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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200237445 A1 by Snyder et al (hereafter Snyder, previously of record) further in view of US 20180092699 A1 by Eric Finley (hereafter Finley).
Regarding claim 21, Snyder teaches: 21. A system for determining poses of at least two vertebrae of a patient (see Snyder’s [0008]-[0011]), the system comprising:
a first tracker trackable in 5 degrees of freedom (DOF), and configured to be attached to a first vertebra; a second tracker trackable in 5 DOF and configured to be attached to a second vertebra, wherein each of the first tracker and the second tracker comprises an elongated body, and … imageable markers attached to the elongated body … wherein the respective two imageable markers have the same mutual arrangement for each of the first tracker and the second tracker such that the first tracker and the second tracker cannot be differentiated solely by imaging the imageable markers (regarding these together, in all instances Snyder teaches using plural tracking members, see Snyder’s [0066] noting that tracking members 160i-iii are attached to each vertebrae 166 i-iii and that this could be any number of tracking members i-n with 3 being merely exemplary where in all instances there is an elongated shaft with one or more imageable markers. See Figs. 2, 3, and 10 which show imageable markers 160 where in all instances there is a shaft with the marker(s) along them so as to be a tracker of the sort claimed. In Figs. 2, 3, and 10 Snyder only show singles imageable markers 160i-ii which are along their respective shaft of their respective trackers 166i-iii and which are not differentiable in any image one from another without further information. From there one should further note that as per [0120] “It is understood that a plurality of a type of tracking devices may be connected together” as such while Snyder only depicts one of 160i on the first tracker and one of 160ii on the second tracker, Snyder textually describes that there can be a plurality of such members (e.g. 160ia and 160ib on the first tracker) so as to teach having the two imageable markers, with Snyder’s teachings about the mutual arrangement being addressed separately below for Figs. 2, 3, and 10), … and wherein the 5 DOF of the tracker poses exclude a 6th DOF pertaining to a respective rotation of the first tracker and the second tracker with regard to a rotational axis defined by the respective elongated body for each of the first tracker and the second tracker (the examiner notes that the claim limitation requires that the trackers be determined in 3d position and at least pitch and yaw orientation but does not actually exclude roll, it merely requires a 5d grouping that does not require roll per se. As such, at least two of the grouping provided by “appropriate number of degrees of freedom of orientation” as iterated in [0130] read on the claim. More specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage the groupings of (pitch + yaw) and (pitch + yaw + roll) from the cited statement that some appropriate of degrees of freedom of orientation of the tracker are determined, though for compact prosecution purposes the examiner also notes that this is alternatively rejected in the 103(a) rejection below); and
one or more processors (see Snyder’s [0153]-[0154]) configured to:
register a tracking coordinate system in 6 DOF with an image coordinate system associated with first image data taken by a medical imaging system and indicative of the first vertebra and the second vertebra (Noting that Snyder uses position to mean P&O as per [0062] which states “After the registration of the image space to the patient space, the instrument 68 can be tracked relative to the image 108. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the icon 68i representing a position (which may include a 6 degree of freedom position (including 3D location and orientation)) of the instrument 68 can be displayed relative to the image 108 on the display 84.”. Such that the registration is a to a 6 DOF frame of reference per se, then see [0044]-[0045] for the processor controlling a medical imaging system to obtain images, then see Snyder’s Fig. 6 Step 286 and 290; "An imaging device 80 may be used to acquire pre-, intra-, or post-operative or real-time image data of a subject, such as the subject 30." [0039]; "The image 108 may include image data or images of the vertebrae, such as the first vertebra 166 i′ and the second vertebra 166 ii′. The vertebrae, include each vertebra, may be segmented in the image in any appropriate manner" [0069]; "Registration of the image data to at least a first coordinate system occurs in block 286." [0084]; "a correlation between the first coordinate system and a second coordinate system may occur in block 290."[0085]);
receive intraoperative tracking data comprising second image data taken by a camera of a tracking system and indicative of the imageable markers of the first tracker and the second tracker (the examiner notes that the processing step is merely of receiving data and that the applicant does not have the structure of the tracking system as such first grounds of rejection is that the processor is fully capable of receiving input. See Fig. 6 which has multiple input steps. For compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that Fig. 6 step 298 covers as much and just to compact prosecution to the upmost the examiner notes that Snyder has the same tracking device as the applicant (i.e. one that tracks via both EM and optics) as explained in general at [0008] and in specific detail at Fig. 1 and [0037] noting the depiction and description of parts 88 and 94. Lastly while the structure of a camera is in no way under examination given the current claim drafting, the examiner notes that it still may compact prosecution to show that 88 can comprise a camera as per [0043] or even plural cameras as per [0095]);
determine, from the intraoperative tracking data, tracker poses of the first tracker and the second tracker in 5 DOF (see Fig. 6 noting at least step 310, then further note "Tracking the tracking devices in block 298 may include determining positions of the tracking devices in the navigation space. Tracking the tracking devices in block 298 allows for determination of positions of portions that are connected to the tracking devices, such as the individual member portions including the vertebrae 166" [0089]; "the identification of the location of the tracking portion 160i (or any appropriate tracking device) may be determined in the image. Thus, when updating the image 108 the known position of the tracking device may be used to assist in determining an appropriate position (e.g. three-dimensional position and appropriate number of degrees of freedom of orientation) in the image." [0130]),
determine, from the tracker poses and based on registration of the tracking coordinate system with the image coordinate system, poses of the first vertebra and the second vertebra in 5 DOF ("The navigation system 20 can be used to track the location of one or more tracking devices, tracking devices may include a subject tracking device 58, an imaging system tracking device 62, and/or a tool tracking device 66" [0038]; "Tracking the tracking devices in block 298 may include determining positions of the tracking devices in the navigation space. Tracking the tracking devices in block 298 allows for determination of positions of portions that are connected to the tracking devices, such as the individual member portions including the vertebrae 166." [0089]).
In the foregoing the examiner omitted various limitations, as indicated by ellipsis, including that the imageable markers so arranged were “two” markers, that the markers were “spaced apart from each other along a length of the elongated body” or that “the two imageable markers being spherically shaped and symmetrically sat on the elongated body” so that they could be separately addressed in more detail. Specifically, the examiner notes that Snyder provides relevant teachings for each individual limitation, where Snyder addresses that the imageable markers may be plural in [0120], that Snyder cannot co-locate the the plural markers so they must be spaced apart, and that the markers can by spherical (see Fig. 10 noting 106i-iii are spherical). However, Snyder does not actually discus how to place the additional markers in detail and therefore fails to teach how they should be arranged on the body and in particular that the markers should be spaced apart in a manner where the spherical markers were positions so that they were symmetrically sat on the elongated body, when presented together, as claimed.
However, Finley in the same or eminently related field of surgical navigation systems for spinal surgery that is guided by combined optical imaging and additional tracking (see Finley’s Abstract and [0010]-[0012]) teaches that bone pins/screw type trackers can be provided with multiple markers that are spherical and spaced apart so as to be symmetrically located about the elongated body (see Finley’s Fig. 8a noting spinal pin 52 (though this can be a screw per se as per [0094]-[0095] noting that the retention feature can be bone threads) contains two fiducials 78 that are symmetrically placed along the elongated body as depicted and which cannot allow for visual differentiation of one element 52 from another by just optical imaging of the fiducials 78 alone and which follows the same exact format as the fiducials along the elongated body as is presented in the applicant’s own Fig. 1). Furthermore, the examiner notes that Finley additionally/alternatively teaches many limitations of the base reference which may be useful in understanding how the references could be combined and/or may compact prosecution by showing in part how Finley could be used as a base reference in later rejections (see Finley’s [0107] and note that imaging one such tracker allows the invention to be tracked in 5 DOF, and by capturing the markers of multiple trackers in the same image the markers can be tracked in 6 DOF, see Finley’s [0104]-[0110] for using a computer processing system to combine the optical and additional images into a single co-registered space). Lastly, Finley goes on to teach that there are advantages to having each of the trackers contain plural imageable markers in such a configuration (regarding using plural markers on the trackers, [0107] notes that this is advantageous because the known distance between the trackers can be used by the computer system to improve accuracy. Regarding choosing a marker array such as that taught in Fig. 8A Finley teaches in various section such as [0009], [0079]-[0080], and [0088] that the smaller footprint of such markers is itself an advantage and Fig. 8A is the tracker with the smallest marker footprint. E.g. “The relatively small size … also reduces patient and surgeon impact, allowing the surgeon to work freely and minimize OR time, which is beneficial for the patient.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to improve the invention of Snyder with the imageable marker arrangement taught in Finley’s Fig. 8A because it can advantageously allow for various improvements iterated in more detail above including but not limited to improved accuracy over marker arrangements with less markers as well as that takes up a smaller footprint than other designs which can allow the surgeon to work more freely , minimize OR time, and thereby reduces the impact of the surgery on the patient.
Regarding claim 22, Snyder further teaches: 22. The system according to claim 21, wherein at least one of the first and second tracker is an electromagnetic tracker and the intraoperative tracking data comprise data based upon an output signal of the electromagnetic tracker (see Snyder’s [0077] or [0105] or [0113] as this is covered for each of the different embodiments referred to in the parent claim).
Regarding claim 23, Snyder further teaches: 23. The system according to claim 21, wherein at least one of the first tracker and the second tracker comprises a divot configured to receive a tip of a screw, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a length of the screw based on a distance between one of the imageable markers of the first or second tracker receiving the tip of the screw and at least one imageable marker attached to an instrument holding the screw at the tip of the instrument and based on known dimensions of the tracker receiving the tip and the instrument holding the screw (see Snyder’s Fig. 9 and [0109] noting that 458 is divot shaped and is configured to remain in the bore and engage the tip of the screw in use which in light [0102]’s or [0138]’s description of tracking of location of elements relative to each other would teach the length determination).
Additionally or alternatively the examiner notes that the determining the length of an implant which can explicitly be a screw by using a tool to place it into a divot on a tracker and then using the processor to calculate from the position of the tool and the position of the tracker a position and size is explicitly taught by Snyder in multiple places (i.e. Snyder teaches both the step of positioning and the processing step as per either of [0064] and [0128]-[0129] noting that this can even be done against “any appropriate reference point”). Thus Snyder teaches the divot and step of positioning but has these done on a reference tracker or appropriate point of undisclosed location instead of specifically on the first or second tracker. However, mere rearrangement of the divot from the reference tracer to the first or second tracker would also read on the claimed limitation.
Therefore and as an additional and alternative grounds of rejection the examiner notes that modifying Snyder by merely rearranging the divot from the reference tracker to the first or second tracker would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at least in light of the legal precedent set forth in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 24, Snyder IVO Finley teaches the basic invention as given above in regards to claim 21, and Snyder further teaches that the processor can generate virtual trackers for registration (see Snyder’s [0041]); however, Snyder does not give any detail as to what features should be chosen to comprise these virtual trackers nor whether or not this registration would be in 6 DOF and thus Snyder alone fails to teach the claimed limitation.
However, Finley in the same or eminently related field of surgical navigation systems for spinal surgery that is guided by combined optical imaging and additional tracking (see Finley’s Abstract and [0010]-[0012]) teaches that the trackers given in the very same modification above (i.e. ones where the imageable markers 78 are placed along a single axis as is done in Fig. 8A, utilized in the combination above) are only trackable in 5 DOF when only tracker is present in the image but that when multiple trackers are present in the image (i.e. when one takes third image data in the vernacular of the claims) they can be used together to form a 6 DOF tracker (see Finley’s [0107], as explained therein). Lastly, as this is the same modification the same advantages taught by Finley apply, namely (regarding using plural markers on the trackers, [0107] notes that this is advantageous because the known distance between the trackers can be used by the computer system to improve accuracy. Regarding choosing a marker array such as that taught in Fig. 8A Finley teaches in various section such as [0009], [0079]-[0080], and [0088] that the smaller footprint of such markers is itself an advantage and Fig. 8A is the tracker with the smallest marker footprint. E.g. “The relatively small size … also reduces patient and surgeon impact, allowing the surgeon to work freely and minimize OR time, which is beneficial for the patient.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to improve the invention of Snyder with the imageable marker arrangement taught in Finley’s Fig. 8A because it can advantageously allow for various improvements iterated in more detail above including but not limited to improved accuracy over marker arrangements with less markers as well as that takes up a smaller footprint than other designs which can allow the surgeon to work more freely , minimize OR time, and thereby reduces the impact of the surgery on the patient.
Regarding claim 25, Snyder further teaches: 25. The system according to claim 21, further comprising a 6 DOF reference tracker having a fixed relation to the patient and comprising at least three imageable markers (see Snyder’s Fig. 1 which shows part 154/58 containing a plurality of greater than 3 imageable markers 58e/58o or see Fig. 10 where 58 again has a plurality of greater than 3 imageable markers where the reference depicted. Likewise the figures clearly show this as being fixed to the patient but this can also be seen textually in e.g. [0067]) that are imaged in fourth image data taken by the camera of the tracking system (this holds no patentable weight as it does not modify the structure of the reference tracker and/or because the tracking system is not claimed and is therefore something that the reference tracker is inherently fully capable of), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to register the tracking coordinate system with the image coordinate system using the at least three imageable markers of the 6 DOF reference tracker as imaged in the fourth image data (see Snyder’s [0085] or [0102] noting that the reference marker is used in the registration of the coordinate systems with this registration being a 6 DOF frame of reference as covered above in the parent claim).
Regarding claims 26-27, Snyder further teaches: 26. The system according to claim 25, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a change of the pose of at least one of the first and the second tracker relative to a pose of the reference tracker. And 27. The system according to claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a change of a pose of the first tracker relative to a pose of the second tracker (regarding these together see [0102], [0115], [0139] each which directly covers as much).
Regarding claim 28, Snyder further teaches: 28. The system according to claim 21, wherein each of the first tracker and the second tracker comprises a visually detectable identification characteristic that are distinguishable from one another, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify at least one of the first tracker and the second tracker based on the respective identification characteristic (as established above and with reference to [0120], see Snyder’s Fig. 10 and note that in addition to the plural 160i the first tracker also comprises an optical marker 330 and in addition to the plural 160ii the second tracker also comprises an optical marker 334, and as per [0095]-[0096] the processor is configured to image and identify which tracker is which on the basis of the optical marker).
Regarding claim 29, Snyder further teaches: 29. The system according to claim 28, wherein the identification characteristics comprise an optically detectable surface characteristic of the first tracker and second tracker (see Snyder’s [0096] where the shape, color, shade, etc. each individually teach as much).
Regarding claim 30, Snyder further teaches: 30. The system according to claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to define, based on the determined poses of the first vertebra and the second vertebra in 5 DOF, a trajectory for guiding a surgical tool (see Snyder’s [0055]-[0056] noting that the instrument is tracked and guidance and assistance is provided including display of the instrument relative to the patient space which is updated in real time as per [0089]-[0092] and in particular the examiner notes that the orientation and location of the tool, e.g. see 68i in Fig. 4, is explicitly a trajectory under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof as this only requires depicting the path of the instrument not, e.g. particular display features such as a line emanating therefrom; however and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that calculation and display or such additional elements is of record in the art of Ferrante which may become relevant if and when the applicant limits the claims to require as much).
Regarding claims 31-32, Snyder further teaches: 31. The system according to claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to visualize the determined pose of the first vertebra and the second vertebra, or information derived therefrom. And 32. The system according to claim 31, wherein the one or more processors being configured to visualize the determined pose of the first vertebra and the second vertebra, or information derived therefrom, comprises the one or more processors being configured to: generate a first image data segment of the first image data including the first vertebra and a second image data segment of the first image data including the second vertebra; and arrange the first image data segment relative to the second image data segment based on the determined poses of the first vertebra and the second vertebra in 5 DOF (see Snyder’s Figs. 1-2 noting display 84 of workstation 98 showing image 108 including vertebra poses/segments 166i-n, also shown in expanded view in Figs. 4-5, then as already address in the parent claim, see Snyder’s [0038] or [0098] or [0089-[0092] for the vertebrae positioning).
Regarding claim 33, the claim is identical in scope to claim 21 excepting that the “one or more processors” is replaced by “a computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors,”. As such see the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein to rebut the claim limitations for the sake of brevity, then additionally note that Snyder teaches that his processor runs based on instructions stored in non-transitory media (see Snyder’s [0153]-[0154]).
Regarding claim 34, Snyder teaches: 34. A system for determining poses of at least two vertebrae of a patient (see Snyder’s [0008]-[0011]), the system comprising:
a first tracker configured to be attached to a first vertebra; a second tracker configured to be attached to a second vertebra, wherein each of the first tracker and the second tracker comprises an elongated body, and … imageable markers attached to the elongated body … (regarding these together, in all instances Snyder teaches using plural tracking members, see Snyder’s [0066] noting that tracking members 160i-iii are attached to each vertebrae 166 i-iii and that this could be any number of tracking members i-n with 3 being merely exemplary where in all instances there is an elongated shaft with one or more imageable markers. With that established, see Fig. 10 which show singles imageable markers 160i-ii which are along their respective shaft of their respective trackers and which are not differentiable in any image one from another without further information. From there one should further note that as per [0120] “It is understood that a plurality of a type of tracking devices may be connected together” as such while Snyder only depicts one of 160i on the first tracker and one of 160ii on the second tracker, Snyder textually describes that there can be a plurality of such members (e.g. 160ia and 160ib on the first tracker) so as to teach having the two imageable markers), wherein each of the first tracker and the second tracker comprises a visually detectable identification characteristic that are optically distinguishable from one another (see Fig. 10 parts 330 and 334 which are optical tracking device portions which are mounted on the first and second tracker that are optically distinct both as depicted or as per [0096] or [0120]).
In the foregoing the examiner omitted various limitations, as indicated by ellipsis, including that the imageable markers so arranged were “two” markers, that the markers were “spaced apart from each other along a length of the elongated body” or that “the two imageable markers being spherically shaped and symmetrically sat on the elongated body” so that they could be separately addressed in more detail. Specifically the examiner notes that Snyder provides relevant teachings for each individual limitation, where Snyder addresses that the imageable markers may be plural in [0120], that Snyder cannot co-locate the the plural markers so they must be spaced apart, and that the markers can by spherical (see Fig. 10 noting 106i-iii are spherical). However, Snyder does not actually discus how to place the additional markers in detail and therefore fails to teach how they should be arranged on the body and in particular that the markers should be spaced apart in a manner where the spherical markers were positions so that they were symmetrically sat on the elongated body as claimed.
However, Finley in the same or eminently related field of surgical navigation systems for spinal surgery that is guided by combined optical imaging and additional tracking (see Finley’s Abstract and [0010]-[0012]) teaches that bone pins/screw type trackers can be provided with multiple markers that are spherical and spaced apart so as to be symmetrically located about the elongated body (see Finley’s Fig. 8a noting spinal pin 52 (though this can be a screw per se as per [0094]-[0095] noting that the retention feature can be bone threads) contains two fiducials 78 that are symmetrically placed along the elongated body as depicted and which cannot allow for visual differentiation of one element 52 from another by just optical imaging of the fiducials 78 alone and which follows the same exact format as the fiducials along the elongated body as is presented in the applicant’s own Fig. 1). Furthermore, the examiner notes that Finley additionally/alternatively teaches many limitations of the base reference which may be useful in understanding how the references could be combined and/or may compact prosecution by showing in part how Finley could be used as a base reference in later rejections (see Finley’s [0107] and note that imaging one such tracker allows the invention to be tracked in 5 DOF, and by capturing the markers of multiple trackers in the same image the markers can be tracked in 6 DOF, see Finley’s [0104]-[0110] for using a computer processing system to combine the optical and additional images into a single co-registered space). Lastly, Finley goes on to teach that there are advantages to having each of the trackers contain plural imageable markers in such a configuration (regarding using plural markers on the trackers, [0107] notes that this is advantageous because the known distance between the trackers can be used by the computer system to improve accuracy. Regarding choosing a marker array such as that taught in Fig. 8A Finley teaches in various section such as [0009], [0079]-[0080], and [0088] that the smaller footprint of such markers is itself an advantage and Fig. 8A is the tracker with the smallest marker footprint. E.g. “The relatively small size … also reduces patient and surgeon impact, allowing the surgeon to work freely and minimize OR time, which is beneficial for the patient.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to improve the invention of Snyder with the imageable marker arrangement taught in Finley’s Fig. 8A because it can advantageously allow for various improvements iterated in more detail above including but not limited to improved accuracy over marker arrangements with less markers as well as that takes up a smaller footprint than other designs which can allow the surgeon to work more freely , minimize OR time, and thereby reduces the impact of the surgery on the patient.
Regarding claim 35, Snyder further teaches: 35. The system of claim 34, wherein each of the first tracker and the second tracker is trackable in 5 DOF, the 5 DOF excluding a 6th DOF pertaining to a respective rotation of the first tracker and the second tracker with regard to a rotational axis defined by the respective elongated body for each of the first tracker and the second tracker (as best understood this is inherent/holds no patentable weight as it addresses a preamble limitation of pose determination and/or addresses that a structure outside of the invention such as a processor may interact with the invention in a particular way. While not required by the current claim drafting it may compact prosecution to note that following additional two things. First, Snyder teaches determining the imageable marker’s location in each of 4-6 DOF using a processor, such that the components are explicitly fully capable of being so used, see e.g. [0130]. Second, the examiner notes that if the applicant intended to claim that the imageable marker comprised a coil that, when interrogated by EM field, was shaped or otherwise configured to emit a signal containing 3D position and 2D orientation information (i.e. the feature of the applicant’s specification at [0012] or [0058]) then this would be rejected using the additional art of Ferrate (of record) if and when such limitations were later claimed additionally and responsive to the amendment to claim 34 above, the examiner notes that the secondary reference of Finley also teaches this in [0107] wherein the modification to the location of the imageable markers now proposed above would also result in trackers that are tracked in 5 DOF).
Regarding claim 36, Snyder further teaches: 36. The system according to claim 34, further comprising a reference tracker configured to be attached to the patient, wherein the reference tracker comprises at least three imageable markers (see Snyder’s Fig. 1 which shows part 154/58 containing a plurality of greater than 3 imageable markers 58 and/or part 68 containing a plurality of greater than 3 imageable markers 66, or see Fig. 10 where 68, 58, and 470 each have a plurality of greater than 3 imageable markers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the previously issued objections and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated objections and rejections of the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-36 under Snyder alone have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Snyder IVO Finley and in view of the amendment that required such new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 Michael S Kellogg whose telephone number is (571)270-7278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-1pm.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/MICHAEL S KELLOGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights