmost portion thereof from the proximal portion:
a needle 200 configured to vibrated by a transducer 314 powered by the power input (Figs. 6-7, para. 0159), the transducer 314 residing within the distal portion (Fig. 6, para. 0159) and being associated with a horn 324 having a circumferential flange (see Fig. 6 which illustrates the flange connected to a distal bearing 336, para. 0159).
Robertson further discloses an aspiration input entering the distal portion of the handpiece 302 (Figs. 6-7, para. 0155).
However, Robertson fails to disclose wherein at least the aspiration input and an irrigation input enter the first end.
Bagwell teaches an ultrasonic cutting device (Figs. 6, 11, para. 0078-0079, 0082) comprising a handpiece 150 (Fig. 6, para. 0039-0040) having a first end (interpreted as a proximal end of handpiece 150) (Figs. 6, 11, para. 0039-0040), wherein at least aspiration 154, irrigation 157, and power 169 inputs enter the first end (Figs. 8, 11, para. 0040, 0067-0069, 0078), wherein the aspiration and irrigation inputs extend to aspiration and irrigation outputs 181, 182 (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067-0069) via. flexible tubing 121a, 125a (Figs. 8, 11, para. 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the handpiece in Robertson to include the aspiration and irrigation input and outputs of Bagwell such that the aspiration and irrigation inputs enter the first end in order to allow the user to cut, suction, and flush a target site during the procedure, thereby improving the efficacy of debris removal (para. 0037, 0040 of Bagwell).
Robertson further discloses that the ultrasonic horn 324 is rotatable about the longitudinal axis via. a motor rotor 320 (Figs. 6-7, para. 0159-0160).
However, modified Robertson fails to disclose the circumferential flange having a first set of gear teeth; a thumb wheel circumferentially associated with the circumferential flange by a second set of gear teeth, and having a portion thereof extending out of the distal portion to allow for rotational actuation of the extending portion; wherein rotational actuation of the thumb wheel affects a rotation of the circumferential flange via an engagement of the first set of gear teeth with the second set of gear teeth.
Szabo in the same field of endeavor of rotation mechanisms for surgical instrument handpieces teaches a rotatable shaft 28 comprising a circumferential flange 40 having a first set of gear teeth 56 (Figs. 3, 6-7, para. 0017-0018); thumb wheel 34 circumferentially associated with the circumferential flange 40 by a second set of gear teeth 54 (Figs. 6-7, para. 0017-0018), and having a portion thereof extending out of the handpiece to allow for rotational actuation of the extending portion (Figs. 2-3, 8, para. 0017); wherein rotational actuation of the thumb wheel 34 affects a rotation of the circumferential flange 40 via an engagement of the first set of gear teeth 56 with the second set of gear teeth 54 (Figs, 6-7, para. 0018).
Ryan in the same field of endeavor of surgical ultrasonic instruments 98 (Fig. 10, para. 0068) teaches that a thumb wheel 116 is a known alternative to a motor in the art such that the user may replace the motor with the thumb wheel or rotatable knob (para. 0088).
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thumb wheel/circumferential flange gear rotation mechanism as taught by Szabo for the motor rotor/circumferential flange rotation mechanism in Robertson, since the substitution of the thumb wheel gear rotation mechanism shown in Szabo would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to rotate the transducer within the handpiece as taught by Ryan (para. 0088) and Szabo (para. 0018).
However, modified Robertson in view of Szabo and Ryan fail to disclose wherein the thumb wheel further comprises, opposite the extending portion and below the circumferential association with the circumferential flange, a window through which at least one of an irrigation line or an aspiration line may pass.
Dorn in the same field of endeavor of handpieces 12 (Figs. 1-2, page 4, thirteenth paragraph) teaches a control wheel 34 comprising a window 46 through which at least one of an irrigation line 28 or an aspiration line 24 may pass (Figs. 2-3c, page 4, seventeenth -eighteenth paragraph, last three lines of page 5 to the first full paragraph of page 6; The examiner notes that “which at least one of an irrigation line or an aspiration line may pass” is functional language. Therefore, the window of Dorn must only be capable of performing that function.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irrigation line in modified Robertson extend through the window of the thumb wheel as taught by Dorn, since such a modification is a rearrangement of parts and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI.
The combination of modified Robertson in view of Dorn would result in a product wherein the window 46 of Dorn (see Figs. 3a-3c of Dorn) would be provided in the thumb wheel 34 of Szabo such that the window would be opposite the extending portion of the thumb wheel 34 and below the circumferential association with the circumferential flange 40, as taught by Szabo (Figs. 6-7, para. 0018 of Szabo).
Note: “a phacoemulsification handpiece” is interpreted as intended use and therefore functional language. Therefore, the limitation is not interpreted as a structural component of the claimed invention, but interpreted as a functional component that the claimed invention is capable of doing. Robertson discloses an ultrasonic device (Figs. 6-7, para. 0159) used to cut tissue (para. 0001). Applicant’s phacoemulsification device is also an ultrasonic device used to cut a lends of a patient’s eye (see para. 5 of the specification of the instant application). Robertson’s ultrasonic device is capable of being used to cut the lens of the eye of the patient because it is dependent on the intended use of the device. Furthermore, the combination disclosed above to form modified Robertson discloses all of the structure of the claim to be the phacoemulsification device as claimed. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, modified Robertson discloses further comprising a feedback aspect (interpreted as the grooves/projections on the knob of Szabo) associated with the rotational actuation (Figs.6-7, para. 0018 of Szabo).
Regarding claim 3, modified Robertson discloses wherein the feedback aspect comprises tactile feedback (Figs. 6-7, para. 0018 of Szabo; The examiner notes that due to the grooves/projections provided on the knob, the user will feel the grooves as the knob turns).
Regarding claim 4, modified Robertson discloses wherein the tactile feedback comprises one of embedded bumps 36 on the thumb wheel (Fig. 6, para. 0017 of Szabo).
Regarding claim 6, modified Robertson discloses wherein the feedback aspect comprises a wheel detent (interpreted as one of the grooves in between the grips 36) at a neutral position (Fig. 6, para. 0017 of Szabo; The examiner notes that the thumb wheel of Szabo comprises a wheel detent at a neutral or resting position).
Regarding claim 7, modified Robertson discloses wherein the feedback aspect comprises varying wheel detents (interpreted as the grooves in between the grips 36) indicative of a plurality of rotational positions (Fig. 6, para. 0017 of Szabo; The examiner notes that the wheel detents of Szabo are varying because each detent is located at a different position).
Regarding claim 8, modified Robertson discloses wherein the thumb wheel comprises a circumferential notch 60 for association with the flange 40 (Fig. 6, para. 0018 of Szabo).
Regarding claim 9, modified Robertson discloses wherein the circumferential notch 60 comprises a plurality of teeth (interpreted as the second set of gear teeth 54, see 112(b) rejection above) for mating with the flange 40 (Fig. 6, para. 0018 of Szabo).
Regarding claim 10, modified Robertson discloses wherein the circumferential flange 40 comprises flange teeth (interpreted as the first set of gear teeth 56, see 112 (b) rejection above) correspondent to the plurality of teeth (interpreted as the second set of gear teeth 54, see 112(b) rejection above) (Fig. 6, para. 0018 of Szabo).
Regarding claim 13, modified Robertson discloses wherein the transducer 314 imparts multi-directional movement to the needle 200 (para. 0148, 0159 of Robertson).
Regarding claim 14, modified Robertson discloses wherein the proximal portion and the distal portion are rigidly associated along the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 6-7 of Robertson which illustrates the distal portion and the proximal portion of the handpiece 302 being integral with each other. The examiner notes that Robertson does not disclose or suggest that the distal portion and the proximal portion are flexible or flexibly associated with one another).
Regarding claim 15, modified Robertson discloses wherein a fluidic connection between the irrigation input 157 and an irrigation output 182 of Bagwell in the distal portion (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067, 0069 of Bagwell) is routed around the thumb wheel 34 of Szabo (Figs. 2-3, para. 0017 of Szabo; see note below).
Note: The specification of the instant application defines “around” as “adjacent to” (see para. 0057). Bagwell teaches that the fluidic connection between the irrigation input of the proximal portion and irrigation output of the distal portion extends along the length of the device such that irrigation fluid is delivered out of a distal end of the device (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067-0069 of Bagwell). Since the fluidic connection of the irrigation input/output extends between the proximal and distal portion of the handpiece, the fluid connection would be routed “around” or “adjacent to” the thumb wheel. The examiner further notes that language of the claim is broad and does not convey a specific structural relationship.
Regarding claim 16, modified Robertson discloses wherein a fluidic connection between the aspiration input 153 and an aspiration output 181 of Bagwell in the distal portion (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067-0068 of Bagwell) is routed around the thumb wheel of Szabo (Figs. 2-3, para. 0017 of Szabo; see note below).
Note: The specification of the instant application defines “around” as “adjacent to” (see para. 0057). Bagwell teaches that the fluidic connection between the aspiration input of the proximal portion and aspiration output of the distal portion extends along the length of the device such that a suction force is delivered out of a distal end of the device (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067-0069 of Bagwell). Since the fluidic connection of the aspiration input/output extends between the proximal and distal portion of the handpiece, the fluid connection would be routed “around” or “adjacent to” the thumb wheel. The examiner further notes that language of the claim is broad and does not convey a specific structural relationship.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 20110196286) [hereinafter Robertson] in view of Bagwell et al. (US 20170106128) [hereinafter Bagwell], Szabo (US 20210106377), Ryan et al. (US 20040073204) [hereinafter Ryan], and Dorn (DE 19819432) [English translation attached], as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bitton et al. (US 20180280624) [hereinafter Bitton].
Regarding claim 5, modified Robertson discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 2. However, modified Robertson fails to disclose wherein the feedback aspect comprises an indicator window through which markings are visible indicating rotational position.
Bitton teaches that it is known in the art to use an indicator window 130 in relation to rotation of a knob 120 through which markings 126 are visible indicating rotational position (Figs. 1, 3, para. 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in modified Robertson to include the indicator window, as taught by Bitton, in order to track the rotational position of the transducer, and thereby the cutter, in relation to the thumb wheel (para. 0063 of Bitton).
Claim(s) 11-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 20110196286) [hereinafter Robertson] in view of Bagwell et al. (US 20170106128) [hereinafter Bagwell], Szabo (US 20210106377), Ryan et al. (US 20040073204) [hereinafter Ryan], and Dorn (DE 19819432) [English translation attached], as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zaleski (US 5242449).
Regarding claim 11, modified Robertson discloses all of the limitation set forth above in claim 1. However, modified Robertson fails to disclose further comprising a rotating coupler capable of coupling the proximal portion and a distal portion to enable independent axial rotation about the longitudinal axis of the proximal portion from the distal portion.
Zaleski teaches an ophthalmic instrument handpiece 13 (Figs. 1-2, col. 4 lines 53-62) comprising a proximal portion (interpreted as portion comprising manifold 49) having a first end 25 (Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 53-62 and col. 6 lines 58-68) and a rotating coupler (interpreted as connector manifold 49 rotatably coupled to a barrel 47; see 112f interpretation above) capable of coupling the proximal portion and a rotatable distal portion 47 via. an annular rib 51 of the proximal portion and an annular mating groove 53 of the distal portion (Figs. 1, 2, 5, col. 5 lines 64-68 and col. 6 lines 1-7) to enable independent axial rotation about a longitudinal axis of the proximal portion from the distal portion (col. 6 lines 34-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the proximal portion in modified Robertson to include the rotating coupler of Zaleski in order to allow the proximal portion to remain stationary as the distal portion rotates, thereby preventing flexible aspiration and irrigation conduits from becoming twisted (col. 6 lines 34-42 of Zaleski).
Regarding claim 12, modified Robertson discloses a plurality of flexible tubing 121a, 125a passing substantially along a longitudinal axis within both a proximal portion and a distal portion of the handpiece 150 (Figs. 8, 11, para. 0040 of Bagwell), wherein at least a first flexible tube 121a of the plurality 121a, 125a provides continuous fluidic communication between an aspiration input 154 and an aspiration output 181 of the distal portion (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067-0068 of Bagwell) and at least a second flexible tube 125a of the plurality 121a, 125a provides continuous fluidic communication between an irrigation input 125a and an irrigation output 182 in the distal portion (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067, 0069 of Bagwell), wherein the plurality of flexible tubing flexes within the proximal portion and the distal portion and within the rotating coupler so as not to bind during the independent axial rotation (see note below).
Note: The combination of modified Robertson and Bagwell would result in a product wherein the plurality of flexible tubing 121a, 125a of Bagwell flexes within the proximal portion and the distal portion (Figs. 8-9, 11, para. 0040, 0067-0069 of Bagwell) and within the rotating coupler 49 of Zaleski so as not to bind during the independent axial rotation (Figs. 1-2, col. 6 lines 34-42 of Zaleski).
Regarding claim 17, modified Robertson discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Modified Robertson further discloses wherein the rotational actuation of the thumb wheel causes rotation of the horn and needle (Figs. 6-7, para. 0159-0160 of Robertson and Figs. 6-7, para. 0017-0018of Szabo; see rejection of claim 1 above). However, modified Robertson fails to disclose wherein the rotational actuation of the thumb wheel causes rotation of the horn and needle independent of movement of the aspiration, irrigation and power inputs.
Zaleski teaches an ophthalmic instrument handpiece 13 (Figs. 1-2, col. 4 lines 53-62) comprising a proximal portion (interpreted as portion comprising manifold 49) having a first end 25 (Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 53-62 and col. 6 lines 58-68) and a rotatable distal portion 47 (Fig. 1, col. 6 lines 4-7), wherein the rotational actuation of the distal portion 47 causes rotation of a guide 43, a slider 45 and an inner member 21 independent of movement of the aspiration and irrigation inputs via. a connector manifold 49 of the proximal portion having an annular rib 51 and an annular mating groove 53 of the distal portion (Figs. 1, 2, 5, col. 5 lines 64-68 and col. 6 lines 1-7 and lines 34-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the distal portion and proximal portion in modified Robertson to include the connector manifold having an annular rib on the proximal portion and the annular mating groove on the distal portion of Zaleski in order to allow the proximal portion to remain stationary as the distal portion rotates, thereby preventing flexible aspiration and irrigation conduits from becoming twisted (col. 6 lines 34-42 of Zaleski).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US 20120116260) in the same field of endeavor of surgical ultrasonic instruments 300 (Fig. 5, para. 0048) teaches a transducer 332 associated with a horn 376 having a circumferential flange 372 having a first set of gear teeth (Fig. 5, para. 0050); a motor 324 circumferentially associated with the circumferential flange 372 by a second set of gear teeth (interpreted as teeth on first gear 370) (Fig. 5, para. 0050); wherein rotational actuation of the motor 324 affects a rotation of the circumferential flange 372 via an engagement of the first set of gear teeth with the second set of gear teeth (Fig. 5, para. 0050).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN DUBOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-8792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached on 571-272-7134. 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.
/LAUREN DUBOSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771