DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
The amendment submitted on December 28th, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are cancelled. Claims 26-40 are currently pending and under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a three-dimensional model from the scan" in line 3. It is unclear whether this claim limitation is referring to the three-dimensional model of a wound introduced in the preamble of the claim or a different three-dimensional model, such as the three-dimensional model of bespoke wound treatment apparatus. Based on the applicant’s specification and further claim limitation of the three-dimensional model comprising a repeating building block, the examiner is interpreting the three-dimensional model generated from the scan to be a three-dimensional model of a wound filler and not of the wound itself as there appears to be no support in the specification or previous applications as to the three-dimensional model of the wound itself comprising repeating building blocks (see applicant’s specification ¶0006 three-dimension model of wound filler generated using a repeating building block, ¶0011 wound filler comprises repeating building blocks, ¶0078 wound filler consisting of a repeating building block, ¶0079 wound filler to be constructed from repeating building blocks).
Claims 27-40 are herein rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 26-30, 33, 35-37, and 39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinyagin (U.S. Publication 2004/0015115) in view of Wu (U.S. Publication 2012/0224755).
Regarding claim 26, Sinyagin discloses a method of creating a three-dimensional model of a wound (Fig. 6A as implemented by Fig. 5 system), comprising:
scanning a tissue location to generate a scan (¶0033 device 52 used to produce a digital image of the entire body part on which the wound is located); generating a three-dimensional model (¶0034 wound dressing map, ¶0038 user assesses wound shape and chooses a closest shape from a library of predetermined shapes stored within processor…user defines characteristic dimensions of the chosen shape in accordance with the real dimensions of the wound or wound areas…shapes are combined together with coordinated overlapping of these shapes to define shape of the entire wound area; this discloses the wound map as three dimensional as the user defines dimensions in accordance with the real dimensions that are obtained by the wound characteristic map which is 3D ¶0022 three-dimensional map of characteristic of wound area) from the scan (¶0038 based on desired dressing properties map which is based on wound characteristics map generated by scan ¶0035-0037), the three-dimensional model comprising a building block (¶0038 shape from library) and accounting for attributes of the tissue location and treatment modality (¶0037 user chooses desired properties of the dressing for zones of the wound characteristic map, ¶0038 based on the desired dressing properties map, the user creates a map of dressing properties, the dressing properties may be physical, chemical, geometrical, pharmacological, biological, optical, electrical, number of layers, porosity of a layer, thickness).
Sinyagin does not expressly disclose the building blocks of the three-dimensional model being repeating building blocks.
However, in the same field of endeavor of medical device 3-D modelling for the purpose of 3-D printing, Wu teaches generating a three-dimensional model (¶0039 geometric representation of object, Fig. 7) that incorporates repeating building blocks (Fig. 7 501-506 ¶0039 3D points) that each carry locational and material information to define the 3D point for the purpose of providing a 3D printer with the required geometric representation of an object in order to fabricate the object ¶0039.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the three-dimensional model of Sinyagin to have been comprised of repeating building blocks as taught by Wu for the purpose of providing a representation of structural defining parameters of three dimensional points of the three-dimensional model such that structural and material parameters of the 3D points of the model could be communicated to the 3D printer in order to fabricate the device to the specified parameters (¶0039 3D printers require a geometric representation of an object in order to fabricate the geometric shapes required in making a 3D physical model).
Furthermore, Sinyagin already specifies the use of preprogrammed shapes to build the model of the wound dressing showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the repeating building block format disclosed by Wu to build the structure of the wound dressing disclosed by Sinyagin.
Regarding claim 27, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 26. Sinyagin further discloses fabricating a corresponding bespoke tissue treatment apparatus for placement in or around the tissue location (¶0042 fabrication system uses the dressing parameter map for fabrication of the wound dressing; Abstract applied to wound).
Regarding claim 28, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 26. Sinyagin further discloses the three-dimensional model accounting for one or more tissue types present in the tissue location (¶0018 accounts for granulating area 12 and epithelizing area 14).
Regarding claim 29, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 26. Sinyagin further generating the three-dimensional model comprises determining a suitable porosity for the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus (¶0020 defining properties a wound dressing based on the wound characteristics, ¶0025 the defined wound dressing properties or characteristics may include porosity of a layer).
Regarding claim 30, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 29. Sinyagin further the three-dimensional model comprises variable porosity (¶0018 each region customized to address one or more wound healing needs, ¶0019 having differing material properties, ¶0020 define properties of a wound dressing based on wound characteristics, ¶0025 defined wound dressing properties include porosity of a layer).
Regarding claim 33, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 27. Sinyagin in view of Wu further suggest the three-dimensional model comprising a plurality of repeating building blocks having different characteristics for positioning in different parts of the tissue location as Sinyagin discloses the three-dimensional model having defined wound dressing properties at any given point or location of the dressing that define the desired dressing properties map(¶0037) and Wu teaches providing the locational and material information at each of the repeating building blocks as described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 35, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 27. Sinyagin further discloses the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus being fabricated with a dressing fabricator 56 that is interpreted as being a three-dimensional printer as a 3D printer can be defined as a computer-controlled device that is capable of fabricating three-dimensional objects, as by extruding layers of material from a robotically controlled syringe/cartridge (see American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition).
In the present case, the fabricator 56 is disclosed as being controlled by the computer (¶0032 computer based system 50 fabricates, computer or processor 54, ¶0035 sends the specification to a fabrication device (block 82), fabrication device has its own computer76 ¶0058), fabricating in three-dimensions (¶0063 third dimension) and extruding layers of material from cartridge 70 ¶0054. As such the fabricator is interpreted to define a “three-dimensional printer”.
Regarding claim 36, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 27. Sinyagin further discloses fabricating the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus comprising fabricating a first portion (either first region 26 or second region 28) of the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus using a first porosity (¶0018 each region customized to address one or more wound healing needs, ¶0019 having differing material properties, ¶0020 define properties of a wound dressing based on wound characteristics, ¶0025 defined wound dressing properties include porosity of a layer) and fabricating a second region (other of first region 26 or second region 28) of the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus using a second porosity (¶0019 having differing material properties ¶0025 defined wound dressing properties include porosity of a layer), Sinyagin does not expressly disclose the first porosity being less than the second porosity. However, the disclosure of Sinyagin that each layer can have differing material properties ¶0019 and the defined properties including porosity of a layer ¶0025 would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the first and second regions have different porosity characteristics based on the wound characteristics as disclosed by Sinyagin and as such if these regions porosities were different one region would necessarily be less than the other.
Regarding claim 37, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 27. Sinyagin further the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus is fabricated from a porous scaffolding material (¶0025 porosity of layer determined necessarily making layer a porous scaffolding material).
Regarding claim 39, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 27. Sinyagin further the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus is fabricated from two or more different materials (¶0019 having differing material properties).
Claim 31-32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinyagin (U.S. Publication 2004/0015115) in view of Wu (U.S. Publication 2012/0224755) in view of Berkland et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0123509) herein referred to as Berkland.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 26. Sinyagin discloses accounting for attributes of the tissue location but does not necessarily disclose accounting for attributes of a tissue location that comprises a ligament or bone.
However, Berkland, in the same field of endeavor of wound treatment teaches that materials placed in contact with tissues that transition between multiple types such as between bone to tendon, tendon to muscle, and skin layers, should be accounted for in order to facilitating proper shaping of an insert for the wound such as a bandage (¶0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attribute accounting step to have accounted for tissue locations such as bone and ligaments as taught by Berkland for the purpose of facilitating proper shaping of the dressing to account for the transition between these tissue types (¶0066 of Berkland).
Furthermore, Sinyagin already discloses accounting for tissue type differences (¶0018 first and second area of the wound, granulating vs. epithelizing) and as such it would have been obvious to have provided accounting for other tissue types such as bone and ligaments as taught by Berkland as these tissue types would present differing healing needs than granulating or epithelizing areas and Sinyagin discloses the accounting occurring for the purpose of customization to address one or more wound healing needs (¶0018 of Sinyagin).
Claim 34 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinyagin (U.S. Publication 2004/0015115) in view of Wu (U.S. Publication 2012/0224755) in view of Massen (U.S. Patent No. 5,911,126).
Regarding claim 34, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 26. Sinyagin further the scan is obtained using a three-dimensional scanner, but fails to specify the type of scanner utilized.
However, Massen, in the same field of endeavor of scanning bodies (TITLE), teaches that laser scanners are known to be capable of sensing the shape of body parts or limbs three-dimensionally.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the three-dimensional scanner of Sinyagin that performs the function of three-dimensionally scanning a body part for the three-dimensional laser scanner of Massen since these elements perform the same function of three-dimensionally scanning a body part. Simply substituting one three-dimensional scanning means for another would yield the predictable result of allowing a(n) body to be three-dimensionally scanned. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinyagin (U.S. Publication 2004/0015115) in view of Wu (U.S. Publication 2012/0224755) in view of Zamierowski (U.S. Publication 2016/0346444).
Regarding claim 38, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 27. Sinyagin discloses providing pharmacological or healing enhancing additives to the wound dressing (¶0025 pharmacological or healing enhancing additives), but does not expressly disclose seeding the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus with one or more of cells or cell growth promoters.
However, Zamierowski, in the same field of endeavor of wound treatment (¶0035 wound treatment system), teaches seeding a wound treatment system with cells and other cell growth promoters for the purpose of aiding in wound healing through aiding in cell and tissue growth (¶0074 may be used in wound healing, aid in cell or tissue growth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the additive disclosed by Sinyagin to have been the cells or other cell growth promoters as taught by Zamierowski, as Zamierowski teaches that the addition of cells and other cell growth promoters aids in wound healing through aiding in cell and tissue growth (¶0074 may be used in wound healing, aid in cell or tissue growth).
Claim 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinyagin (U.S. Publication 2004/0015115) in view of Wu (U.S. Publication 2012/0224755) in view of Ambrosio (U.S. Publication 2009/0198167).
Regarding claim 40, Sinyagin in view of Wu suggest the method of claim 36. While Sinyagin discloses the ability to have differing porosities (¶0019 differing material properties, ¶0025 defined wound dressing properties or characteristics may include porosity of a layer), Sinyagin does not expressly disclose or suggest the first porosity comprising pores measuring between about 20 to 150 µm or the second porosity comprising pores measuring between about 400-3000 µm.
However, Ambrosio, in the same field of endeavor of wound dressings, teaches providing layers of a wound dressing with pore sizes from about 50 microns to about 600 microns ¶0039, and adjusting the porosity of differing layers based on the amount of in-growth of tissue into the layer one wishes to allow (¶0036 porosity of one layer of material may be different than an adjacent layer of material to minimize in-growth of tissue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the porosity of the layers of Sinyagin to have been from about 50 microns to about 600 microns and of different porosities as taught by Ambrosio for the purpose of providing different levels of tissue in-growth susceptibility (¶0036).
While Sinyagin in view of Ambrosio do not expressly suggest the first pores measuring between about 20 to 150 µm and the second pores measuring between about 400-3000 µm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second porosity pores to be between 20 to 150 µm and 400 to 3000 µm respectively as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (¶0061 smaller pores may measure between about 20 to 150 µm while larger pores may measure between 400-3000 µm) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Sinyagin would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the porosity has been determined to be variable based on the corresponding wound characteristics. Further, applicant places no criticality on the ranged claimed, indicating simply that smaller pores may measure between about 20 to 150 µm while larger pores may measure between 400-3000 µm.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 26-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application simply put forward a more generic version of the claims of U.S. Patent NO. 11,045,358. Being that the current claims are more generic, the species claimed by U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358 would fall within the scope of the presently presented generic claims. See MPEP 806.04(i). See below table mapping claim limitations of current application to those of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358.
Claims 35-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358 in view of Sinyagin (U.S. Publication 2004/0015115). The current applications claim limitations differ from those of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358 in that they are dependent upon the limitation of claim 27 of “for placement in or around the tissue site” which is not required by the claim limitations of U.S. Patent NO. 11,045,358. However, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Sinyagin (U.S. Publication 2004/0015115) as Sinyagin teaches the fabrication of a bespoke tissue treatment device that is to be placed in or around a tissue site (Fig. 2) for the purpose of treating the tissue site through contact of the tissue with the device (Abstract dressing has dressing characteristic responsive to the treatment need and applied to wound). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the manufactured tissue treatment apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358 in contact with the tissue to be treated and thus in or around the tissue site as current claimed for the purpose of allowing the device to treat the intended tissue site. As such these claims are not patentably distinct from those of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358. See below table mapping claim limitations of current application to those of U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358.
Claim of Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,045,358 claim falling within scope of claim
26. A method of creating a three-dimensional model of a wound (creating covered by obtaining three-dimensional model of area to be treated), comprising: scanning a tissue location to generate a scan (scanning a tissue location to obtain three dimension model would inherently require generating a scan); generating a three-dimensional model from the scan (three-dimensional model of bespoke tissue treatment apparatus generated from three-dimensional model of the area which is generated from scan), the three-dimensional model comprising a repeating building block and accounting for attributes of the tissue location and treatment modality (accounts for attributes of the tissue location and for a treatment modality).
1. A method of manufacturing a bespoke tissue treatment apparatus for use in treating a damaged region of tissue, the method comprising: scanning a tissue location to obtain a three-dimensional model of an area to be treated; modifying the three-dimensional model of the area to be treated to generate a three-dimensional model of a bespoke tissue treatment apparatus using a repeating building block, wherein said modifying accounts for attributes of the tissue location and for a treatment modality;
27. The method of claim 26, further comprising fabricating a corresponding bespoke tissue treatment apparatus (Claim 1) for placement in (Claim 5 positioning in different parts of the area to be treated) or around the tissue location.
1. and fabricating a bespoke tissue treatment apparatus base on the generated three-dimensional model of a bespoke tissue treatment apparatus
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional model of a bespoke tissue treatment apparatus comprises repeating building blocks having different characteristics for positioning in different parts of the area to be treated.
28. The method of claim 26, wherein the three-dimensional model accounts for one or more tissue types present in the tissue location (tissue location equivalent to area to be treated).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the three-dimensional model of an area to be treated accounts for one or more tissue types present in the area to be treated.
29. The method of claim 26, wherein generating the three-dimensional model (generation of the three-dimensional model equivalent to modifying step of claim 1) comprises determining a suitable porosity for the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the three-dimensional model of an area to be treated comprises determining a suitable porosity for the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus.
30. The method of claim 29, wherein the three-dimensional model comprises variable porosity.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional model of the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus has variable porosity
31. The method of claim 26, wherein the tissue location comprises a ligament.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the area to be treated comprises a ligament.
32. The method of claim 26, wherein the tissue location comprises a bone.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the area to be treated comprises bone.
33. The method of claim 27, wherein the three-dimensional model comprises a plurality of repeating building blocks having different characteristics for positioning in different parts of the tissue location.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional model of a bespoke tissue treatment apparatus comprises repeating building blocks having different characteristics for positioning in different parts of the area to be treated.
34. The method of claim 26, wherein the scan is obtained using a device selected from the group consisting of laser scanners, stereo-optical scanners, and cameras with depth sensors.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional model of an area to be treated is obtained using a device selected from the group consisting of laser scanners, stereo-optical scanners, and cameras with depth sensors
35. The method of Claim 27, wherein the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus is fabricated with a three-dimensional printer.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus is fabricated with a three-dimensional printer.
36. The method of Claim 27, wherein fabricating the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus comprises fabricating a first portion of the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus using a first porosity, and fabricating a second portion of the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus using a second porosity, the first porosity being less than the second porosity.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein fabricating the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus comprises fabricating a first portion of the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus using a first porosity, and fabricating a second portion of the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus using a second porosity, the first porosity being smaller than the second porosity.
37. The method of Claim 27, wherein the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus is fabricated from a porous scaffolding material.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the bespoke treatment apparatus is fabricated from a porous scaffolding material.
38. The method of Claim 27, further comprising seeding the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus with one or more of cells or cell growth promoters.
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising seeding the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus with one or more of cells or cell growth promoters.
39. The method of Claim 27, wherein the bespoke tissue treatment apparatus is fabricated from two or more different materials.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the bespoke treatment apparatus is fabricated from two or more different materials.
40. The method of Claim 36 (claim 36 covered by claim 10 above), wherein the first porosity comprises pores measuring between about 20 to 150 µm and the second porosity comprises pores measuring between about 400-3000 µm.
15. The method of claim 10, wherein the first porosity comprises pores measuring between about 20 to 150 µm and the second porosity comprises pores measuring between about 400-3000 µm
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (U.S. Publication 2006/0276925) discloses providing building blocks containing specific information pertaining to parameters of the area (Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER DANIEL SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8564. 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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/PETER DANIEL SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781