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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, 16-17, and 20 are amended.
No claims are new, canceled, or withdrawn.
Office Action Outline
Rejections, etc. applied
Abbreviations
112/b Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
112/b "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
112/a Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
x
112/f interpretation
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
x
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
101 JE(s)
112/a
35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line
x
Double Patenting
MM/DD/YYYY
date format
Priority
As detailed in the 10/25/2022 filing receipt, this application a 371 of PCT/US2020/063897 filed 12/09/2020, which claims priority to PRO 62/952,803 filed 12/23/2019.
Overview of Withdrawal/Revision of Interpretations/Objections/Rejections
In view of the amendment and remarks received 07/08/2026:
• The claim objections are withdrawn, except as maintained and revised below..
• The 112(f) interpretation is revised.
• The 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
• The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
• The 103 rejection is maintained with revision.
• The double patenting rejection is maintained with revision to reflect the issued patent number of the reference claims. Applicant's remarks are acknowledged. Applicant may wish to address the double patenting rejection in anticipation of allowance.
• The 101 rejection is withdrawn. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a transformation informed by the judicial exception (JE, here, abstract ideas): During an energy based surgical procedure on a patient, adjusting current control parameter values based on the output of an artificial intelligence learning system which processes both an image of the patient and the current control parameter values. The adjusted values are used to control a generator providing energy for the energy based surgical procedure. In this way, the output of the abstract idea of data analysis in processing images and current control parameter values informs the adjusting of parameters and the controlling of the generator. As such, claims 1-20 recite a practical application of a transformation at Step 2A Prong Two of the 101 analysis. Applicant's 07/08/2026 remarks at p.7-8 support withdrawal of the 101 rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitations "based on an output" and "based on an output of the artificial intelligence learning system" are recited respectively in the "providing an indication" and "providing adjusted control" elements of claim 1. To recite consistent claim language, it is suggested to amend the "providing adjusted control" element of claim 1 to recite "based on an output."
Claim 2 also recite "the output of the artificial intelligence learning system" and it suggested to amend to "the output" to be consistent with claim 1.
Note, the amending of claim 11 and 12 similarly for the previous, now-withdrawn objection is acknowledged.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The newly recited term "current" in the phrase "current control parameter values," recited in claims 1-2, 6, 10-12, 16, and 20, is interpreted as active, present, and in-use, as opposed to a current which pertains to electricity. Specification [0039], which discloses "current generator control parameter values 904," and [0046], which discloses "a generator's current control parameter values," were taken in account when making the suggestion, however, as the application concerns an energy-based procedure, this interpretation is being made to avoid any confusion over the term "current" in "current control parameter values." Applicant is encouraged to amend the term "current" if a different term is preferred.
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
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.
Instant claim limitations interpreted as PROPERLY invoking 112(f)
The following claim limitations are interpreted as invoking 112(f):
• A "generator configured to provide" recited in claims 1 and 11, recites means (or an equivalent nonce term, here a "generator") and function and/or result (here "to provide energy based on control parameters") without reciting steps or structure to prevent invoking. The specification does disclose sufficient structure, material, or acts, and not just desired results, as exemplified at [0051-0052], and as such, is definite under 112(b) as properly invoking 112(f). MPEP 2181.III-IV pertain.
• A "artificial intelligence learning system configured to provide" recited in claims 7 and 17, recites means (or an equivalent nonce term, here a "system") and function and/or result (here "to provide the output relating to configuration of the control parameters") without reciting steps or structure to prevent invoking. The specification does disclose sufficient structure, material, or acts, and not just desired results, as exemplified at [0012], [0052], and [0056], and as such, is definite under 112(b) as properly invoking 112(f). MPEP 2181.III-IV pertain.
• An "image capturing device configured to capture" recited in claim 11, recites means (or an equivalent nonce term, here a "device") and function and/or result (here "to capture an image of tissue of a patient") without reciting steps or structure to prevent invoking. The specification does disclose sufficient structure, material, or acts, and not just desired results, as exemplified at [0064] and [0038], and as such, is definite under 112(b) as properly invoking 112(f). MPEP 2181.III-IV pertain.
• A "generator configured to execute" recited in claim 11, recites means (or an equivalent nonce term, here a "generator") and function and/or result (here "to execute instructions to perform a method") without reciting steps or structure to prevent invoking. The specification does disclose sufficient structure, material, or acts, and not just desired results, as exemplified in the specification [0051-0052] and [0059]; and at Fig. 6 and 7 (which show generator 160 comprises a controller 500 which comprises a processor 520); and as such, is definite under 112(b) as properly invoking 112(f). MPEP 2181.III-IV pertain.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (WO 2019/089919 A2, published 05/09/2019; cited in the 08/23/2022 IDS), in view of Zhang, (IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 24(4), pp.965-973 (Sept. 2019); cited on the attached form PTO-892), in view of Mohr, (US 2010/0228249 A1, published 09/09/2010; cited in the attached form PTO-892).
Emphasis has been added to some claim elements below to promote clear communication; this emphasis is not recited in the instant claims.
Regarding the following elements:
• accessing control parameters of a generator configured to provide energy (claims 1 and 11 ),
• accessing image of tissue of a patient captured during the surgical procedure of (claims 1 and 11)
• processing images by artificial intelligence (claims 1 and 11)
• processing control parameters by artificial intelligence to provide an output (claims 1 and 11),
• providing adjusted control parameters (claims 1 and 11),
• controlling the generator to provide the energy with the adjusted control parameter (claims 1 and 11)
• providing energy, applying energy, receiving information from the clinician (claims 3 and 13),
• input from a clinician indicates outcome of applying energy (claims 4 and 14)
• information from the clinician includes a user-interface selection (claims 5 and 15)
• artificial intelligence learning system configured to output (claims 7 and 17)
• and automatically adjust control parameters (claims 10 and 20):
Shen teaches a system and method for characterizing tissue during surgical procedures such as cutting and/or coagulating tissue by selective application of energy [002], [007]. Shen shows user interface 250 is configured to provide information (e.g. TCI 400 and/or other information) to an operator of system 10 and/or to receive information from an operator of system 10 [124]. Shen shows the system provides an intelligent action function... to affect (e.g. in a feedback mode performed manually by the operator, or automatically by system 10) the action being performed on the tissue ... based on the feedback provided, the system 10 and/or the operator may avoid treating (e.g. avoid cutting) specific tissue and/or only treat a limited amount of tissue (e.g. treat specific tissue). System 10 can be configured such that the therapeutic function (e.g. energy delivery) is automatically enabled and/or disabled... The intelligent action function can also be configured to "tune" a tissue treatment, (e.g. tune delivery of treatment energy 500 for cutting, cauterization, ligation, and the like), such as by adjusting to levels of energy-delivery... Examples of relevant parameters to be adjusted include waveform, power, frequency, voltage, phase, duty cycle, depth of treatment, and/or temperature...[189]. Shen shows the clinician or other operator of system 10 receives TCI 400 and/or other information from one or more feedback indicators or other user interfaces, UI 250 shown, which can include information about the tissue proximate probe electrodes 151, such as information for use in making decisions during a surgery or other clinical procedures [0195].
Regarding the claims 8 and 18 element of patient information, Shen shows patient information other patient information (e.g. ...age,...hydration level,... and/or other biological characteristics) [136].
Note: processing images by artificial intelligence of claims 1 and 11 is also taught by Zhang below.
Shen does not show:
• providing an indication to the clinician of claims 1, 10-11, and 20 (taught by Mohr below).
• the predicted outcome of claims 2 and 12 (taught by Zhang below).
• providing a tag for training, storing training data, and training the artificial intelligence system of claims 6 and 16 (taught by Zhang below).
• the convolutional neural network of claims 9 and 19 (taught by Zhang below).
Regarding the following elements:
• accessing an image of tissue of a patient (claims 1 and 11),
• processing images by artificial intelligence (claims 1 and 11),
• the predicted outcome (claims 2 and 12)
• providing a tag for training, storing training data, and training the artificial intelligence system (claims 6 and 16),
• and the convolutional neural network (claims 9 and 19):
Zhang shows an ultrasound (US) imaging based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture for the detection and monitoring of thermal lesions induced by microwave ablation (MWA) (p.965, abstract and entire document). Zhang shows training and testing samples and corresponding spatio-temporal optical images as the criteria of the sample label (i.e., tags) were extracted (p.966, col.2, ¶ 2). Zhang shows optical images of tissue sections were used as the ground truth for training of the CNN and US 2-D RF data backscattered from the ablated region after envelope detection were used as the input (p.967, col.1, ¶ 2). Zhang shows training samples with positive or negative labels were used as input layers (p.967, col.2, ¶ 2). Zhang shows the trained network was used to classify testing samples to predict the thermal lesion (bridging p.967-968).
Regarding to following element:
• providing an indication to a clinician (claims 1, 10-11, and 20)
Mohr shows a minimally invasive surgical system that includes an endoscope to capture video images of a surgical site and at least one robotic surgical tool; this includes a video display device of a surgeon console to display video images and information to a user, and a processor coupled to the endoscope and the video display device [0041]. Mohr shows an enhanced visual display through a graphical user interface (GUI) that is displayed to the surgeon at the surgeon's console. The GUI may provide persistent, and/or a momentary indication of an electrosurgical instrument having the capability of being activated. This indication may be associated with or overlaid upon the image of the instrument itself. The GUI may also provide a momentary visual indication whenever energy is activated [0161].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for adjusting electrosurgical parameters and image acquisition, accessing, and processing of Shen, and the image processing in electrosurgery using a convolutional neural network (CNN) of Zhang, with the method for providing indications in electrosurgery of Mohr, to come to a method for an artificial intelligence system in electrosurgery because Zhang states CNNs have been applied to medical image analysis with significant performance improvement (Zhang, p.966, col.1, ¶ 2), while Mohr discloses a graphical user interface may provide a persistent visual indication that is easier to notice (Mohr [0161]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Shen, Zhang, and Mohr are generally drawn to related teachings in electrosurgery, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Zhang and Mohr to the related teachings of Shen, and as such, the combination would have been obvious.
Response to Applicant Arguments - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts:
• "The combination of Shen, Zhang, and Mohr fails to render obvious claim 1" (Remarks, p.10, ¶ 1.)
• "None of the references teach or suggest processing an image of tissue of a patient captured by an image capturing device during the energy-based surgical procedure." (Remarks, p.10, ¶ 2.)
• "Shen does not show accessing or processing an image of tissue of a patient as recited in claim 1, and relies on Zhang for...this feature. ... Zhang is silent regarding processing images captured by an image capturing device during an energy-based surgical procedure. This feature is also not found in Mohr." (Remarks, p.10, ¶ 3.)
• "None of the references teach or suggest processing the image of the tissue and the current control parameter values by an artificial-intelligence learning system to provide an output, and providing adjusted control parameter values for the generator based on the output." (Remarks, p.10, ¶ 5.)
• "Shen is silent regarding image processing, much less processing the image of the tissue and the current control parameter values by an artificial-intelligence learning system to provide an output." (Remarks, bridging p.10-11.)
• "Mohr is also silent regarding image processing." (Remarks, p.11, ¶ 2.)
• "For at least these reasons - and independently from argument 1) above - as the described features are not found in Shen, Zhang, or Mohr, the combination of Shen, Zhang, and Mohr, regardless of how they are combined, cannot render obvious claim 1." (Remarks, p.11, ¶ 4.)
• "The combination of Shen, Zhang, and Mohr fails to render obvious claim 11 because none of the references disclose an image capturing device configured to capture an image of tissue of a patient during an energy-based surgical procedure." (Remarks, p.11, ¶ 6.)
The arguments are not yet persuasive. The 103 rejection has been slightly revised to reflect that Shen is now considered to show accessing images and image processing by "Console 200 can be configured to create a spatial map of identified tissues and other tissue characterization data, using TCI 400 and localization information related to probe electrodes 151"... "Multidimensional localization of probe electrodes 151 can be accomplished using imaging, computer vision, magnetic navigation, and other similar navigation techniques (e.g. when tool 40 comprises an imaging device, (e.g. as described hereabove)." (Shen [181]), which is interpreted to acquire, access, and process images during surgical procedures, including tissue images. This is in addition to "tool 40 comprises an imaging device, such as an MRI, CT Scanner, X-ray, fluoroscope, camera, ultrasound imager, and/or other imaging device" (Shen, [0105]).
Additionally, Shen teaches a system and method for characterizing tissue during surgical procedures such as cutting and/or coagulating tissue by selective application of energy [002], [007]. Shen shows user interface 250 is configured to provide information (e.g. TCI 400 and/or other information) to an operator of system 10 and/or to receive information from an operator of system 10 [124]. Shen shows the system provides an intelligent action function... to affect (e.g. in a feedback mode performed manually by the operator, or automatically by system 10) the action being performed on the tissue ... based on the feedback provided, the system 10 and/or the operator may avoid treating (e.g. avoid cutting) specific tissue and/or only treat a limited amount of tissue (e.g. treat specific tissue). System 10 can be configured such that the therapeutic function (e.g. energy delivery) is automatically enabled and/or disabled... The intelligent action function can also be configured to "tune" a tissue treatment, (e.g. tune delivery of treatment energy 500 for cutting, cauterization, ligation, and the like), such as by adjusting to levels of energy-delivery... Examples of relevant parameters to be adjusted include waveform, power, frequency, voltage, phase, duty cycle, depth of treatment, and/or temperature...[189]. Shen shows the clinician or other operator of system 10 receives TCI 400 and/or other information from one or more feedback indicators or other user interfaces, UI 250 shown, which can include information about the tissue proximate probe electrodes 151, such as information for use in making decisions during a surgery or other clinical procedures [0195]. (Detailed in the rejection above.)
Zhang shows an ultrasound (US) imaging based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture for the detection and monitoring of thermal lesions induced by microwave ablation (MWA) (p.965, abstract and entire document). (Detailed in the rejection above.)
Mohr shows a minimally invasive surgical system that includes an endoscope to capture video images of a surgical site and at least one robotic surgical tool; this includes a video display device of a surgeon console to display video images and information to a user, and a processor coupled to the endoscope and the video display device [0041] (Detailed in the rejection above.)
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method for adjusting electrosurgical parameters and image acquisition, accessing, and processing of Shen, and the image processing in electrosurgery using a convolutional neural network (CNN) of Zhang, with the method for providing indications in electrosurgery of Mohr to come to the claimed invention. Therefore the 103 arguments are not yet persuasive and the 103 rejection is maintained.
Nonstatutory double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine to prevent the improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of the same invention (MPEP 804.II.B, 1st para.). A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims (instant v. reference) are not identical, but an examined-application claim (instant claim) is not patentably distinct from a reference claim because the instant claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim (MPEP 804.II.B, 2nd para.).
In cases of double patenting rejections versus reference claims of pending applications, as opposed to claims of an issued patent, the rejections are provisional because the reference claims have not been patented. Presently, no rejections are provisional.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the application or patent of the reference claim either is shown to be commonly owned with the instant application or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must comply fully with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Applicant may wish to consider electronically filing a terminal disclaimer (MPEP 1490.V pertains, along with https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer). Electronic filing may lead to faster approval of the disclaimer. Also, if filing electronically, Applicant is encouraged to notify the examiner by telephone so that examination may resume more quickly.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Double patenting rejections of instant claims 1-20
Instant claims 1-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over one or more claims in U.S. Patent 12,642,572 (from application 18/277,417) in view of over Shen (WO 2019/089919 A2, published 05/09/2019; cited in the 08/23/2022 IDS), Zhang, (IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 24(4), pp.965-973 (Sept. 2019); cited on the attached form PTO-892), and Mohr, (US 2010/0228249 A1, published 09/09/2010; cited in the attached form PTO-892).
Although the '572 claims are not identical to the instant claims, in a BRI they also are not patentably distinct from the instant claims: either (i) because the instant claims recite obviously equivalent or broader limitations in comparison to the reference claims or (ii) because the instant claims recite limitations which are obvious over the cited art. It is not clear that the instant claims recite limitations which are narrower than limitations in the reference claims.
The reference application recites claims which involve the use of artificial intelligence in the control of energy-based surgery (e.g. 18/277,417 claim 10). The instantly recited "tissue" would have been prima facie obvious in view of the cited art.
It would have been obvious in view of the cited art to modify reference claims to arrive at the rejected instant claims. Either the instant limitations are interpreted as reading on a reference limitation, or the instant limitations would have been obvious in view of the cited art. That is, to the extent that any instant claims are narrower than reference claims, then any such narrowing would have been obvious over the cited art.
Conclusion
No claims are 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 Meredith A Vassell whose telephone number is (571)272-1771. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 4:30.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571)272-9047. 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.
/M.A.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights