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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant’s response filed 21 November 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19, 31, and 34 are cancelled. Claims 20-30, 32, and 33 are currently amended. Claims 20-30, 32, 33 and 35-39 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 November 2025 has been considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claim Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The objection to claim 33 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 20-30, 32, 33, and 35-39 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blumenkranz et al., US 20090248038 (1 Oct 2009) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, new rejections necessitated by Amendment are set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Blumenkranz does not anticipate independent claims 20, 25, and 33 because it does not teach: the application of dynamic corrective force in real time during the movement of the cutting element; maintain end effector articulation against cutting-induced torque at non-zero angle; the claimed corrective force; real-time feedback control loop for corrective force action; and application of dynamic corrective force in real time during movement of the cutting element.
Amended independent claims 20, 25, and 33 recite that “the surgical tool receiving a second corrective force from the robotic surgical system, wherein the second corrective force is received in real time during the movement of the cutting element, and where the second corrective force counteracts a third physical force that is applied to maintain the end effector of the surgical tool at the non-zero angle, and wherein the third physical force is a torque exerted in a distal direction of the end effector during the movement of the cutting element.”
Applicant takes issue with the corrective forces taught in Blumenkranz as being “calibration” data (¶87). However, Blumenkranz expressly states that these data can be programed into an integrated circuit embedded in the instrument so that the surgical system using the individual instrument can correctly identify and apply its correction factors and offsets while the instrument is in use. The IC embedded torque data taught by Blumenkranz provides a functional baseline torque assessment and means for adjustment/correction when the device is in real-time use. Applicant argues that Blumenkranz does not change or adapt in response to actual forces encountered during a surgical procedure. This is incorrect in light of the express recitations set forth in ¶87 of Blumenkranz. Applicant has proffered no evidence to contradict the teaching in Blumenkranz beyond attorney argument. To this extent Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The applicability of Applicant’s amendments to the claim in light of Blumenkranz is set forth below.
New Claim Objections/Rejections – Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 20-30, 32, 33, 37-39 are objected to. Independent claims 20, 25, and 33 have been amended to recite “a third physical force” where the third physical force is a torque. MPEP 2163.07 states that it is permissible for Applicant to rephrase a passage where the same meaning remains intact. However, it is noted that the phrase “physical force” is not part of the original disclosure. A “third force” is taught at ¶12 of the disclosure, but the “third force” is taught as a force “provided to the surgical tool by the robotic surgical system” (¶12). This would innately be a physical force, since it is required to be initiated by the robotic surgical system and effected through the surgical tool. The disclosure also recites that a “plurality of third forces can be provided to the surgical tool by the robotic surgical system to cause the translation of the cutting element” (¶12). Correction for consistency is suggested.
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 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.
Claims 20-30, 32, 33, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenkranz et al., US 20090248038 (1 Oct 2009) (previously cited of record).
Regarding amended independent claim 20, Blumenkranz teaches a surgical method (Abstract, method for improving force and torque sensing and feedback to a surgeon; FIGs 1A-1C), comprising:
a surgical tool (FIGs 1A-1C) receiving a first torque force from a robotic surgical system (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY),
wherein the surgical tool is coupled to the robotic surgical system (¶4),
wherein the first torque force drives movement of a cutting element to cut a tissue (¶58 cutting blades, scissors; ¶119) engaged by an end effector of the surgical tool (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY; FIG 2, ¶56 end portion 120; ¶66), and
wherein the end effector is articulated at a non-zero angle relative to an elongate shaft of the surgical tool (FIG 2, 112/114 wrist joints, roll/pitch/yaw,¶¶56-57); and
the surgical tool receiving a second corrective force from the robotic surgical system (¶87 correction factors and offsets; ¶42 “safety monitoring controller to safely halt system operation, or at least inhibit all robot motion, in response to recognized undesirable conditions (e.g., exertion of excessive force on the patient, mismatched encoder readings, etc.)”),
wherein the second corrective force is received in real time (¶87, “while the instrument is in use”) during the movement of the cutting element (¶87),
and wherein the second corrective force (¶87) counteracts a third physical force (FIG 2, ¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY).
Blumenkranz does not expressly teach a third physical force that is applied to maintain the end effector of the surgical tool at the non-zero angle, is a torque exerted in a distal direction of the end effector during the movement of the cutting element.
However, Blumenkranz teaches a robust sensing system (¶113) with the device comprising multiple force/torque sensors (FIG 2) that can sense signals from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ (¶59) as well as lateral forces along FX, FY (¶61). Blumenkranz also teaches correction factors and offsets that are determined by the system through gauge outputs to obtain F.sub.x, F.sub.y, F.sub.z, T.sub.x, and T.sub.y (¶87). Blumenkranz also teaches using a look-up table or minimum-sensing thresholds as well as various filters may also be used to eliminate forces at or below a force/torque sensor noise floor (¶112). Factors considered in the range of signals analyzed by the system include forces as a function of cannula tilt angles and the total sensed forces (¶112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the teachings of Blumenkranz to accommodate additional and/or multiple forces, given that Blumenkranz expressly teaches that “for all of the methods and apparatus mentioned, it may be advantageous to use a calibration process in which forces and torques are applied to the instrument tip serially, simultaneously, or in combinations with correction factors and offsets. This calibration data may be programmed into an integrated circuit embedded in the instrument so that the surgical system using the individual instrument can correctly identify and apply its correction factors and offsets while the instrument is in use” (¶87). Blumenkranz teaches multiple torque and corrective forces in a cartesian coordinate system accounting for roll, pitch, and yaw of a wristed robotic surgical end effector, including a cutting tool.
Blumenkranz teaches an example of where the F/T sensor output reading was set to zero, thereby negating static gravity loads. The operator at the surgeon's console moved the tip of the instrument along the length of the cut to establish the expected static variation of the signal over this workspace. The maximum variation in this particular r test was approximately 1.7N as illustrated in FIG. 20.
Based on the express teachings of Blumenkranz along with the example at ¶119, a person of ordinary skill in the art could readily calculate the torque exterted in a distal direction of an end effector during the movement of a cutting element without undue experimentation. Blumenkranz provides the base device, the plurality of torque/force sensors, a plurality of correction and offset factors within multiple ranges from various baseline and calibration metrics, that also work with various noise filters which are well-known and standard in the art. Blumenkranz expressly teaches that these corrections and offsets can be made while the instrument is in use.
Because Blumenkranz addresses the same engineering problem (methods of improving force and torque sensing and feedback on a robotic surgical instrument) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (measuring and providing corrective factors and offsets within a desired range with or without using additional noise filters and providing those corrective factors and offsets in lookup tables using, for example, an embedded IC), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings without undue experimentation.
Articulating at a “non-zero” angle is broadly interpreted as capable of movement such as roll, pitch, and yaw movement of a wrist joint articulating an end effector (see FIG 2 and ¶57 of Blumenkranz). The examiner also broadly interprets the first torque force as a torque force, the second corrective force as a force correcting torque, and the third physical force as a torque exerted in a distal direction of the end effector during the movement of the cutting instrument, consistent with the claim language, the Specification, and basic classical physics.
Regarding currently amended claim 21, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 20, as set forth above, further comprising,
before receiving the first torque force, receiving an articulation force at the surgical tool from the robotic surgical system (claim 20),
wherein the articulation force causes one or more actuation shafts of the surgical tool to move and thereby cause the end effector to articulate at the non-zero angle relative to the elongate shaft (FIG 2, 112/114 wrist joints, roll/pitch/yaw,¶¶56-57).
Regarding currently amended claim 22, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 21, as set forth above, wherein the second corrective force is delivered to the one or more actuation shafts (¶87; FIGs 14A-B, ¶111, manipulator 8, F/T sensor 300).
Regarding currently amended claim 23, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 20, as set forth above, wherein the second corrective force is predetermined to in accordance with the non-zero angle and the first torque force (¶87; ¶112, look-up table; minimum-sensing threshold).
Regarding currently amended claim 24, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 20, as set forth above, wherein the surgical tool is coupled to a tool driver of the robotic surgical system, and wherein the tool driver includes a motor that provides the first torque force to the surgical tool (¶3, master controller operatively coupled to the surgical instruments through a controller with servo motors; ¶42, servo control, drive motors).
Regarding currently amended independent claim 25, Blumenkranz teaches a surgical method (Abstract, method for improving force and torque sensing and feedback to a surgeon), comprising:
a surgical tool (FIGs 1A-1C) receiving an articulation force from a robotic surgical system (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY),
wherein the surgical tool is coupled to the robotic surgical system (¶¶3-4),
and wherein the articulation force (¶42, servo control, drive motors) causes one or more actuation shafts (FIGs 2, 10, 18) of the surgical tool to move and thereby cause an end effector of the surgical tool to articulate at a non-zero angle relative to an elongate shaft (FIG 2, 112/114 wrist joints, roll/pitch/yaw,¶¶56-57; ¶112 cannula tilt angle);
the surgical tool receiving a first torque force from the robotic surgical system (¶42 servo control; ¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY;),
wherein the first torque force (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY) causes a cutting element (¶58) to move and thereby cut a tissue engaged by the end effector articulated at the non-zero angle (FIG 2, 112/114 wrist joints, roll/pitch/yaw,¶¶56-57; ¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY); and
the surgical tool receiving a second corrective force from the robotic surgical system (¶87 correction factors and offsets; ¶42 “safety monitoring controller to safely halt system operation, or at least inhibit all robot motion, in response to recognized undesirable conditions (e.g., exertion of excessive force on the patient, mismatched encoder readings, etc.)”),
wherein the second corrective force is received in real time (¶87, “while the instrument is in use”) during the movement of the cutting element (¶87),
and wherein the second corrective force (¶87) counteracts a third physical force (FIG 2, ¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY).
Blumenkranz does not expressly teach a third physical force that is applied to maintain the end effector of the surgical tool at the non-zero angle, is a torque exerted in a distal direction of the end effector during the movement of the cutting element.
However, Blumenkranz teaches a robust sensing system (¶113) with the device comprising multiple force/torque sensors (FIG 2) that can sense signals from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ (¶59) as well as lateral forces along FX, FY (¶61). Blumenkranz also teaches correction factors and offsets that are determined by the system through gauge outputs to obtain F.sub.x, F.sub.y, F.sub.z, T.sub.x, and T.sub.y (¶87). Blumenkranz also teaches using a look-up table or minimum-sensing thresholds as well as various filters may also be used to eliminate forces at or below a force/torque sensor noise floor (¶112). Factors considered in the range of signals analyzed by the system include forces as a function of cannula tilt angles and the total sensed forces (¶112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the teachings of Blumenkranz to accommodate additional and/or multiple forces, given that Blumenkranz expressly teaches that “for all of the methods and apparatus mentioned, it may be advantageous to use a calibration process in which forces and torques are applied to the instrument tip serially, simultaneously, or in combinations with correction factors and offsets. This calibration data may be programmed into an integrated circuit embedded in the instrument so that the surgical system using the individual instrument can correctly identify and apply its correction factors and offsets while the instrument is in use” (¶87). Blumenkranz teaches multiple torque and corrective forces in a cartesian coordinate system accounting for roll, pitch, and yaw of a wristed robotic surgical end effector, including a cutting tool.
Blumenkranz teaches an example of where the F/T sensor output reading was set to zero, thereby negating static gravity loads. The operator at the surgeon's console moved the tip of the instrument along the length of the cut to establish the expected static variation of the signal over this workspace. The maximum variation in this particular r test was approximately 1.7N as illustrated in FIG. 20.
Based on the express teachings of Blumenkranz along with the example at ¶119, a person of ordinary skill in the art could readily calculate the torque exterted in a distal direction of an end effector during the movement of a cutting element without undue experimentation. Blumenkranz provides the base device, the plurality of torque/force sensors, a plurality of correction and offset factors within multiple ranges from various baseline and calibration metrics, that also work with various noise filters which are well-known and standard in the art. Blumenkranz expressly teaches that these corrections and offsets can be made while the instrument is in use.
Because Blumenkranz addresses the same engineering problem (methods of improving force and torque sensing and feedback on a robotic surgical instrument) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (measuring and providing corrective factors and offsets within a desired range with or without using additional noise filters and providing those corrective factors and offsets in lookup tables using, for example, an embedded IC), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings without undue experimentation.
Articulating at a “non-zero” angle is broadly interpreted as capable of movement such as roll, pitch, and yaw movement of a wrist joint articulating an end effector (see FIG 2 and ¶57 of Blumenkranz). The examiner also broadly interprets the first torque force as a torque force, the second corrective force as a force correcting torque, and the third physical force as a torque exerted in a distal direction of the end effector during the movement of the cutting instrument, consistent with the claim language, the Specification, and basic classical physics.
Regarding currently amended claim 26, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 25, as set forth above, further comprising a controller of the robotic surgical system (FIG 18; ¶3, master controller operatively coupled to the surgical instruments through a controller with servo motors) determining the second corrective force (¶4; ¶87),
wherein the second corrective force (¶87 correction factors and offsets; ¶42 “safety monitoring controller to safely halt system operation, or at least inhibit all robot motion, in response to recognized undesirable conditions (e.g., exertion of excessive force on the patient, mismatched encoder readings, etc.)”), is determined based on at least the non-zero angle and the first torque force (FIG 2, 112/114 wrist joints, roll/pitch/yaw,¶¶56-57; ¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY).
Regarding currently amended claim 27, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 26, as set forth above, wherein the first torque force (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY) is measured using torque of a motor of the robotic surgical system (¶108, the use of serial communication allows for time division multiplexing of force/torque sensor signals with the sensor signals from manipulator motors sensors 340 and set-up linkage joint sensors 346).
Regarding currently amended claim 28, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 26, as set forth above, wherein the first torque force is measured using a force sensor (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY).
Regarding currently amended claim 29, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 26, as set forth above, wherein the second corrective force is determined using a lookup table (¶87, ¶112, look-up table).
Regarding currently amended claim 30, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 25, as set forth above, wherein the surgical tool is coupled to a tool driver of the robotic surgical system (¶42, servo control, drive motors), and wherein the tool driver includes a motor that provides the first torque force to the surgical tool (¶3, master controller operatively coupled to the surgical instruments through a controller with servo motors).
Regarding currently amended claim 32, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the second corrective force is applied to the surgical tool without use of a mechanical locking mechanism that locks the end effector in its articulated position during the movement of the cutting element (¶42 “the servo control may include a safety monitoring controller to safely halt system operation, or at least inhibit all robot motion, in response to recognized undesirable conditions).
Regarding currently amended independent claim 33, Blumenkranz teaches a surgical method (Abstract, method for improving force and torque sensing and feedback to a surgeon), comprising:
a robotic surgical system (FIGs 1A-1C) delivering an articulation force (¶42, servo control, drive motors) to a surgical tool (¶58) that is releasably coupled (¶47, swapping tools; FIG 10, ¶¶93-94 base link 62) with the robotic surgical system (FIG 10, ¶¶3-4),
wherein the articulation force (¶42, servo control, drive motors) causes an end effector of the surgical tool (¶58) to articulate at a non-zero articulation angle relative to an elongate shaft of the surgical tool (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY; ¶112 cannula tilt angle);
the robotic surgical system determining a corrective force (¶87; ¶112, look-up table; minimum-sensing threshold may also be used to eliminate forces at or below a force/torque sensor noise floor level), wherein the corrective force is determined based on at least the non-zero articulation angle and the torque force (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY); and
the robotic surgical system delivering the corrective force to the surgical tool (¶87 correction factors and offsets; ¶42 “safety monitoring controller to safely halt system operation, or at least inhibit all robot motion, in response to recognized undesirable conditions (e.g., exertion of excessive force on the patient, mismatched encoder readings, etc.)”) wherein the corrective force is delivered to the surgical tool in real time (¶87 “instrument can correctly identify and apply its correction factors and offsets while the instrument is in use”).
Blumenkranz does not expressly teach a torque force exerted in a distal direction to cause translation of a cutting element of the surgical tool during the translation of the cutting element, and wherein the corrective force is delivered to counteract a physical force that is exterted in the distal direction of the end effector due to the translation of the cutting element of the surgical tool).
However, Blumenkranz teaches a robust sensing system (¶113) with the device comprising multiple force/torque sensors (FIG 2) that can sense signals from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ (¶59) as well as lateral forces along FX, FY (¶61). Blumenkranz also teaches correction factors and offsets that are determined by the system through gauge outputs to obtain F.sub.x, F.sub.y, F.sub.z, T.sub.x, and T.sub.y (¶87). Blumenkranz also teaches using a look-up table or minimum-sensing thresholds as well as various filters may also be used to eliminate forces at or below a force/torque sensor noise floor (¶112). Factors considered in the range of signals analyzed by the system include forces as a function of cannula tilt angles and the total sensed forces (¶112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the teachings of Blumenkranz to accommodate additional and/or multiple forces, given that Blumenkranz expressly teaches that “for all of the methods and apparatus mentioned, it may be advantageous to use a calibration process in which forces and torques are applied to the instrument tip serially, simultaneously, or in combinations with correction factors and offsets. This calibration data may be programmed into an integrated circuit embedded in the instrument so that the surgical system using the individual instrument can correctly identify and apply its correction factors and offsets while the instrument is in use” (¶87). Blumenkranz teaches multiple torque and corrective forces in a cartesian coordinate system accounting for roll, pitch, and yaw of a wristed robotic surgical end effector, including a cutting tool.
Blumenkranz teaches an example of where the F/T sensor output reading was set to zero, thereby negating static gravity loads. The operator at the surgeon's console moved the tip of the instrument along the length of the cut to establish the expected static variation of the signal over this workspace. The maximum variation in this particular r test was approximately 1.7N as illustrated in FIG. 20.
Based on the express teachings of Blumenkranz along with the example at ¶119, a person of ordinary skill in the art could readily calculate the torque exterted in a distal direction of an end effector during the movement of a cutting element without undue experimentation. Blumenkranz provides the base device, the plurality of torque/force sensors, a plurality of correction and offset factors within multiple ranges from various baseline and calibration metrics, that also work with various noise filters which are well-known and standard in the art. Blumenkranz expressly teaches that these corrections and offsets can be made while the instrument is in use.
Because Blumenkranz addresses the same engineering problem (methods of improving force and torque sensing and feedback on a robotic surgical instrument) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (measuring and providing corrective factors and offsets within a desired range with or without using additional noise filters and providing those corrective factors and offsets in lookup tables using, for example, an embedded IC), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings without undue experimentation.
Articulating at a “non-zero” angle is broadly interpreted as capable of movement such as roll, pitch, and yaw movement of a wrist joint articulating an end effector (see FIG 2 and ¶57 of Blumenkranz). The examiner also broadly interprets the first torque force as a torque force, the second corrective force as a force correcting torque, and the third physical force as a torque exerted in a distal direction of the end effector during the movement of the cutting instrument, consistent with the claim language, the Specification, and basic classical physics.
Regarding currently amended claim 37, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 33, as set forth above, wherein the robotic surgical system delivering the articulation force comprises causing movement of one or more actuation shafts of the surgical tool (FIG 2, ¶87; FIGs 14A-B, ¶111, manipulator 8, F/T sensor 300), and wherein causing the movement of the one or more actuation shafts comprises causing the end effector of the surgical tool to articulate at the non-zero articulation angle (¶59, sensor signal from any of three forces: FX, FY, FZ; ¶60 strain gauges; ¶61, lateral forces along FX, FY).
Regarding currently amended claim 38, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 37, as set forth above, wherein the corrective force is delivered to the one or more actuation shafts (FIGs 2 and 10; claims 18-22, 24-28, and 31; ¶57, “in a preferred configuration end portion 120 has a range of motion that includes roll, pitch, and yaw motion about the x- and y-axes and rotation about the z-axis . These motions, as well as actuation of an end effector, are done via cables running through shaft 110 and housing 150 that transfer motion from the manipulator 8).
Regarding claim 39, Blumenkranz teaches the method of claim 33, as set forth above, wherein the surgical tool is coupled to a tool driver of the robotic surgical system (¶42, servo control, drive motors), and wherein the tool driver includes a motor that provides the torque force to the surgical tool (FIGs 2, 10, 18; ¶42).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771