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
This Office Action is a response to applicant’s arguments and amendment filed 07/14/2025. Claims 1-4, 7, 12-14 and 16 are amended. Claims 5-6, 8-11, 15 and 17-21 are cancelled. Claims 22-27 are new. Claims 1-4, 7, 12-14, 16 and 22-27 are currently pending.
The objection of claim 14 is maintained; see below.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-14, 16 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 8, 11, 17-18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams; and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Farritor, has been withdrawn due to applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 2, the phrase “comprising” should read “comprises”.
In claim 14, line 5, the phrase “a distal end of the flexible body” should read “the distal end of the flexible body”, since claim 1 previously introduced a distal end of the first flexible body.
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/are: “imaging system” in claim 1; “tracking device” in claim 1.
Para. [0203] of the published application describes the imaging system as a camera. “Imaging system” uses the generic placeholder “system” coupled with the term “imaging”, which is functional in that the limitation alternatively recites a system for imaging, and the term “system” is not preceded by a structural modifier since the term “imaging” does not imply any structure.
Para. [0196] of the published application describes the tracking device as various sensors, tracked tips, fiber bragg grating, etc. “Tracking device” uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with the term “tracking”, which is functional in that the limitation alternatively recites a device for tracking, and the term “device” is not preceded by a structural modifier since the term “tracking” does not imply any structure.
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 § 112
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 2-3 and 13 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 2, the claim recites “the first portion of the second scope device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a first portion of the second scope device has not been previously introduced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the second instrument being configured to couple to the first portion of the first scope device, which appears consistent with a grasper being capable of coupling to the first scope device as depicted in fig. 23.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the first portion of the second scope device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a first portion of the second scope device has not been previously introduced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the end effector of the second instrument being configured to couple to the first portion of the first scope device, which appears consistent with a grasper being capable of coupling to the first scope device as depicted in fig. 23.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the first portion of the second scope device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a first portion of the second scope device has not been previously introduced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to coupling of the second instrument to the first portion of the first scope device, which appears to be consistent with paras. [0165] and [0176] of the published application, describing the second instrument inserted through laparoscope 10414, and the laparoscopic instrument being coupled to the first scope device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12, 14 and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Grunberg (US 2014/0179997 A1) in view of Yoon (US 6066090).
Regarding claim 1, von Grunberg discloses (see abstract; paras. [0038]-[0055]; figs. 1-4) a surgical system (fig. 1), comprising:
a first scope device (first endoscope, abstract; figs. 1-2) having a first portion configured to be inserted into and positioned within an extraluminal anatomical space (distal end of 4b, considered to be positioned through extraluminal anatomical space and therefore within extraluminal anatomical space, fig. 1) and a second portion distal to the first portion (includes imaging systems 22a and 22b) and configured to be positioned within an intraluminal anatomical space (depicted in fig. 1), the first scope device comprising:
a first body (main support 4b, para. [0040]) with a first working channel extending therethrough (for surgical instruments to be inserted through, para. [0036]) and a first imaging system (includes 22a and 22b, para. [0040]) at a distal end thereof (fig. 1), the first working channel being configured to enable a distal end of a first instrument to be inserted into and through the extraluminal anatomical space and into the intraluminal anatomical space such that the first instrument is present in both the extraluminal anatomical space and the intraluminal anatomical space (considered to be capable of introducing an instrument into the extraluminal/intraluminal anatomical space since the main support is located within the extraluminal/intraluminal anatomical space, depicted in fig. 1);
a fiducial marker (includes light source 23 and imaging optical system 24, para. [0040]; fig. 1) positioned on the first portion of the first scope device (positioned at distal end, fig. 1); and
a first tracking device (image sensors 21a and 21b, para. [0040]) arranged within the first scope device (arranged on end, considered to be within device);
a second scope device (second endoscope, abstract) configured to be positioned within the extraluminal anatomical space (fig. 1), the second scope device comprising:
a second body (additional support 3, para. [0038]) with a second working channel extending therethrough (for main support 4a, fig. 1) and a second imaging system at a distal end thereof (includes imaging optics 8, para. [0038]), the second working channel being configured to enable a distal end of a second instrument (main support 4a) to be inserted into the extraluminal anatomical space and is present in the extraluminal anatomical space (working channel is present in extraluminal anatomical space and allows introduction of other instruments, depicted in fig. 1); and
a second tracking device (image sensor 9) arranged within the second scope device (arranged within camera holder 5); and
a controller (processing unit 31, para. [0039]) configured to be communicatively coupled to the first scope device and the second scope device (fig. 1), the controller being configured to:
receive first image data from the first scope device using the first imaging system (paras. [0040] and [0042]);
receive second image data from the second scope device using the second imaging system (paras. [0038]-[0039]); and
based on the first image data and the second image data, provide a merged image associated with the first scope device and the second scope device (combines the image data into a single image, paras. [0039] and [0042]).
However, von Grunberg fails to explicitly disclose the first and second flexible body being flexible.
Yoon teaches (col. 6 lines 13-34; fig. 1), in the same field of endeavor, a surgical system comprising an endoscope which is flexible, for the purpose of providing steerable endoscope branches (col. 6 lines 13-34).
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 material of main support 4b and additional support 3 of von Grunberg to be made of a flexible material, in order to provide the capability of steering the supports when desired, based on the teachings of Yoon (col. 6 lines 13-34).
Regarding claim 2, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the surgical system of claim 1. Von Grunberg further discloses wherein the second instrument is configured to couple to the first portion of the second scope device at a predefined location that is within the extraluminal anatomical space and directly adjacent a tissue wall defining at least a portion of the intraluminal anatomical space (note this limitation is recited functionally and not required by the claim language, therefore main support 4a is considered to be capable of coupling to the first portion of the first scope device via graspers at a location within the extraluminal anatomical space since main support 4b extends proximally into the extraluminal anatomical space, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the surgical system of claim 1. Von Grunberg further discloses wherein the second instrument comprises a rigid shaft (shaft of support 4a) with an end effector at a distal end thereof (fig. 1), the end effector being configured to couple to the first portion of the second scope device (considered to be capable of coupling to main support 4b via graspers).
Regarding claim 4, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the surgical system of claim 1. Von Grunberg (as modified) further teaches wherein the first scope device comprises a cannula (trocar 1b, para. [0038] of von Grunberg) having a lumen extending therethrough (fig. 1 of von Grunberg), the cannula being configured to be disposed within a tissue wall defining at least a portion of the intraluminal anatomical space and configured to allow the distal end of the first flexible body to be inserted from the extraluminal anatomical space, through the lumen, and into the intraluminal anatomical space (depicted in fig. 1 of von Grunberg, combination considered to further teach the endoscope being formed of a flexible material).
Regarding claim 22, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the surgical system of claim 1. Von Grunberg further discloses wherein the first image data comprises a first field of view of the first scope device (para. [0040]) and the second image data comprises a second field of view of the second scope device (para. [0038]; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the surgical system of claim 1. Von Grunberg further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a first signal indicative of a first location of the first scope device using the first tracking device (via received image data from image sensors 21a and 21b); receive a second signal indicative of a second location of the second scope device using the second tracking device (via received image data from image sensor 9); and determine a relative distance and a relative orientation between the first scope device and the second scope device based on the first signal and the second signal (via trajectories of instruments and processing of image data to create a single image, paras. [0028] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 24, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the surgical system of claim 1. Von Grunberg further discloses wherein the fiducial marker comprises a light emitting device (light source 23, para. [0040]), and wherein the controller is configured to: determine a position of the second portion of the first scope device using the second imaging system, wherein to determine the position of the second portion of the first scope device comprises the controller being configured to identify the fiducial marker that is positioned on an outer surface of the first portion of the first scope device using the second imaging system (processing unit 31 receives image data which is displayed on display unit 33, including trajectories of the surgical instrument within images, which is considered to encompass determining the location of the surgical instruments and therefore a position of imaging systems 22a and 22b, as well as an identification of 23/24, since surgical instruments are introduced distally past 22a and 22b and are visually captured within the field of view of image sensor 9 to ensure complete illumination, paras. [0038] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, von Grunberg discloses (see abstract, paras. [0038]-[0055]; figs. 1-4) a method (fig. 1), comprising:
inserting a first portion (distal end of 4b) of a first scope device (first endoscope, abstract; figs. 1-2) into an extraluminal anatomical space (considered to be positioned through extraluminal anatomical space, fig. 1), the first scope device having a first body (main support 4b, para. [0040]) with a first working channel extending therethrough (for surgical instruments to be inserted through, para. [0036]);
inserting a second portion of the first scope device (includes imaging systems 22a and 22b), distal to the first portion (fig. 1), into an intraluminal anatomical space (fig. 1);
inserting a first instrument through the first working channel to position the first instrument within both the extraluminal anatomical space and the intraluminal anatomical space (instrument inserted through trocar, note main supports are provided for further insertion of surgical instruments, paras. [0036] and [0038]);
inserting a second scope device (second endoscope, abstract) into the extraluminal anatomical space (fig. 1), the second scope device having a second body (additional support 3, para. [0038]) with a second working channel extending therethrough (for main support 4a, fig. 1);
inserting a second instrument (main support 4a) through the second working channel to position the second instrument within the extraluminal anatomical space (positioned through extraluminal anatomical space);
receiving, by a controller (processing unit 31), first image data from the first scope device using a first imaging system (paras. [0040] and [0042]), the first imaging system being associated with the first scope device (imaging system includes 22a and 22b, para. [0040]);
receiving, by the controller, second image data from the second scope device using a second imaging system (paras. [0038]-[0039]), the second imaging system being associated with the second scope device (imaging system includes imaging optics 8, para. [0038]); and
providing, by the controller, a merged image associated with the first scope device and the second scope device based on the first image data and the second image data (combines the image data into a single image, paras. [0039] and [0042]).
However, von Grunberg fails to explicitly disclose the first body and the second body being flexible.
Yoon teaches (col. 6 lines 13-34; fig. 1), in the same field of endeavor, a surgical system comprising an endoscope which is flexible, for the purpose of providing steerable endoscope branches (col. 6 lines 13-34).
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 material of main support 4b and additional support 3 of von Grunberg to be made of a flexible material, in order to provide the capability of steering the supports when desired, based on the teachings of Yoon (col. 6 lines 13-34).
Regarding claim 14, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the method of claim 12. Von Grunberg further discloses further comprising: inserting a cannula (trocar 1b, para. [0038] of von Grunberg) through a tissue wall defining at least a portion of the intraluminal anatomical space (fig. 1 of von Grunberg), wherein the cannula includes a lumen extending therethrough (fig. 1 of von Grunberg), and wherein the cannula is associated with the first scope device (fig. 1 of von Grunberg); and inserting a distal end of the first flexible body through the lumen and into the intraluminal anatomical space (depicted in fig. 1 of von Grunberg, combination considered to further teach the endoscope being formed of a flexible material).
Regarding claim 25, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the method of claim 12. Von Grunberg further discloses wherein the first image data comprises a first field of view of the first scope device (para. [0040]) and the second image data comprises a second field of view of the second scope device (para. [0038]; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the method of claim 12. Von Grunberg further discloses further comprising: receiving a first signal indicative of a first location of the first scope device using a first tracking device (via received image data from image sensors 21a and 21b), wherein the first tracking device is arranged within the first scope device (component of scope that hinges outward, considered to be within device); receiving a second signal indicative of a second location of the second scope device using a second tracking device (via received image data from image sensor 9), wherein the second tracking device is arranged within the second scope device (via hinge); and determining a relative distance and a relative orientation between the first scope device and the second scope device based on the first signal and the second signal (via trajectories of instruments and processing of image data to create a single image, paras. [0028] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 27, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the method of claim 12. Von Grunberg further discloses wherein the method comprises: determining a position of the second portion of the first scope device using the second imaging system, wherein determining the position of the second portion of the first scope device comprises identifying a fiducial marker that is positioned on an outer surface of the first portion of the first scope device using the second imaging system (processing unit 31 receives image data which is displayed on display unit 33, including trajectories of the surgical instrument within images, which is considered to encompass determining the location of the surgical instruments and therefore a position of imaging systems 22a and 22b, as well as an identification of 23/24, since surgical instruments are introduced distally past 22a and 22b and are visually captured within the field of view of image sensor 9 to ensure complete illumination, paras. [0038] and [0041]), and wherein the fiducial marker comprises a light emitting device (light source 23, para. [0040]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Grunberg in view of Yoon as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Robertson (US 2011/0160539 A1).
Regarding claim 7, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the surgical system of claim 1.
However, von Grunberg (as modified) fails to teach wherein the first scope device further comprising a fluid port configured to insufflate the extraluminal anatomical space.
Robertson teaches (para. [0046]; figs. 17-18), in the same field of endeavor, a surgical system (figs. 17-18) comprising a scope device (10, para. [0030]; fig. 1) further comprising a fluid port (48) configured to insufflate an extraluminal anatomical space (considered to be extraluminal relative to peritoneum P, para. [0046]), for the purpose of maintaining or further extending separation between tissue layers after dissecting the tissue layers (para. [0046]).
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 surgical system of von Grunberg (as modified) to further include a fluid port on the first scope device, in order to maintain or further extend separation between tissue layers when desired, based on the teachings of Robertson (para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the method of claim 12.
However, von Grunberg (as modified) fails to teach further comprising: insufflating the extraluminal anatomical space via a fluid port operatively coupled to the first portion of the first scope device.
Robertson teaches (para. [0046]; figs. 17-18), in the same field of endeavor, a surgical system (figs. 17-18) comprising a scope device (10, para. [0030]; fig. 1) further comprising a fluid port (48), and insufflating an extraluminal anatomical space via the fluid port operatively coupled to a first portion of the scope device (considered to be coupled to a first portion of 10 and insufflating an extraluminal space relative to peritoneum P, para. [0046]), for the purpose of maintaining or further extending separation between tissue layers after dissecting the tissue layers (para. [0046]).
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 method of von Grunberg (as modified) to further include a fluid port on the first scope device, in order to maintain or further extend separation between tissue layers when desired, based on the teachings of Robertson (para. [0046]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Grunberg in view of Yoon as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nakazawa (US 2003/0135091 A1).
Regarding claim 13, von Grunberg (as modified) teaches the method of claim 12.
However, von Grunberg (as modified) fails to teach further comprising coupling the second instrument to the first portion of the second scope device at a predefined location within the extraluminal anatomical space and directly adjacent a tissue wall defining at least a portion of the intraluminal anatomical space.
Nakazawa teaches (para. [0119]; fig. 8a), in the same field of endeavor, a method (para. [0119]) comprising coupling a second instrument (grasping forceps 82) to a first portion of a second scope device at a predefined location (fig. 8a), for the purpose of guiding a first scope device to a desired position (para. [0119]).
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 method of von Grunberg (as modified) to further include coupling of the graspers of support 4a with the first portion of main support 4b, in order to provide the capability of guiding the scope device to a desired position, based on the teachings of Nakazawa (para. [0119]).
Von Grunberg (as modified) further teaches coupling the second instrument to the first portion of the second scope device at a predefined location within the extraluminal anatomical space and directly adjacent a tissue wall defining at least a portion of the intraluminal anatomical space (combination considered to further teach coupling at the predefined location which extends through the extraluminal anatomical space and is therefore within the extraluminal anatomical space, and further directly adjacent the tissue wall 2, because main support 4b extends through tissue wall 2, further note fig. 23 of the instant spec. depicts a gap between the tissue wall and the grasper, such that broadest reasonable interpretation of “directly adjacent” encompasses a level of spacing, fig. 1 of von Grunberg).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0145953 A1 to Fujie, disclosing an image completion system.
US 2019/0268581 A1 to Miyazaki, disclosing a body cavity observation system.
US 2021/0196312 A1 to Plewe, disclosing an alignment interface.
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 BRIGID K BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-7698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571)-272-4695. 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.
/BRIGID K BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3771