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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under US 2009/0036902 A1 to Dimaio et al. (hereinafter “Dimaio”) in view of US 2021/0212773 A1 to Feather et al. (hereinafter “Feather”).
Regarding claim 1, Dimaio teaches a system (abstract, lines 1-2) comprising:
a memory storing instructions (para 0051, lines 7-11);
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (fig. 2-240, 236, 246, and para 0051) to:
direct a computer-assisted medical system, which includes a set of controls/master tool manipulators or master input devices comprising a first control and a second control configured to receive user input (para 0041-0042), to operate in a manipulation input mode/first or following mode in which user input to the first control manipulates a first manipulator of the computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1: 107 and 121, para 0041-0042, and para 0103-0104), and user input to the second control manipulates a second manipulator of the computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1: 108 and 122, para 0041-0042 and para 0103-0104), and a second control mode/ master as mice mode (MaM mode),
but does not disclose directing the computer-assisted medical system to operate in a hybrid input mode in which user input to the first control manipulates the first manipulator, and user input to the second control adjusts a parameter setting associated with a medical procedure.
However, Feather discloses a system and method for hybrid control through the use of eye tracking (para 0002). The computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1 and para 0031, lines 1-5) is configured to operate using a hybrid control mode/hybrid control by receiving a first user input/gaze input to a display, which ultimately activates an activation region that allows for the operator to track a medical instrument (attached to a manipulator assembly as seen in fig. 1, reference numbers 102 and 104) and can perform multiple functions, including a surgical task (abstract, fig. 3, para 0049-0050, and para 0051, lines 1-8). Furthermore, the system (fig. 1) utilizes a second user input provided through another input device in order to adjust a parameter and/or setting associated with the medical procedure (abstract, fig. 3, and para 0052-0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would have led to a reasonable expectation for success by allowing the surgeon to operate and/or perform a surgical task on a patient while also allowing for the adjusting settings associated with the surgical procedure, ultimately increase the efficiency of the medical procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the user input to the second control that adjusts the parameter setting in the hybrid input mode comprises a same type of input as the user input to the second control that manipulates the second manipulator in the manipulation input mode.
However, Feather discloses a system and method for hybrid control through the use of eye tracking (para 0002). The computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1 and para 0031, lines 1-5) is configured to operate using a hybrid control mode/hybrid control by receiving a first user input/gaze input to a display, which ultimately activates an activation region that allows for the operator to track an medical instrument (attached to a manipulator assembly as seen in fig. 1, reference numbers 102 and 104) and can perform a multiple functions, including a surgical task (abstract, fig. 3, para 0049-0050, and para 0051, lines 1-8). Furthermore, the system (fig. 1) utilizes a second user input provided through another/different input device (such as a touchpad, mouse, foot pedal, or voice command) to adjust a parameter and/or setting associated with the medical procedure (abstract, fig. 3, and para 0052-0053). Feather does not disclose wherein the first and second input are the same type.
However, Dimaio discloses wherein a system contains first and second input modes (a following/first mode and a Master-as-Mice Mode(MaM)) (abstract) that use two master tool manipulators/MTMs (para 0104), and wherein the two MTMs/master input devices (fig. 1, 107 and 108 and para 0041-0042) are the same type of input devices. Moreover, the MTMs used in the first mode are used to operate graphical objects and features on a graphical user interface (GUI) in the MaM mode (para 0104 and para 0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by ensuring the device is more user friendly, ultimately allowing the surgical procedure to be performed more efficiently.
Regarding claim 3, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the parameter setting associated with the medical procedure includes a display parameter setting associated with the medical procedure.
However, Feather discloses wherein a control is displayed on the surgical display one the gaze of the operator/surgeon is detected (para 0051, lines1-3). Moreover, the control on the display may allow for the adjusting a display parameter and/or surgical parameter as well (para 0051 (emphasis on lines 1-8)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success by allowing the system and method to experience enhanced control of various components of the surgical system, ultimately enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 4, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the display parameter setting associated with the medical procedure includes a display parameter of a three-dimensional (3D) model associated with the medical procedure (see para 0166-00168 and fig. 25A-25B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
1103
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
928
1234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the parameter setting associated with the medical procedure includes an instrument parameter setting associated with an instrument controlled by the first manipulator.
However, Feather discloses wherein the console and display used by the operator/surgeon is configured to provide the surgeon with a variety of operations and controls, such allowing him/her to adjust instrument parameters via the controls on the display (para 0040). Furthermore, the system (fig. 1) contains a manipulator assembly that is used to control the medical instrument (para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the system of Feather already discloses the used of adjustable parameters to increase the ease and efficiency of the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 8, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor and/or controller is further configured to execute the instructions (para 0042 and para 0051) to:
receive a command to exit or enter a first or second mode (para 0063-0064);
direct, based on the command, the computer-assisted medical system to exit a first or second mode (para 0064); and direct, upon exiting the first or second mode, the computer-assisted medical system to temporarily constrain movement of the manipulators (para 0064-0065), but does not disclose wherein the second mode is a hybrid input mode.
However, Feather discloses wherein the robotic medical system utilizes a hybrid control method for the surgical robotic procedure (para 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgeon to control different operation modes with minimal effort, ultimately improving the efficiency during the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 10, Dimaio teaches a method (abstract, lines 1-2) comprising:
directing, by a processor (fig. 2-240, 236, 246, and para 0051), a computer-assisted medical system , which includes a set of controls/master tool manipulators or master input devices comprising a first control and a second control configured to receive user input (para 0041-0042),
to operate in a manipulation input mode in which user input to the first control manipulates a first manipulator of the computer- assisted medical system (fig. 1: 107 and 121, para 0041-0042, and para 0103-0104), and user input to the second control manipulates a second manipulator of the computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1: 108 and 122, para 0041-0042 and para 0103-0104), and a second control mode/ master as mice mode (MaM mode);
but does not disclose directing, by the processor, the computer-assisted medical system to operate in a hybrid input mode in which user input to the first control manipulates the first manipulator, and user input to the second control adjusts a parameter setting associated with a medical procedure.
However, Feather discloses a system and method for hybrid control through the use of eye tracking (para 0002). The computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1 and para 0031, lines 1-5) is configured to operate using a hybrid control mode/hybrid control by receiving a first user input/gaze input to a display, which ultimately activates an activation region that allows for the operator to track an medical instrument (attached to a manipulator assembly as seen in fig. 1, reference numbers 102 and 104) and can perform a multiple functions, including a surgical task (abstract, fig. 3, para 0049-0050, and para 0051, lines 1-8). Furthermore, the system (fig. 1) utilizes a second user input provided through another input device in order to adjust a parameter and/or setting associated with the medical procedure (abstract, fig. 3, and para 0052-0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would have led to a reasonable expectation for success by allowing the surgeon to operate and/or perform a surgical task on a patient while also allowing for the adjusting settings associated with the surgical procedure, ultimately increase the efficiency of the medical procedure.
Regarding claim 11, Dimaio as modified teaches the method of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the user input to the second control that adjusts the parameter setting in the hybrid input mode comprises a same type of input as the user input to the second control that manipulates the second manipulator in the manipulation input mode.
However, Feather discloses a system and method for hybrid control through the use of eye tracking (para 0002). The computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1 and para 0031, lines 1-5) is configured to operate using a hybrid control mode/hybrid control by receiving a first user input/gaze input to a display, which ultimately activates an activation region that allows for the operator to track an medical instrument (attached to a manipulator assembly as seen in fig. 1, reference numbers 102 and 104) and can perform a multiple functions, including a surgical task (abstract, fig. 3, para 0049-0050, and para 0051, lines 1-8). Furthermore, the system (fig. 1) utilizes a second user input provided through another/different input device (such as a touchpad, mouse, foot pedal, or voice command) to adjust a parameter and/or setting associated with the medical procedure (abstract, fig. 3, and para 0052-0053). Feather does not disclose wherein the first and second input are the same type.
However, Dimaio discloses wherein a system contains first and second input modes (a following/first mode and a Master-as-Mice Mode(MaM)) (abstract) that use two master tool manipulators/MTMs (para 0104), and wherein the two MTMs/master input devices (fig. 1, 107 and 108 and para 0041-0042) are the same type of input devices. Moreover, the MTMs used in the first mode are used to operate graphical objects and features on a graphical user interface (GUI) in the MaM mode (para 0104 and para 0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Feather with the teachings of Dimaio to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by ensuring the device is more user friendly, ultimately allowing the surgical procedure to be performed more efficiently.
Regarding claim 12, Dimaio as modified teaches the method of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the parameter setting associated with the medical procedure includes a display parameter setting associated with the medical procedure.
However, Feather discloses wherein a control is displayed on the surgical display one the gaze of the operator/surgeon is detected (para 0051, lines1-3). Moreover, the control on the display may allow for the adjusting a display parameter and/or surgical parameter as well (para 0051 (emphasis on lines 1-8)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success by allowing the system and method to experience enhanced control of various components of the surgical system, ultimately enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 13, Dimaio as modified teaches the method of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the parameter setting associated with the medical procedure includes an instrument parameter setting associated with an instrument controlled by the first manipulator.
However, Feather discloses wherein the console and display used by the operator/surgeon is configured to provide the surgeon with a variety of operations and controls, such allowing him/her to adjust instrument parameters via the controls on the display (para 0040). Furthermore, the system (fig. 1) contains a manipulator assembly that is used to control the medical instrument (para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the system of Feather already discloses the used of adjustable parameters to increase the ease and efficiency of the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 16, Dimaio as modified teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising:
Receiving , by the processor, a command to exit or enter the first or second mode (para 0042, para 0051, and para 0063-0064);
directing, by the processor and based on the command, the computer-assisted medical system to exit the first or second mode (para 0064);
and directing, by the processor and upon exiting the hybrid input mode, the computer-assisted medical system to temporarily constrain movement of the manipulators (para 0064-0065).
However, Feather discloses wherein the robotic medical system utilizes a hybrid control method for the surgical robotic procedure (para 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Feather to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgeon to control different operation modes with minimal effort, ultimately improving the efficiency during the surgical procedure.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Dimaio and Feather, and further in view of US 2010/0286518 A1 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 6, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
the first manipulator/at least one of the patient side manipulators (PSM) is configured to manipulate an ultrasound probe/laparoscopic ultrasound instrument (para 0141), but does not disclose
wherein the parameter setting includes at least one of:
a gain of an ultrasound image from the ultrasound probe, a depth of the ultrasound image, or a modality of the ultrasound probe.
However, Lee discloses an ultrasound image and therapy system that utilizes an ultrasound probe to obtain ultrasound signals from a specific region of interest of a patient (abstract, lines 1-4). The system (fig. 1) adjustable therapy and ultrasound parameters include many different parameter values including focal region depth (para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Lee to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgeon/operator to visualize clear, high resolution images of the region of interest during the surgical procedure, increasing the effectively and accurately of the surgery while also preserving patient safety.
Regarding claim 14, Dimaio as modified teaches the method of claim 10, wherein:
/at least one of the patient side manipulators (PSM) is configured to manipulate an ultrasound probe/laparoscopic ultrasound instrument (para 0141), but does not disclose
Wherein the parameter setting includes at least one of:
a gain of an ultrasound image from the ultrasound probe, a depth of the ultrasound image, or a modality of the ultrasound probe.
However, Lee discloses an ultrasound image and therapy system that utilizes an ultrasound probe to obtain ultrasound signals from a specific region of interest of a patient (abstract, lines 1-4). The system (fig. 1) adjustable therapy and ultrasound parameters include many different parameter values including focal region depth (para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Lee to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgeon/operator to visualize clear, high resolution images of the region of interest during the surgical procedure, increasing the effectively and accurately of the surgery while also preserving patient safety.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Dimaio and Feather, and further in view of US 2020/0155252 A1 to Diolaiti et al. (hereinafter “Diolaiti”).
Regarding claim 7, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 1 containing a hybrid input mode/ hybrid control (para 0002), but does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to direct the computer-assisted medical system to provide a notification upon at least one of entering or exiting the hybrid input mode.
However, Diolaiti discloses a system and method for a safe operation that includes a control system, memory, and a processor (abstract, lines 1-5). The system (fig. 1 and fig. 2A) contains a lock mode that is enabled when the operator/surgeon loses contact during the insertion, retraction, and/or steering control of the elongated surgical device (para 0044). Furthermore, when the lock mode is entered, one or more alerts/notifications are sent to the display screen, delivered via a spoken message, or deliver through the use of tactile/physical feedback (para 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Diolaiti to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the operator/surgeon to know exactly when they are entering or exiting the hybrid control mode, decreasing the likelihood of inadvertently adjusting necessary surgical parameters during the surgical procedure, which will ultimately preserve patient safety.
Regarding claim 15, Dimaio as modified teaches the method of claim 10 containing a hybrid input mode/ hybrid control (para 0002), but does not disclose further comprising directing, by the processor, the computer-assisted medical system to provide a notification upon at least one of entering or exiting the hybrid input mode.
However, Diolaiti discloses a system and method for a safe operation that includes a control system, memory, and a processor (abstract, lines 1-5). The system (fig. 1 and fig. 2A) contains a lock mode that is enabled when the operator/surgeon loses contact during the insertion, retraction, and/or steering control of the elongated surgical device (para 0044). Furthermore, when the lock mode is entered, one or more alerts/notifications are sent to the display screen, delivered via a spoken message, or deliver through the use of tactile/physical feedback (para 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Diolaiti to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the operator/surgeon to know exactly when they are entering or exiting the hybrid control mode, decreasing the likelihood of inadvertently adjusting necessary surgical parameters during the surgical procedure, which will ultimately preserve patient safety.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Dimaio and Feather, and further in view of US 2018/0250829 A1 to Hashimoto et al. (hereinafter “Hashimoto”).
Regarding claim 9, Dimaio as modified teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the user input to the first control that manipulates the first manipulator in the hybrid input mode and the user input to the second control that adjusts the parameter setting in the hybrid input mode are received concurrently.
However, Hashimoto discloses a remote-control robotic arm device (abstract). The system (abstract and fig. 1) receives two input signals (hand gestures) from the user that is then processed by the controller to allow for one hand gesture/user input to control the operation parameter change instruction for the main body of the robot, while simultaneously allowing the other hand to control the master arm and slave arm of the robotic control system (para 0058 and para 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Hashimoto to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgeon to operate on the patient while simultaneously altering the parameter settings as necessary to improve the surgical scene, ultimately improving the efficiency and safety while performing the surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 17, Dimaio as modified teaches the method of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the user input to the first control that manipulates the first manipulator in the hybrid input mode and the user input to the second control that adjusts the parameter setting in the hybrid input mode are received concurrently.
However, Hashimoto discloses a remote-control robotic arm device (abstract). The system (abstract and fig. 1) receives two input signals (hand gestures) from the user that is then processed by the controller to allow for one hand gesture/user input to control the operation parameter change instruction for the main body of the robot, while simultaneously allowing the other hand to control the master arm and slave arm of the robotic control system (para 0058 and para 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Dimaio with the teachings of Hashimoto to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system by allowing the surgeon to operate on the patient while simultaneously altering the parameter settings as necessary to improve the surgical scene, ultimately improving the efficiency and safety while performing the surgical procedure.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Feather in view of Dimaio.
Regarding claim 18, Feather teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (para 0031), cause the processor to:
direct the computer-assisted medical system to operate in a hybrid input mode/hybrid control in which the user input/gaze input to the first control manipulates the first manipulator by activating an activation region of a display that allows for the operator to track a medical instrument (attached to a manipulator assembly as seen in fig. 1, reference numbers 102 and 104) and perform multiple functions, including a surgical task (abstract, fig. 3, para 0049-0050, and para 0051, lines 1-8), and
wherein the second user input provided through another input device controls and/or adjusts a parameter and/or setting associated with the medical procedure (abstract, fig. 3, and para 0052-0053), but does not disclose
directing a computer-assisted medical system, which includes a set of controls comprising a first control and a second control configured to receive user input, to operate in a manipulation input mode in which user input to the first control manipulates a first manipulator of the computer- assisted medical system, and user input to the second control manipulates a second manipulator of the computer-assisted medical system.
However, Dimaio teaches wherein the system (abstract, lines 1-2 and fig. 1) contains a memory storing instructions (para 0051, lines 7-11) and a processor (fig. 2-240, 236, 246, and para 0051) configured to direct a computer-assisted medical system, which includes a set of controls/master input tools or master input devices comprising a first control and a second control configured to receive user input (para 0041-0042), to operate in a manipulation input mode/first or following mode in which user input to the first control manipulates a first manipulator of the computer- assisted medical system (fig. 1: 107 and 121, para 0041-0042, and para 0103-0104), and
user input to the second control manipulates a second manipulator of the computer-assisted medical system (fig. 1: 108 and 122, para 0041-0042 and para 0103-0104), and a second control mode/ master as mice mode (MaM mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Feather with the teachings of Dimaio to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would have led to a reasonable expectation for success by allowing the surgeon to operate and/or perform a surgical task on a patient while also allowing for the adjusting settings associated with the surgical procedure, ultimately increase the efficiency of the medical procedure.
Regarding claim 19, Feather as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the user input that adjusts the parameter setting in the hybrid input mode comprises a same type of input as the user input to the second control that manipulates the second manipulator in the manipulation input mode.
However, Dimaio discloses wherein a system contains first and second input modes (a following/first mode and a Master-as-Mice Mode(MaM)) (abstract) that use two master tool manipulators/MTMs (para 0104), and wherein the two MTMs/master input devices (fig. 1, 107 and 108 and para 0041-0042) are the same type of input devices. Moreover, the MTMs used in the first mode are used to operate graphical objects and features on a graphical user interface (GUI) in the MaM mode (para 0104 and para 0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Feather with the teachings of Dimaio to arrive at the claimed invention, since such modification would improve the system, since utilizing two of the same input device would ensure the device is more user friendly, ultimately allowing the surgical procedure to be performed more efficiently.
Regarding claim 21, Feather teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the parameter setting associated with the medical procedure includes an instrument parameter setting associated with an instrument (para 0040), and wherein the system (fig. 1) contains a manipulator assembly that is used to control the medical instrument (para 0020).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peine (US 2017/0071681 A1) discloses systems and methods for a robotic surgical system that contains a control switch configured to alternate between a robotic control mode and a camera control mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMEL J WEBSTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, GARY JACKSON can be reached on 571-272-4697. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/GARY JACKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights