DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/12/26 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-16, 69-70, and 72-73 are pending. Claim 72 is withdrawn from examination (see below), and claims 1-16, 69-70, and 73 are under examination.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome all rejections under 35 USC 112 from the previous Office Action mailed on 6/15/26.
Election-by-Original Presentation
Currently submitted claim 72 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I (originally-filed claim 1) and II (currently submitted claim 72) are directed to related simulators. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because certain significant limitations in one of the group find no counterpart in the other group(s) and vice versa. The independent claim in invention I does not require a certain significant limitation of an organ model comprising a mark disposed on the organ model; and at least one alignment aperture formed in at least one of the first and second one or more constraint panels, wherein the mark disposed on the organ model is configured to be aligned with and visible through the at least one alignment aperture to provide an indication of a predetermined alignment between the organ model and at least one of the one or more constraint panels, as found in the independent claim of invention II. In addition, the independent claim in invention II does not require a certain significant limitation of two constraint panels and at least one elastic member, including a second constraint panel configured to rotate about a second axis, wherein the first and second constraint panels at least partially define a variably sized volume configured to receive an organ model; and at least one elastic member operatively coupling the first and second constraint panels, wherein the at least one elastic member is configured to provide a restorative force when the first and second constraint panels are rotated to increase a size of the volume, as found in the independent claim of invention I. In other words, the related (method or product/device) inventions would not have been obvious over relative to each other (i.e., they are not obvious variants) within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Furthermore, each combination of distinct significant limitations requires a different search strategy, e.g., different combination of keywords, and thus imposes a serious search burden on the Examiner.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 72 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Interpretation
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 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The non-structural term “structure” recited in claim 8 in conjunction with functional language “configured to affect a position or motion of the organ model within the variably sized volume” without sufficiently definite structure for performing that function in the claim.
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 § 102 (AIA )
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by WEN US 2017/0169734 A1.
Regarding claim 1, WEN teaches an anatomic simulator (Abstract: dynamic phantom; par. 0070: the phantom 10 is designed to represent the movement of inhalation and exhalation; par. 0080: the inflation of the lungs 60, and the pulling of a lungs 60, will be capable of simulating human lung motions for both free breathing and deep inhalation breathing situations) comprising:
a first constraint panel configured to rotate about a first axis (par. 0058: A first end 22A of the first segment 22 is connected to the spine 40…the first end[] 22a … could be … pivotally connected to the spine 40, or elastically connected to the spine 40);
a second constraint panel configured to rotate about a second axis (par. 0058: a first end 24A of the second segment 24 is connected to the spine 40…the first end[] … 24A could be … pivotally connected to the spine 40, or elastically connected to the spine 40), wherein the first and second constraint panels at least partially define a variably sized volume configured to receive an organ model (par. 0068: In addition to the movable chest wall 20, the phantom 10 also comprises a movable organ member that is located in the internal cavity 18 (as shown formed in part by the movable first segment 22 and second segment 24; par. 0070: FIGS. 3 to 5 illustrate the phantom 10 comprising two movable organ members, a heart 50 and a pair of lungs 60.); and
at least one elastic member (par. 0060: elastic third member 26) operatively coupling the first and second constraint panels (par. 0060: FIG. 2 illustrates a second end 22B of the first segment 22 being connected to the third segment 26, and a second end 24B of the second segment 24 also being connected to the third segment 26), wherein the at least one elastic member is configured to provide a restorative force when the first and second constraint panels are rotated to increase a size of the volume (par. 0060: elastic third segment acts to pull the second end 22B of the first segment 22 and the second end 24B of the second segment 24 together), wherein a portion of the at least one elastic member is configured to be repeatedly coupled to and decoupled from at least one of the first or second constraint panels to transition the anatomic simulator between an open configuration in which the first and second constraint panels are configured to receive the organ model and a closed configuration in which the at least one elastic member provides the restorative force (par. 0118: the phantom 10 is designed to be reusable, and therefore, in general, the components of the phantom 10 will also be reusable and be replaceable should that component be damaged. Because the elastic third segment 26 is a component of the phantom, it is necessarily replaceable or removable, i.e., capable of being repeatedly coupled to and decoupled from at least one of the first or second constraint panels. Further, in the process of removing the elastic third segment 26 of WEN, a gap or opening between the first and second segment would form, thereby necessarily transitioning the device from a closed configuration, i.e., third member attached, to an open configuration, i.e., third member removed. By removing the third member, the phantom has the capability of receiving an organ model through said gap or opening).
Regarding claim 2, WEN further teaches wherein the organ model expands or collapses within the variably sized volume (par. 0053: The movement of the movable chest wall 20 is designed to represent the movement of the chest as it expands and contracts during respiration; par. 0075: there is movement of the heart due to the inflation of the human lung and the expansion of the chest cavity, there is also movement of the heart due to the pumping action of the heart that supplies blood to the body.).
Regarding claim 3, WEN further teaches wherein when the organ model is pressurized, the first constraint panel rotates about the first axis in a first direction and the second constraint panel rotates about the second axis in a second direction (par. 0061: As the driving member 30 is actuated the connecting members 34, 36 act on the chest wall 20 to expand the chest wall 20 and elongate the third segment 26, thereby moving the first segment 22 and the second segment 24 relative to each other. This movement, wherein the chest wall moves in more than one spatial direction, replicates inhalation, with the chest wall 20 deforming and expanding…By having the chest wall 20 separated into a first segment 22 and a second segment 24, the first segment 22 and the second segment 24 move relative to each other, allowing the chest wall 20 to expand; par. 0070: The pair of lungs 60 could be any inflatable object, for example, the pair of lungs 60 may be represented by sponges wrapped and sealed by silicone coating that is airtight. It is understood that a tubing structure could be built into the pair of lungs 60 that is similar to the human trachea and bronchus system. The tubing structure may be made of rubber or silicone and be designed to be similarly deformable and expandable as the rest of the lung 60 when it is under the pressure from incoming airflow and the force from the motion mechanism that stretches the lungs 60 inferiorly).
Regarding claim 4, WEN further teaches wherein when the organ model is depressurized, the first constraint panel rotates about the first axis in a third direction and the second constraint panel rotates about the second axis in a fourth direction, wherein the third direction is opposite the first direction, and wherein the fourth direction is opposite the second direction (par. 0061: By having the chest wall 20 separated into a first segment 22 and a second segment 24, the first segment 22 and the second segment 24 move relative to each other; par. 0069: If the movement of the movable organ member is designed to represent the movement of an organ in the thorax of a person as the chest … contracts during respiration then the movable organ member will be synchronised with the movement of the chest wall 20; par. 0079: lungs 60 are connected to a ventilator 70; par. 0080: the ventilator could be any device capable of inflating the pair of lungs 60 during inspiration, and allowing the air to exit the pair of lungs 60 during expiration; par. 0086: The movement of the movable chest wall 220 is designed to represent the movement of the chest as it … contracts during respiration).
Regarding claim 5, WEN further teaches wherein the restorative force provided by the at least one elastic member biases the first constraint panel and the second constraint panel towards a retracted configuration (par. 0010: the chest wall may be biased towards an exhalation position; par. 0060: An elastic third segment acts to pull the second end 22B of the first segment 22 and the second end 24B of the second segment 24 together).
Regarding claim 6, WEN further teaches the organ model disposed within the variably sized volume (par. 0068: the phantom 10 also comprises a movable organ member that is located in the internal cavity 18; par. 0070: FIGS. 3 to 5 illustrate the phantom 10 comprising two movable organ members, a heart 50 and a pair of lungs 60.).
Regarding claim 7, WEN further teaches wherein the organ model is a lung model (FIGS. 3 to 5 illustrate the phantom 10 comprising … a pair of lungs 60.).
Regarding claim 8, WEN further teaches a structure disposed within the variably sized volume, wherein the structure is configured to affect a position or motion of the organ model within the variably sized volume (par. 0068: the phantom 10 also comprises a movable organ member that is located in the internal cavity 18…The moveable organ member is caused to move relative to the body 12 by a second motion mechanism; FIGS. 3 to 5 illustrate the phantom 10 comprising … a heart 50).
Regarding claim 9, WEN further teaches wherein the structure is a heart structure configured to constrain motion of the organ model when the organ model moves within the variably sized volume (par. 0068: the phantom 10 also comprises a movable organ member that is located in the internal cavity 18; FIGS. 3 to 5 illustrate the phantom 10 comprising … a heart 50; FIG. 5, ref. 50, 60, showing heart structure against lung, thus constraining motion of the lung within the internal cavity).
Regarding claim 11, WEN further teaches wherein the structure is an insert configured to shift the organ model within the variably sized volume (par. 0071: The heart 50 may be moved by the second motion mechanism 52. As illustrated in FIG. 6A, the heart 50 may be deformed by the second motion mechanism 52. ).
Regarding claim 12, WEN further teaches a base configured to support the organ model when the organ model is received within the anatomic simulator, wherein the first constraint panel is rotatably coupled to the base, and wherein the second constraint panel is rotatably coupled to the base (par. 0088: left ribs 222 and the right ribs 224 are connected to the back 216 of the phantom 200, specifically at a spine 217. The left ribs 222 and the right ribs 224 are attached to the spine 217 so that they can rotate relative to the spine 217).
Regarding claim 15, WEN further teaches a pressure source configured to flow a fluid to the organ model when the organ model is received within the variably sized volume (FIG. 7; par. 0079: lungs 60 are connected to a ventilator 70…The ventilator 70 may be considered a motion mechanism, as it acts on the lungs 60 to fill the lungs 60 with air, thereby inflating them and moving them relative to the back 16 of the body 12).
Regarding claim 16, WEN further teaches one or more pneumatic controls disposed along a flow path between the pressure source and the organ model when the organ model is received within the variably sized volume (FIG. 7; par. 0079: ventilator 70, which may be made up of an air pump 72 in fluid communication with the lungs 60, as shown along a path between the ventilator 70 and the lungs 60); and a processor operatively coupled to the one or more pneumatic controls, wherein the processor is configured to control the flow of fluid from the pressure source to the organ model with the one or more pneumatic controls (par. 0084: A drive source drives the motion mechanisms 52,62,64. The drive source may be the same as the computer 45 that drives the first motion mechanism 30).
Claims 69 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by WEN, or alternatively as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over WEN in view of US 2017/0263159 A1 to EICHHORN.
Regarding claim 69, WEN further teaches wherein the first and second constraint panels are configured to rotate (see claim 1) in response to pressurization or depressurization of the organ model without mechanical coupling between the organ model and the first and second constraint panels (par. 0059: Splitting the chest wall into two segments allows the chest wall to expand without having to be elastic; par. 0067: phantom 10 is designed to mimic the movement of the human chest wall during respiration; par. 0070: tubing structure may be made of rubber or silicone and be designed to be similarly deformable and expandable as the rest of the lung 60 when it is under the pressure from incoming airflow and the force from the motion mechanism that stretches the lungs 60 inferiorly…pair of lungs 60 will be capable of simulating the motions that occur during free breathing and during deep inhalation breathing; par. 0075: inflation of the human lung and the expansion of the chest cavity; par. 0079: lungs 60 are connected to a ventilator 70, which may be made up of an air pump 72 in fluid communication with the lungs 60. The ventilator 70 may be considered a motion mechanism, as it acts on the lungs 60 to fill the lungs 60 with air, thereby inflating them and moving them relative to the back 16 of the body 12. In order for the lungs 60 to inflate the lungs 60 may be hollow with an opening in fluid communication with the ventilator 70; FIG. 5 and 8, showing simulated lungs 60 inside cavity of torso, not mechanically coupled to chest panels). Alternatively, EICHHORN teaches the one or more balloons 154 can be positioned between a lung shelf 158 and right and left lung plates 156A/B, which can be positioned proximal to an exterior surface 160 of the torso assembly 104 (par. 0087), as shown in Figure 8 without mechanical coupling between the balloons and the right and left lung plates. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the one or more balloons simulating lungs which cause the chest to move based on pressurization or depressurization, wherein the balloons are not mechanically coupled to the chest plate, as taught by EICHHORN, into the device of WEN, in order to provide a more accurate and lifelike simulation of the physiological responses occurring in a patient, thereby enabling students and medical personnel to observe the physiological training system and determine whether medical procedure has been successfully performed. Providing the capability of balloons that cause chest plates to rise and fall as taught by EICHHORN in the phantom of WEN would also serve as a tactile indicator of the successful performance of a medical procedure, including whether only one lung has been intubated, as opposed to both lungs, or otherwise recognizing improper intubation.
Regarding claim 70, WEN further teaches wherein the organ model comprises an inflatable structure having a shape representative of a biological organ (par. 0075: inflation of the human lung and the expansion of the chest cavity; par. 0079: lungs 60 are connected to a ventilator 70, which may be made up of an air pump 72 in fluid communication with the lungs 60. The ventilator 70 may be considered a motion mechanism, as it acts on the lungs 60 to fill the lungs 60 with air, thereby inflating them and moving them relative to the back 16 of the body 12. In order for the lungs 60 to inflate the lungs 60 may be hollow with an opening in fluid communication with the ventilator 70). Alternatively, EICHHORN teaches the simulator includes a chest rise function, including one or more balloons representing a right and left lung, in fluid communication with the airway and configured to at least partially inflate upon the flow of fluid into the one or more balloons (par. 0087). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the inflatable balloons to represent lungs, as taught by EICHHORN, into the device of WEN, in order to provide a more accurate and lifelike simulation of the physiological responses occurring in a patient, thereby enabling students and medical personnel to observe the physiological training system and determine whether medical procedure has been successfully performed. Providing the capability of balloons that cause chest plates to rise and fall as taught by EICHHORN in the phantom of WEN would also serve as a tactile indicator of the successful performance of a medical procedure, including whether only one lung has been intubated, as opposed to both lungs, or otherwise recognizing improper intubation.
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WEN , as applied to claim 1 and 9, respectively, in further view of US 2007/0254273 A1 to LAFRANCE.
Regarding claim 10, WEN further teaches the elements above, and further teaches the phantom 10 can be used to produce useful medical images using x-ray (par. 0064), wherein all of the materials in the internal cavity 18 are anthropomorphic (e.g. the heart 50 and lung 60 have similar densities and electron densities to human organs)(par. 0065), but does not expressly disclose wherein at least a portion of the heart structure is radiopaque.
Regarding claim 13, WEN further teaches the elements above, and further teaches the phantom 10 can be used to produce useful medical images using x-ray (par. 0064), wherein all of the materials in the internal cavity 18 are anthropomorphic (e.g. the heart 50 and lung 60 have similar densities and electron densities to human organs)(par. 0065), but does not expressly disclose wherein at least a first portion of the first constraint panel is radiopaque, and wherein at least a second portion of the second constraint panel is radiopaque.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, LAFRANCE teaches a similar training model including anatomical features, including a heart and rib cage, wherein these anatomical features are desirably made of a radiopaque material such that during training they show up on an X-ray, or another such system for indirectly visualizing the heart valve root that can distinguish between radiopaque and non-radiopaque material (par. 0014; 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of radiopaque material in constructing the simulated anatomical features, including a heart and ribcage, as taught by LAFRANCE, into the same anatomical features in the device of WEN, such that during training they show up on an X-ray, thereby providing a more realistic training experience that allows users to distinguish radiopaque and non-radiopaque material in medical images.
Regarding claim 14, WEN further teaches wherein the first and second portions are representative of anatomic features (par. 0057: a first segment 22 and a second segment 24 define a chest wall).
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WEN in view of US 2018/0144662 A1 to TASSONE.
Regarding claim 73, WEN teaches the elements above including a first and second segment representing the left and right ribs, connected by an elastic third member representing a human sternum (par. 0060), but does not disclose the particular manner of attaching the disclosed members, including wherein at least one of the first and second constraint panels includes one or more anchors, and wherein the at least one elastic member is a discrete elastic member removably received on the one or more anchors.
However, TASSONE teaches a related synthetic surgical simulation system including an anatomical structure (Abstract) which includes coupling connective tissue to an anatomical structure using a removable coupling mechanism, the coupling mechanism comprising fasteners, hooks, clips, buttons, clasps, or another type of coupler (par. 0092). The disclosed coupling mechanism of TASSONE is interpreted as an anchor as recited in claim 73 (SPEC, pg. 10, disclosing that an anchor may be hooks, posts, other suitable projections, and/or other structure capable of retaining a corresponding elastic member). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of a coupling mechanism to connect anatomical structures to connective tissues, as taught by TASSONE, into the invention of WEN, thereby applying a known technique to similar devices to achieve predictable results.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
35 USC § 103 – Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the previously applied prior art, WEN, does not teach the new limitation “wherein a portion of the at least one elastic member is configured to be repeatedly coupled to and decoupled from at least one of the first or second constraint panels to transition the anatomic simulator between an open configuration in which the first and second constraint panels are configured to receive the organ model and a closed configuration in which the at least one elastic member provides the restorative force.” Applicant reasons that despite WEN’s disclosure of “replaceable” components of the phantom, that replacing a damaged component during maintenance is not configuring an elastic member to be “repeatedly coupled to and decoupled…to transition the anatomic simulator between an open configuration…and a closed configuration in.” Applicant is directed to the rejection above, which is updated to address this limitation, as necessitated by claim amendment. Further, WEN discloses that the components of the disclosed invention are replaceable (par. 0118) and that the third elastic member 26 is a component of the disclosed invention (par. 0060). Thus, the elastic third member of WEN is interpreted as removable, which would be necessary to be replaced. Further, in removing/replacing the third elastic member of WEN, an opening would be formed between the first and second segments, thus transitioning the phantom from a closed configuration to an open configuration. Thus, the phantom of WEN would be capable of receiving an organ model through the opening when the third elastic member is removed/replaced. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 72, Applicant arguments are moot as claim 72 is withdrawn from examination based on a restriction by original presentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights