DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/13/2026. Presently, claims 1-9, and 11-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, and 11-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method for simulating neurosurgical and orthopedic spinal column and cerebral surgery” (i.e. a machine, process, manufacture, composition of matter), and claim 8 is directed to “a system for simulating neurosurgical and orthopedic spinal column and cerebral surgery” (i.e. a machine, process, manufacture, composition of matter), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “registering a parameter..., storing the assigned parameter…, and outputting the simulations result in prepared form…” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent Claim 1:
A method for simulating a neurosurgical, orthopedic spinal column, and cerebral surgery, wherein anatomical structure-forming model structures are provided, said model structures are optically, haptically, and functionally modeled organs or organ constituents to be treated by surgery and being used to carry out simulations of surgical operations, comprising:
seamlessly integrating sensors comprising intelligent material into the model structures, wherein the integrated sensors are configured to not change anatomy, haptics and optics of the model structures;
registering a parameter of the surgery simulation, such as pressure, accuracy, tension, position and/or strength by at least one sensor of the integrated sensors;
assigning the parameter to a simulation result of the surgery simulation; and
storing the simulation result and associated assigned parameter; and
outputting the simulation result and associated assigned parameter in prepared form upon request.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. ADD EXTRA HERE IF NEEDED.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “at least one sensor” and “processing unit” as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “registering a parameter..., storing the assigned parameter…, and outputting the simulations result in prepared form…” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “at least one sensor” and “processing unit” these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one sensor” and “processing unit” are described in the following paragraphs:
The claimed “at least one sensor” is not described in the Specification and could be interpreted as any sensor under BRI with respect to the claim language.
The claimed “intelligent material” is not described in the Specification and could be interpreted as plastic or any material that can be significantly changed in a controlled fashion by external stimuli and is well known in the art (as recited in Applicant’s Remarks mailed out on 01/30/2026 on pages 8-9).
The “processing unit” (as recited in dependent claim 8) as described in paragraph [0015], as follows:
“[0015] The arrangement-side solution to the problem in the ease of an arrangement of the type set forth at the outset consists in sensors that at least indirectly register parameters of the operation simulation being connected to the model structures and said sensors in turn being connected to a processing unit that registers, stores and evaluates the parameters.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “at least one sensor” “processing unit” (as recited in dependent claim 8) are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “at least one sensor” “processing unit” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, and 9-19 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, and 9-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1 and 8.
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordechai Avisar (US 20150127316 A1; hereinafter Avisar) in view of W. Andrew Grubbs (US 20180338806 A1; hereinafter Grubbs), K. Singal, R. Rajamani, M. Ahmadi, A. Serdar Sezen and J. E. Bechtold, ("Magnetic Sensor for Configurable Measurement of Tension or Elasticity With Validation in Animal Soft Tissues,") in IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 426-437, Feb. 2015; hereinafter Singal) and Jack L. Gallant (US 20180310894 A1; hereinafter Gallant).
Regarding claim 1, Avisar discloses a method for simulating a neurosurgical, orthopedic spinal column, and cerebral surgery (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0007]), wherein anatomical structure-forming model structures are provided (“a 3 dimensional realistic anatomy display (18) adds texture, shadow, shadowing and other cues to the image” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0036])), said model structures are optically, haptically, and functionally modeled organs or organ constituents to be treated by surgery and being used to carry out simulations of surgical operations (“Surgical Theater projects the 3 dimensional organ model 18 presented in a realistic visual fidelity with realistic features such as; texture, shadowing and other features that adds realism to the simulated image. Each segment of the visual model 18 is coordinated and corresponds with an appropriate mechanical properties model from the system database 16 and other relevant properties of the specific case” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0040]); “Those interfaces may or may not include force/haptic feedback that is delivered to those tools to allow the surgeon to sense the force feedback cue of his actions. Providing force/haptic feedback can be especially useful in providing a realistic simulation, and thus is preferable” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0116])), comprising; registering a parameter of the surgery simulation, (“’fine tune’ the models and adjust the modeling parameters of the simulation by changing the mechanical properties of a certain area of the organ; for example, the surgeon may adjust the elasticity and other mechanical characteristics of the Entities behavior to better match the mechanical behavior of the tissue” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0104])), such as pressure, accuracy, position (“when a tissue is being pressed by a surgery tool, the surgery tool pressure characteristics (e.g., the location, orientation and amount of pressure and so on) is distributed via the network, each one of the subEntities is responsible for ‘listening’ and concluding if it is being affected by this surgery toll pressure; once a subEntity determines that it is being affected, each such subEntity (for example, tissue Entity) models the affect on their subEntity model, e.g., the visual subEntity, presents the visual effects (such as bloodiness of the tissue), and the mechanical properties models the shift of the tissue” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0121])).
Avisar does not explicitly teach seamlessly integrating sensors comprising intelligent material into the model structures, wherein the integrated sensors are configured to not change anatomy, haptics and optics of the model structures, a parameter of tension and/or strength, and assigning the parameter to a simulation result of the surgery simulation; and storing the simulation result and associated assigned parameter; and outputting the simulation result and associated assigned parameter in prepared form upon request.
Grubbs teaches Grubbs teaches parameters of surgery simulations which include but are not limited to strength (“The first force torque sensor 324 and second force torque sensor both may be force torque sensors” (recited in at least: Grubbs paragraph [0345])). Grubbs also teaches gathering data of a surgery simulation by at least one sensor (Grubbs teaches many sensors and they can be found in at least paragraphs [9, 14-17, 342-343]) and assigning the parameter to a simulation result of the surgery simulation; and storing the simulation result and associated assigned parameter; and outputting the simulation result and associated assigned parameter in prepared form upon request (“That is, when the surgeon performs an action, the surgeon experiences the result of that action immediately, just as if the surgery was being performed in the same room as the robotic device, and can view the results on a video monitor” (recited in at least: paragraph 0253]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a strength sensor, and storing the data/parameters and results from the simulation for the added benefit of teaching surgeons based off their result with accurate feedback.
Singal teaches using a magnetic sensor for a measurement of either elasticity or tension in soft tissues (recited in at least: Singal et al. pages 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a sensor that measures tension in tissue in a surgical simulator for the added benefit of ensuring that there is proper tension characteristics during the simulated surgery.
Gallant teaches seamlessly integrating sensors comprising intelligent material into the model structures, wherein the integrated sensors are configured to not change anatomy, haptics and optics of the model structures (“An anatomical model of the head is used to optimize the helmet for each individual. The anatomical model can be derived from an anatomical MRI, three-dimensional scanning, or CAD modeling. The device can be made out of a variety of materials such as polyurethane foam or polyactic (PLA) plastic. Finally, the digital model can be modified so that the device can carry imaging components such as gradient coils, surface electrodes, optrodes, or other sensors” (recited in at least: Gallant paragraph [0009])).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added sensors to any anatomical model without changing the way the model is structured as taught by Gallant for the added benefit of allowing students to gather data while still learning on accurately simulated anatomical models.
Regarding claim 2, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein the parameter is registered by at least one of the model structures (“a user interface for the user to adjust parameters of the modeled tool, wherein the tool model is displayed on the display dynamically interacting with the 3D image of tissues according to the adjusted modeling parameters for realistically simulating the medical procedure” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein the parameter is stored together with a timestamp of its occurrence (“feature sets range from layered black and white slices in 3 different panels that could be cross-referenced to a complete ability to fly through static subsets of 3D images of patient's organs. In addition, there are 4D and 5D features that record various functional and dynamic changes of organs in a form of a movie clip. As magnificent as those captured images or moving sequences might be, they are a fixed set of snapshots images in time” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0051])).
Regarding claim 5, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein at least one of the parameters is registered by way of an optical recording (“The surgeon then can send the tailored design clip in a 3-dimensional photo file (jpeg, bitmap and comparable) for rapid manufacturing” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0117])).
Regarding claim 6, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein one of the sensors is provided in modeled neural structures or connected to modeled neural structures (“For example, in the case of open/classic brain surgeries, such as brain tumor and brain aneurysm, for example, the Surgical Theater converts CT and MRI images and creates a realistic three dimensional (3-D) model of the brain tumor or aneurysm area with a dynamic modeling of the organisms, including the tumor, along with the surrounding tissue and blood vessels. The system is connected to life-like surgery tools, responding to actions taken by the surgeon, helping him/her to better prepare for the surgery” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein one of the sensors is provided in muscular structures, ligaments and/or fascias or connected to muscular structures, ligaments and/or fascias, and a parameter is determined to measure complications and bleeding, coagulation and hemostasis (“The CA-SRP system simulates realistic events such as brain swelling, damage to blood vessels, brain tissue shifting during an operation that blocks the surgeon's access to the area he planned to access, as well as other complications such as; (i) Inappropriate temporary clip placement will not stop the flow of blood into the aneurysm, (ii) Improper management of the aneurysm will result in bleeding if temporary clips were not placed or not sufficiently placed (iii) If the temporary clips were on for a long time a feedback of possible stroke will be generated (iv) If the aneurysm clip will obstruct a vessel coming out of the aneurysm or is attaching at the aneurysm neck, a stroked patient outcome will be reported” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0082])).
Regarding claim 8, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Grubbs further teaches wherein sensors that at least indirectly register parameters of the operation simulation are connected to the model structures and said sensors are in turn connected to a processing unit that stores and evaluates the parameters (“A processor may be coupled to the at least one patient force/torque sensor and configured to generate an alert indication when a threshold is exceeded or to stop the local robotic surgery station when the threshold is exceeded or any combination” (recited in at least: Grubbs paragraph [0015])).
Regarding claim 9, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Grubbs further teaches wherein the model structures consist of plastic composites, wherein the plastic composites form the sensors (“As an example of quick-connect tubes, small diameter plastic tubes with Luer-Lok® connectors can then be placed into the divided right pulmonary artery and right superior pulmonary vein, and fixed in place, for example, using purse-string sutures. To create distention of the aorta, one can inject silicone caulking to the level of the ascending aorta” (recited in at least: Grubbs paragraph [0091]); (“the first and second sensors 324, 344 provide better control over how the student or surgeon trainee may be operating” (recited in at least: Grubbs paragraph [0339])).
Regarding claim 11, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein at least one of the sensors is arranged in modeled neural structures or connected thereto (“For example, in the case of open/classic brain surgeries, such as brain tumor and brain aneurysm, for example, the Surgical Theater converts CT and MRI images and creates a realistic three dimensional (3-D) model of the brain tumor or aneurysm area with a dynamic modeling of the organisms, including the tumor, along with the surrounding tissue and blood vessels. The system is connected to life-like surgery tools, responding to actions taken by the surgeon, helping him/her to better prepare for the surgery” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Grubbs further teaches wherein at least one of the sensors is arranged in modeled muscular structures, ligaments and/or fascias or connected thereto (“The first and second sensors 324, 344 provide better control over how the student or surgeon trainee may be operating the robotic tool during the surgical training and register how much force is pulled or pushed on the tissue, and how much force is pulled or pushed on the body itself, formed by the mannequin, which may include various anatomical components such as the ribs, muscles and vessels and forming the body cavity” (recited in at least: Grubbs paragraph 0339])).
Regarding claim 13, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein at least one of the sensors is designed to measure complications and/or bleeding, coagulation and/or hemostasis (“The CA-SRP system simulates realistic events such as brain swelling, damage to blood vessels, brain tissue shifting during an operation that blocks the surgeon's access to the area he planned to access, as well as other complications such as; (i) Inappropriate temporary clip placement will not stop the flow of blood into the aneurysm, (ii) Improper management of the aneurysm will result in bleeding if temporary clips were not placed or not sufficiently placed (iii) If the temporary clips were on for a long time a feedback of possible stroke will be generated (iv) If the aneurysm clip will obstruct a vessel coming out of the aneurysm or is attaching at the aneurysm neck, a stroked patient outcome will be reported” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0082])).
Regarding claim 14, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein the parameter is stored together with a timestamp of its occurrence (“feature sets range from layered black and white slices in 3 different panels that could be cross-referenced to a complete ability to fly through static subsets of 3D images of patient's organs. In addition, there are 4D and 5D features that record various functional and dynamic changes of organs in a form of a movie clip. As magnificent as those captured images or moving sequences might be, they are a fixed set of snapshots images in time” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0051])).
Regarding claim 15, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein at least one of the parameters is registered by way of an optical recording (“The surgeon then can send the tailored design clip in a 3-dimensional photo file (jpeg, bitmap and comparable) for rapid manufacturing” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0117])).
Regarding claim 16, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein one of the sensors is provided in modeled neural structures or connected to modeled neural structures (“For example, in the case of open/classic brain surgeries, such as brain tumor and brain aneurysm, for example, the Surgical Theater converts CT and MRI images and creates a realistic three dimensional (3-D) model of the brain tumor or aneurysm area with a dynamic modeling of the organisms, including the tumor, along with the surrounding tissue and blood vessels. The system is connected to life-like surgery tools, responding to actions taken by the surgeon, helping him/her to better prepare for the surgery” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches a parameter is determined to measure complications and bleeding, coagulation and hemostasis (“The CA-SRP system simulates realistic events such as brain swelling, damage to blood vessels, brain tissue shifting during an operation that blocks the surgeon's access to the area he planned to access, as well as other complications such as; (i) Inappropriate temporary clip placement will not stop the flow of blood into the aneurysm, (ii) Improper management of the aneurysm will result in bleeding if temporary clips were not placed or not sufficiently placed (iii) If the temporary clips were on for a long time a feedback of possible stroke will be generated (iv) If the aneurysm clip will obstruct a vessel coming out of the aneurysm or is attaching at the aneurysm neck, a stroked patient outcome will be reported” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0082])).
However, Grubbs further teaches wherein one of the sensors is provided in muscular structures, ligaments and/or fascias or connected to muscular structures, ligaments and/or fascias (“The first and second sensors 324, 344 provide better control over how the student or surgeon trainee may be operating the robotic tool during the surgical training and register how much force is pulled or pushed on the tissue, and how much force is pulled or pushed on the body itself, formed by the mannequin, which may include various anatomical components such as the ribs, muscles and vessels and forming the body cavity” (recited in at least: Grubbs paragraph 0339]).
Regarding claim 18, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Avisar further teaches wherein at least one of the parameters is registered by way of an optical recording (“The surgeon then can send the tailored design clip in a 3-dimensional photo file (jpeg, bitmap and comparable) for rapid manufacturing” (recited in at least: Avisar paragraph [0117])).
Regarding claim 19, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above, and Grubbs further teaches wherein the at least one sensor is connected to the model structure and to a processing unit (“The surgical simulation device may comprise at least one camera connected to the processor. Markers are positioned within the mannequin and on the animal tissue. The processor is configured to receive video images and form a three-dimensional wire frame image of the body cavity” (recited in at least: [0010])).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avisar in view of W. Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant in further view of James H. Anderson et al. (US 20040009459 A1; hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 4, Avisar in view of Grubbs, Singal, and Gallant teach the claimed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly teach wherein the parameter is stored as a parameter sequence.
Anderson teaches that the parameters of a surgical simulation is stored and generated in image datasets (The models may be stored, generated from stored image datasets, or generated from newly obtained datasets. In one aspect, image data sets are collected as the simulation is taking place and models are updated at intervals (e.g., at least once every 5 minutes, preferably, at least once every minute, more preferably, at least once every 30 seconds). In another aspect, the display module of the system including the graphical user interface displays images with a refresh rate of about 15 frames per second (recited in at least: Anderson paragraph [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have surgical parameters stored in a sequence because when a doctor is practicing a surgery simulation, the simulation needs to mimic real-life scenarios and once an action is done during surgery a surgeon cannot go back in time. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the parameters are stored and played in a sequenced time.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
The objections made to claims 1-9, and 11-19 in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 07/31/2025 have been withdrawn due to the amendments made to the claims.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
The amendments made to claims 1-9, and 11-19 overcome the rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 07/31/2025.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant states on pages 5-8 that the additional limitation of the sensor being “seamlessly integrated” into the model structures as to avoid changing the anatomy, haptics and optics of the model structures is enough to bring an abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The sensors places into the system to be used to gather data to then be evaluated doesn’t change that the limitation is used as a data gathering step. Merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of sensors and a processing unit does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant states on pages 9-13 that the prior art used in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 02/13/2026 does not teach the additional limitation amended into the claims on 02/13/2026. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights