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 .’
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated December 11, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-31 are pending.
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 23-25, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200060537 A1 by Rephaeli et al. (hereinafter “Rephaeli”) in view of US 20210251478 A1 by Mao et al. (hereinafter “Mao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Rephaeli discloses a method for defogging an optical component of an endoscope (Rephaeli FIG. 2A, lens 203 of endoscope 150), the method comprising:
operating an illuminator in an imaging mode in which the illuminator generates illumination light for endoscopic imaging of a target (Rephaeli FIG. 2A, light emission from light source 207), wherein the illumination light is generated by a plurality of light sources (Rephaeli FIG. 2A, light sources 207), the plurality of light sources including a first light source that generates illumination light in a visible light waveband (Rephaeli FIG. 4, block 401; paragraph [0034], “Block 401 shows emitting light from a light source disposed in the endoscope. As stated this may include emitting light in the…visible…ranges”; Rephaeli FIG. 2A, lens 203; Rephaeli paragraph [0027], “Lens 203 is structured to absorb at least some of the light. A controller (e.g., including a general purpose processor, application specific integrated circuit, distributed system, memory, or the like) is coupled to light sources 207, and the controller includes logic that when executed by the controller causes the endoscope to perform operations. The operations may include adjusting an emission profile of light sources 207 to heat lens 203 with the light, and, as stated above, heating lens 203 mitigates formation of fog (condensation) on lens 203”) at a first imaging intensity level (intensity of the light emitted from one of light source 207 before fog is detected; see also Rephaeli [0026-27]; Rephaeli FIG. 2A); and
changing the operating mode of the illuminator from the imaging mode to a defogging mode in which a first intensity level of the illumination light in the visible light waveband generated by the first light source is increased from the first imaging intensity level to a defogging intensity level and a second intensity level of the illumination light in the different waveband generated by the second light source is increased from the second imaging intensity level to a second defogging intensity level to warm and defog the optical component of the endoscope (Rephaeli paragraphs [0028-29], “in response to detecting fog, an intensity of the light sources 207 is increased to heat the lens”).
However, Rephaeli does not positively disclose each light source generating a different wavebands of light at controllable different intensities, including visible light for imaging the target that also defogs the optical component.
Mao teaches an anti-fog device 100A used with a semiconductor light source 200A comprising an NIR laser 220 and LEDs 221-223 providing red, green, and blue light, respectively, to the anti-fog device 100A via fiber cable 61. An intensity of each of the light sources 220-223 is controlled independently by controller 704 to attenuate the visible light intensity. Optical fibers 611 of the fiber cable 61 provide the emission light to a target 51 through optical front window 11 ([0027, 47-50]; Figs. 1A, 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the light source disclosed by Rephaeli with the discrete wavebands taught by Mao for the benefit of adjusting the light intensity with desired precision (Mao [0050]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein increasing the intensity level of the illumination light in the visible light waveband comprises increasing power provided to at least the first light source (Mao: intensity of each of the light sources 220-223 is controlled independently by controller 704 to attenuate the visible light intensity by changing the driving current; [0050]; Fig. 2A) from an imaging power level to a defogging power level (Rephaeli: in response to detecting fog, an intensity of the light source is increased to heat the lens; [0028-29]).
Regarding Claim 5, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the first light source comprises a plurality of light emitters that each emit the illumination light in the visible light waveband (Rephaeli: light with the same emission profile emitted from light source 207 at a plurality of locations as shown in Fig. 2A; [0027]; Fig. 2A; paragraph [0034], “Block 401 shows emitting light from a light source disposed in the endoscope. As stated this may include emitting light in the…visible…ranges”).
Regarding Claim 7, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first waveband other than the visible light waveband is a near infrared waveband for exciting a fluorescence target (Rephaeli: emitting light may be in the near infrared range; [0016, 34]).
Regarding Claim 8, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first waveband is an ultraviolet waveband (Rephaeli: emitting light may be in ultraviolet range; [0034]).
Regarding Claim 11, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving image data generated by an endoscopic camera connected to the endoscope while the illuminator is in the imaging mode (Rephaeli: image data from imaging of cameras 209);
analyzing the image data to automatically detect fogging of the optical component of the endoscope (Rephaeli: detecting presence of fog on the lens using image data); and
in response to automatically detecting fogging of the optical component, sending a signal to the illuminator that changes the operating mode of the illuminator from the imaging mode to the defogging mode (Rephaeli: adjusting the light source to heat the lens in response to detecting fog on the lens; [0028]; Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 14, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the optical component comprises a distal lens or window at the distal end of the endoscope (Rephaeli: lens 203 at distal end 201; [0027]; Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 16, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the endoscope comprises a plurality of optical fibers for carrying the illumination light and at least a portion of the plurality of optical fibers are located radially outwardly of the optical component (Mao: optical fibers 611 of the fiber cable 61 surround the optical front window 11 as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 16, wherein an outer surface of the optical component and termination surfaces of at least the portion of the plurality of optical fibers that are located radially outwardly of the optical component are coplanar (Mao: optical fibers 611 of the fiber cable 61 surround the optical front window 11 as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 23, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the optical component is configured to transmit the illumination light in the visible light waveband (Rephaeli: lens 203 absorbs some of the light transmitted from light source 207; [0027]; Fig. 2A; FIG. 4, block 401; paragraph [0034], “Block 401 shows emitting light from a light source disposed in the endoscope. As stated this may include emitting light in the…visible…ranges”).
Regarding Claim 24, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the endoscope is in use while the optical component of the endoscope is defogged (Rephaeli: lens 203 absorbs some of the light transmitted from light source 207 while imaging light is received by cameras 209; [0027-28]; Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 25, Rephaeli discloses a system comprising one or more processors, memory, and one or more programs stored in the memory for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising instructions (endoscope controller including computer 151, storage 153, and network 155; [0024]; Fig. 1) for:
operating an illuminator in an imaging mode in which the illuminator generates illumination light for endoscopic imaging of a target (light emission from light source 207) with an endoscope comprising an optical component (lens 203 of endoscope 150), wherein at least a portion of the illumination light is generated by a plurality of light sources (light sources 207 as shown in Fig. 2A), the plurality of light sources including a first light source that generates illuminating light in a visible light waveband (Rephaeli FIG. 4, block 401; paragraph [0034], “Block 401 shows emitting light from a light source disposed in the endoscope. As stated this may include emitting light in the…visible…ranges”) at an imaging intensity level (intensity of the light emitted from one of light source 207 before fog is detected; [0026-27]; Fig. 2A); and
changing the operating mode of the illuminator from the imaging mode to a defogging mode in which a first intensity level of the illuminating light in the visible light waveband generated by the first light source generated by the first light source is increased from the imaging intensity level to a defogging intensity level and a second intensity level of the illumination light in the different waveband generated by the second light source is increased from the second imaging intensity level to a second defogging intensity level to warm and defog the optical component of the endoscope (in response to detecting fog, an intensity of the light sources 207 is increased to heat the lens; [0028-29]; paragraph [0027], “Lens 203 is structured to absorb at least some of the light. A controller (e.g., including a general purpose processor, application specific integrated circuit, distributed system, memory, or the like) is coupled to light sources 207, and the controller includes logic that when executed by the controller causes the endoscope to perform operations. The operations may include adjusting an emission profile of light sources 207 to heat lens 203 with the light, and, as stated above, heating lens 203 mitigates formation of fog (condensation) on lens 203”).
However, Rephaeli does not positively disclose each light source generating a different wavebands of light at controllable different intensities, including visible light for imaging the target that also defogs the optical component.
Mao teaches an anti-fog device 100A used with a semiconductor light source 200A comprising an NIR laser 220 and LEDs 221-223 providing red, green, and blue light, respectively, to the anti-fog device 100A via fiber cable 61. An intensity of each of the light sources 220-223 is controlled independently by controller 704 to attenuate the visible light intensity. Optical fibers 611 of the fiber cable 61 provide the emission light to a target 51 through optical front window 11 ([0027, 47-50]; Figs. 1A, 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the light source disclosed by Rephaeli with the discrete wavebands taught by Mao for the benefit of adjusting the light intensity with desired precision (Mao [0050]).
Regarding Claim 27, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the optical component comprises a distal lens or window at the distal end of the endoscope (Rephaeli: lens 203 at distal end 201; [0027]; Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 28, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the system is communicatively connected to the illuminator and the system is configured to send a signal to the illuminator to change the operating mode of the illuminator from the imaging mode to the defogging mode (Rephaeli: the controller adjusts the light source to heat the lens in response to detecting fog on the lens; [0028]; Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 30, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the one or more processors are configured for analyzing image data received from an endoscopic imager (Rephaeli: image data from imaging of cameras 209 is sent to the controller) to detect fogging of the optical component (Rephaeli: FIG. 4, block 409 detecting presence of fog on the lens using image data) and changing the operating mode of the illuminator from the imaging mode to the defogging mode in response to detecting fogging of the optical component (Rephaeli: adjusting the light source to heat the lens in response to detecting fog on the lens; [0028]; Fig. 2A).
Claims 2-3, 10, 12-13, 17, 22, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rephaeli in view of Mao as applied to claims 1, 25 above, and further in view of US 20140200406 A1 by Bennett et al. (hereinafter “Bennett”).
Regarding Claim 2, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, however does not positively teach further comprising changing the mode of the illuminator back to the imaging mode after the optical component of the endoscope is at least partially defogged.
Bennett teaches an endoscope 22 connected to light source console 28. Light sources 102 and 104 in the light source console 28 provide imaging light and heating light respectively to a distal window 99 at a distal end 27 of the endoscope 22. A control mechanism 137 activates the heating light source 104 to heat the distal window 99 by providing a “heating” power level and reduces the power to a “temperature maintenance” power level after heating ([0031-32, 42]; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao with the mode control taught by Bennett for the benefit of preventing overheating of the distal window (Bennett [0042]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rephaeli as modified by Mao and Bennett teaches the method of claim 2, however does not positively teach wherein the mode of the illuminator is changed back to the imaging mode after a predefined period of time in the defogging mode.
Bennett further teaches control mechanism 137, which activates the heating light source 104 to heat the distal window 99 by providing a “heating” power level and reduces the power to a “temperature maintenance” power level after heating. The heating light may also be automatically turned down after a period of time ([0031-32, 42]; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao and Bennett with the mode control taught by Bennett for the benefit of preventing overheating of the distal window (Bennett [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, however does not positively teach wherein the mode of the illuminator is changed from the imaging mode to the defogging mode in response to a user input.
Bennett teaches an endoscope 22 connected to light source console 28. Light sources 102 and 104 in the light source console 28 provide imaging light and heating light respectively to a distal window 99 at a distal end 27 of the endoscope 22. A control mechanism 137, such as a button, activates the heating light source 104 to heat the distal window 99 by providing a “heating” power level and reduces the power to a “temperature maintenance” power level after heating ([0031-32, 42]; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao by Rephaeli with the mode control taught by Bennett for the benefit of preventing overheating of the distal window (Bennett [0042]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 11, however does not positively teach further comprising sending a subsequent signal to the illuminator to change the operating mode of the illuminator back to the imaging mode.
Bennett teaches an endoscope 22 connected to light source console 28. Light sources 102 and 104 in the light source console 28 provide imaging light and heating light respectively to a distal window 99 at a distal end 27 of the endoscope 22. A control mechanism 137 activates the heating light source 104 to heat the distal window 99 by providing a “heating” power level and reduces the power to a “temperature maintenance” power level after heating ([0031-32, 42]; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of with the mode control taught by Bennett for the benefit of preventing overheating of the distal window (Bennett [0042]).
Regarding Claim 13, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving additional image data while the illuminator is in the defogging mode (Rephaeli: image data captured after light emission from light source 207); and
analyzing the image data to automatically detect that the optical component of the endoscope has been defogged (Rephaeli: detecting fog from image data captured by cameras 209; [0027-28]; Fig. 2A).
However, Rephaeli as modified by Mao does not positively teach in response to detecting that the optical component of the endoscope has been defogged, sending a signal to the illuminator to change the operating mode of the illuminator back to the imaging mode.
Bennett teaches an endoscope 22 connected to light source console 28. Light sources 102 and 104 in the light source console 28 provide imaging light and heating light respectively to a distal window 99 at a distal end 27 of the endoscope 22. A control mechanism 137 activates the heating light source 104 to heat the distal window 99 by providing a “heating” power level and reduces the power to a “temperature maintenance” power level after heating ([0031-32, 42]; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao with the mode control taught by Bennett for the benefit of preventing overheating of the distal window (Bennett [0042]).
Regarding Claim 17, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 16, however does not positively teach wherein at least a second portion of the plurality of optical fibers direct light onto the optical component.
Bennett teaches a distal window 99 for passing imaging light from the optical fibers 64’ into and out of the endoscope 22’. The imaging light reflected from the surgical field and into the endoscope is incident on the image lens 71 ([0030-31, 34]; Figs. 3A, 4A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao with the fiber configuration taught by Bennett for the benefit of avoiding impairment of light transmission by the optical fibers (Bennett [0034]).
Regarding Claim 22, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, however does not positively teach further comprising automatically detecting the absence of an endoscope and, while the absence is detected, disabling the defogging mode.
Bennett teaches a method of determining if an endoscope 22 has a distal window 99. A heating light source 104 emits IR sense pulses, which can be detected by a detector 152 and used to identify the endoscope 22. If the detector 152 does not sense reflected light indicating the presence of the distal window 99, the heating light source 104 will not activate ([0044-46]; Fig. 9A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao with the endoscope identification taught by Bennett for the benefit of preventing heating light from passing into a patient (Bennett [0044]).
Regarding Claim 29, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the system of claim 28, however does not positively teach wherein the signal comprises information corresponding to the defogging intensity level.
Bennett teaches an endoscope 22 connected to light source console 28. Light sources 102 and 104 in the light source console 28 provide imaging light and heating light respectively to a distal window 99 at a distal end 27 of the endoscope 22. A control mechanism 137 activates the heating light source 104 to heat the distal window 99 by providing a “heating” power level and reduces the power to a “temperature maintenance” power level after heating. The control mechanism switches the power level based on the amount of power which is currently emitted from the heating light source 104 ([0031-32, 42]; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao with the mode control taught by Bennett for the benefit of preventing overheating of the distal window (Bennett [0042]).
Claims 15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rephaeli in view of Mao as applied to claims 1, 25 above, and further in view of US 6712479 B1 by Seitzinger et al. (hereinafter “Seitzinger”).
Regarding Claim 15, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the method of claim 1, however does not positively teach wherein the optical component comprises a proximal lens or window at the proximal end of the endoscope.
Seitzinger teaches a laparoscope with a heating device 12 in the region of a proximal lens end 14 of the laparoscope. The proximal lens region is the location of a camera or lens junction with the laparoscope (Col 2, line 61- Col 3, line 7; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao with the lens configuration disclosed by Seitzinger for the benefit of keeping the laparoscope fog-free (Seitzinger Col 3, lines 23-26).
Regarding Claim 26, Rephaeli as modified by Mao teaches the system of claim 25, however does not positively teach wherein the optical component comprises a proximal lens or window at the proximal end of the endoscope.
Seitzinger teaches a laparoscope with a heating device 12 in the region of a proximal lens end 14 of the laparoscope. The proximal lens region is the location of a camera or lens junction with the laparoscope (Col 2, line 61- Col 3, line 7; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao with the lens configuration disclosed by Seitzinger for the benefit of keeping the laparoscope fog-free (Seitzinger Col 3, lines 23-26).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200060537 A1 by Rephaeli et al. (hereinafter “Rephaeli”) in view of US 20210251478 A1 by Mao et al. (hereinafter “Mao”) and Willis et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0030412 – “Willis”).
Regarding Claim 31, Rephaeli in view of Mao teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Raphaeli further discloses wherein the optical component (Rephaeli FIG. 2A, lens 203 of endoscope 150) comprises a layer to generate heat for defogging the optical component based on the illumination light Rephaeli paragraphs [0028-29], “in response to detecting fog, an intensity of the light sources 207 is increased to heat the lens”) and a light guide (Raphaeli FIG. 2A, fiber optic light guide/sources 207).
Rephaeli in view of Mao do not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises a thermochromic layer arranged annularly around an imaging portion of the optical component and over distal ends of a plurality of light guides associated with the plurality of light sources.
Willis teaches wherein the optical component (Willis FIG. 47B, comprises a thermochromic layer (Willis FIG. 47B, thermochromic indicators 540 and 542) arranged annularly around an imaging portion of the optical component (Willis FIG. 47B, imaging hood 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the use of Willis’ thermochromic indicators with the method taught by Rephaeli in view of Mao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that is capable of displaying changes in environmental temperatures during an endoscopic procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed December 11, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments. The rejections of Claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on December 11, 2025 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18, and 22-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-13, Applicant asserts that no combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests a plurality of light sources. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in FIG. 2A of cited Mao (US PGPUB 2021/0251478), Mao teaches different frequency LEDs 221, 222, 223, and 231, as well as a NIR laser 220. As described in Mao paragraph [0013], these different light sources are used in an anti-fog device. On page 12, Applicant asserts that only dedicated infrared light source 41 in Mao is used for defogging purposes. First, Examiner has never cited Mao infrared light source 41. Second, Mao paragraph [0048] teaches that “a plurality of visible light sources, for example, red LED 221, green LED 222, and blue LED 223 provide light that is used to generate the visible light emission used in the anti-fog device”. Even if this passage were improperly interpreted as these different LED’s being used only for purposes other than de-fogging, Examiner notes that the multiple light sources taught by Mao are cited for combining with the de-fogging method of Raphaeli (Rephaeli paragraphs [0028-29], “in response to detecting fog, an intensity of the light sources 207 is increased to heat the lens”).
As such, the rejections Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18, and 22-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests making the defogging mode (Claim 19) of the defogging intensity level (Claim 20 and thus its dependent Claim 21) dependent on / determined by a size of the endoscope.
The closest identified prior art is Burt et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0125176 – “Burt”), which teaches in Burt FIG. 1 gas outlets 104 and liquid outlets 106, which “can have a shape and/or size sufficient to generate sufficient liquid flow to reach the center of the central cylinder 102 and clean a lens of an endoscope”. That is, such outlets are based on the size of the central channel 103 of trocar 100. There is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning. That is, it would be impermissible hindsight to utilize the reasoning for Burt’s sizing of gas/liquid outlets based on the size of the trocar with the present invention’s reasoning for sizing the intensity of light for defogging/cleaning the lens based on the size of the endoscope.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/20/2026