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 .
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed 01/14/2026 the following occurred: Claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended; and Claims 2-3 and 12-13 were canceled. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 are drawn to methods, a system, and a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1 recites obtaining a first sequence of measured values, the first sequence of values indicating measurements taken at a plurality of points in time during the medical procedure; assessing the clinical index based at least on a function of the first sequence of measured values, the function involving a deviation of each value of the first sequence of measured values from a target IOP value and including an integral, over a period of time at which the medical procedure was taking place, of a second function of an absolute value of the deviation; and providing to a user an indication of the clinical index.
Independent claim 10 recites obtaining a first sequence of values , the first sequence of values indicating an IOP measure at a first plurality of points in time during the phacoemulsification operation; obtaining a second sequence of values, each value from the second sequence of values indicating energy emitted at a second plurality of points in time during the phacoemulsification operation; obtaining a third sequence of values, each value from the third sequence of values indicating a flow of balanced salt solution (B) irrigated into an eye of the patient at a third plurality of points in time during the phacoemulsification operation; assessing the clinical index based on a following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
514
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and providing to a user of an indication of the clinical index.
Independent claim 11 recites to repeatedly: obtain a first sequence of measured values, the first sequence of values indicating intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements taken during the phacoemulsification operation; assess the clinical index based at least on a function of the sequence of measured values, the function involving a deviation from a threshold IOP value and including an integral, over a period of time at which the medical procedure was taking place, of a second function of an absolute value of the deviation; and provide to a user an indication of the clinical index to the patient.
Independent claim 20 recites obtain a first sequence of measured values, the first sequence of values indicating IOP measurements taken at a plurality of points in time during the medical procedure; assess the clinical index based at least on a function of the first sequence of measured values, the function involving a deviation of each value of the first sequence of measured values from a threshold IOP value and including an integral, over a period of time at which the medical procedure was taking place, of a function of an absolute value of the deviation; and provide to a user of an indication of the clinical index.
The respective dependent claims 4-9 and 14-19, but for the inclusion of the additional elements specifically addressed below, provide recitations further limiting the invention of the independent claim(s).
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process, as reflected in the specification, which states that having “determining and relaying information related to the performance of an ophthalmologic operation, and more specifically to a method and apparatus for providing a clinical index of an operation to evaluate the procedure, including the risk to the surgical site due to the operation” (see: specification page 1, lines 5-8). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover mental processes because they address a “significant challenge relat[ing] to maintaining the intraocular pressure (IOP) within an eye of the patient operated upon” (see: specification, page 1, lines 13-14), where this “need” is addressed by the invention “providing a clinical index that represents the effect of the IOP and possibly additional factors have on the patient's eye, in phacoemulsification and also in other operations” (see: specification page 1, lines 27-30). As reflected in the specification, the present claims further address how “the clinical index may be calculated” (see: specification page 6, lines 34-39). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, or mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover mathematical concepts because they recite the “function”(s) or “formula”(s) by which the clinical index may be calculated (see: specification page 6, lines 34-39). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including an “providing an ophthalmic surgical system and at least one sensor coupled with the ophthalmic surgical system for sensing an intraocular pressure (IOP) within an eye of the patient…by the at least one sensor…of the medical system…” (claim 1), “by an ultrasonic transducer…” (claim 7), “providing a phacoemulsification system and at least one sensor coupled with the phacoemulsification system, for sensing an IOP within an eye of the patient…from the at least one sensor…by an ultrasonic transducer…the phacoemulsification system…” (claim 10), “a pressure sensor; and a processor, configured to…by the at least one sensor…of the medical system…” (claim 11), “by an ultrasonic transducer…” (claim 16), “the processor is further configured to…by an ultrasonic transducer…the phacoemulsification system…” (claim 19), and a “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium retaining program instructions, which instructions when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform:…by the at least one sensor…the medical system…” (claim 20), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “ophthalmic surgical system” is configured through no more than a statement than “providing” said system; the “at least one sensor” is merely configured through no more than a statement than that it is “coupled” to said ophthalmic surgical system “for” sensing a parameter within the eye of a patient such that measurements are taken “by” said at least one sensor; the “ultrasonic transducer” is configured though no more than a statement than that measurements are obtained as produced “by” said ultrasonic transducer; the “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium” is configured though no more than a statement than that “retaining instructions” will “cause” a processor to perform function when read) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional elements of “a phacoemulsification probe for performing a phacoemulsification operation, the phacoemulsification probe having a needle at its distal end, the needle configured to be inserted into an eye of a patient” (claim 11), which are nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea(s) and amount to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The addition of an insignificant extra-solution activity limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, these claimed additional elements are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea(s) as outlined in the recitations above. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements and limitations directed toward extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea(s). The originally filed specification supports this conclusion:
Page 2, lines 29-36, where “Overview A cataract is often treated by a phacoemulsification operation, in which a needle of an ultrasonic handpiece is inserted into a patient's eye, wherein the needle can vibrate at ultrasonic frequency, to emulsify the cataract. During the operation, a pump aspirates particles and fluid from the eye through the tip. An irrigation system irrigates a balanced salt solution to compensate for the aspirated material and maintain the IOP. The aspiration and irrigation may be coordinated such that the IOP in the anterior chamber of the eye is maintained within a predetermined range and as stable as possible.”
Page 4, lines 14-20, and 31-36, where “Referring now to Fig. 1, showing an exemplary phacoemulsification apparatus 10, which includes a phacoemulsification probe 12 having at its distal end 112 a needle 16 which may comprise an optical fiber therein. Needle 16 is configured to be inserted by a physician 15 into the lens capsule of an eye 20 of a patient 19 to remove a cataract lens. While needle 16 is shown in inset 25 as a straight object, it is appreciated that any suitable needle may be used with phacoemulsification probe 12, for example, a curved or bent tip needle commercially available from Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA…Probe 12 may comprise ultrasound transducer 55, e.g., a piezoelectric ultrasound transducer, which is configured to vibrate horn 57 and needle 16 in one or more resonant vibration modes of the combined horn and needle element. During the phacoemulsification operation, upon the application of one or more drive signals to ultrasound transducer 55, the vibration of needle 16 is used to emulsify the cataract. Ultrasound transducer 55 and horn 57, or different combinations providing the same effect are collectively referred to as an ultrasound transducer.”
Page 6, lines 22-24, where “…The ophthalmic surgical system may comprise a probe, also referred to as a handpiece and a surgical console coupled with the handpiece…”
The claims recite the additional elements directed to pre-solution, as recited and indicated above, each of which amount to extra-solution activity. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not indicate that the additional element(s) provide anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are presently). Additionally, the courts have found performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input data to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the concepts of receiving or transmitting data over a network, such as using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory have been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea(s) with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 4-9 and 14-19, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 01/14/2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (1) the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “the claims are not "certain methods of organizing human activity" as that phrase is used in the USPTO's guidance (e.g., fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships). The claims do not recite financial transactions, contracts, advertising, legal compliance, scheduling or allocating work, social networking, or any other rules for how people interact or conduct their affairs. The "activity" at issue is the operation of a phacoemulsification system and the delivery of fluid and ultrasonic energy into the eye by machines, together with the system's technical assessment of the resulting physical impact on ocular tissues. The fact that a surgeon or user is ultimately presented with the clinical index value does not convert the claims into a method of organizing human behavior any more than displaying blood-pressure values makes a patient monitor a method of organizing human activity. The claims specify what the ophthalmic surgical system, its sensors, and its computing platform do and not how humans should behave, negotiate, or manage their affairs, and therefore do not fall within the "methods of organizing human activity" abstract-idea grouping. The claims likewise are not directed to "mental processes." Under the USPTO 2019 and 2024 guidance, mental processes are "concepts pe1formed in the human mind." such as observation, evaluation, or judgment. Here, the recited steps cannot, as a practical matter, be performed in the human mind. The pending claims require that at least one sensor be coupled with the ophthalmic/phacoernulsification system to sense intra-ocular parameters (e.g., IOP) and that the system obtain sequences of values from that sensor (and in claim 10, from the ultrasonic transducer and irrigation-fluid system) "at a plurality of points in time during the medical procedure." Claim 10 then requires assessing the clinical index using integrals over the procedure time of the deviation of IOP from a target, the ultrasonic energy, and the balanced-salt-solution flow, with predetermined numerical weights. In a phacoemulsification operation, these time-series signals are sampled at high frequency and integrated over the entire course of the procedure. Computing the claimed clinical index in real time (or near real time) from the sensor data is a task carried out by the system's processor and clinical-index calculation module. It is not something a surgeon could practically perform mentally while simultaneously conducting surgery, nor is it realistically perfonnable with pen-and-paper for every procedure. The human mind is simply not equipped to perform these high-frequency numerical integrations over multiple physiological signals during an ongoing operation. The fact that the final index is displayed to the user does not render the underlying, machine-implemented acquisition and computation steps "mental processes." Accordingly, the claims do not fit within the "mental process" abstract-idea categ01y. Finally, although claim 10 recites mathematical expressions. the claims are not "directed to" a mathematical concept. The 2019 PEG describes mathematical concepts as mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations claimed in the abstract. Here, the mathematics is not claimed in isolation. It is tightly tied to, and only meaningful in, the specific technological context of an ophthalmic surgical system measuring (i) intraocular pressure over time, (ii) ultrasonic energy emitted by the handpiece, and (iii) irrigating-fluid flow. The recited formulas define how these particular, physically measured signals are combined ( over the duration of a surgical procedure) to yield a single clinical index value that reflects the cumulative physical burden on the eye. The formulas are used only as part of a concrete process that applies them to specific sensor outputs from specific surgical hardware, to solve a particular technical problem (quantifying cumulative surgical stress). This is an application of mathematics to real-world sensor data in a specialized medical device, not a claim to the mathematical concepts themselves. Thus, the claims are not "directed to" a mathematical concept in the sense contemplated by Step 2A, Prong One. When the claims are read as a whole and in light of the Specification, they are directed to a specific improvement in ophthalmic surgical technology-using concrete surgical hardware and measured intra-ocular and system parameters to generate and present a novel clinical index for assessing cumulative risk during a phacoemulsification or other ophthalmic procedure-and not to any of the abstract-idea groupings (methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, or mathematical concepts) identified in the USPTO's 2019 eligibility guidance… First, the claims recite a specific improvement to a particular technology/technical field, namely ophthalmic surgical systems used in phacoemulsification and other eye surgeries. The claims do not merely perform generic "data analysis" on abstract numbers. Instead, the claims require: (i) an ophthalmic surgical or phacoemulsification system; (ii) at least one sensor coupled with the system and configured to sense intra-ocular parameters (e.g., IOP) within the patient's eye; (iii) acquiring sequences of values from that sensor (and, in claim 10, from the ultrasonic transducer and irrigating-fluid system) at multiple time points during the surgical procedure; (iv) computing a clinical index that accumulates the physical effects of IOP deviation, ultrasonic energy, and irrigating-fluid flow over the course of the operation; and (v) providing an indication of that clinical index to the user of the surgical system. This combination of elements yields a new, technical metric, namely the clinical index, that objectively quantifies cumulative surgical stress on the eye and thereby improves the ability of surgeons and device manufacturers to assess and optimize phacoemulsification procedures. That is precisely the type of "improvement to another technology or technical field" that MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l) identifies as demonstrating integration of an exception into a practical application. Second, the claims apply any alleged abstract idea in the context of a particular machine integral to the performance of the method and in connection with specific medical treatment. The ophthalmic surgical/phacoemulsification system, with its sensor, ultrasonic handpiece, irrigation system, and associated computing platform, is not an incidental or post-solution add-on. The judicial exception (to the extent any is present) is used within this specific machine context in that the sensor outputs from the eye and surgical hardware are the required inputs to the clinical-index computation, and the resulting index is presented through the system's display or user interface. The method cannot be meaningfully performed without the recited surgical system and its sensors and is not a claim to doing math on generic data in the abstract. The MPEP recognizes that such use of a judicial exception "with a particular machine" in a way that is integral to the claimed process, rather than being nominal or extra-solution, is an example of integrating an exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(b)… Third, the claimed methods are tied to treatment of a specific medical condition, namely cataract and other ophthalmic conditions requiring phacoemulsification or similar intra-ocular surgery. The clinical index is not an academic score calculated for its own sake, but is designed to be accumulated during the procedure and used to evaluate the risk and quality of the operation, which in tum informs intra-operative decisions and post-operative assessment of patient outcomes. In other words, the purported abstract idea (e.g., mathematical relationships or data analysis) is being applied and used to effect and guide a particular course of medical treatment, namely how energy and fluid are delivered during cataract surgery and how the procedure is optimized to reduce ocular damage. Under the October 2019 PEG and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2), applying a judicial exception "to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition" is expressly identified as integrating the exception into a practical application… The ophthalmic surgical system and sensors define the environment in which the clinical index is generated and dictate the nature of the data being integrated. Similarly, the step of "providing to a user of the [ ophthalmic/phacoemulsification] system an indication of the clinical index" is not a generic "postsolution" display of a calculation; it is how the improved metric is delivered to the surgeon in a form usable for guiding and evaluating the ongoing treatment. These elements, taken together, impose a meaningful limitation on any alleged abstract idea and anchor it in the real-world context of a particular surgical machine performing a particular clinical procedure on a particular type of organ (the eye)… a particular computation that integrates those time-varying signals into a single "clinical index" that quantifies cumulative surgical stress or risk to the eye. That clinical index is then provided to the user of the surgical system. This is not the mere application of math on generic data, but rather a specific way of instrumenting a phacoemulsification system, collecting particular physiological and system-level signals, and processing them into a new, technically meaningful metric that changes how the surgical console operates and how the procedure is evaluated…Conventional phacoemulsification systems do not provide a cumulative index that objectively captures the combined effect of IOP deviations, ultrasonic energy delivery, and irrigating-fluid flow over the entire operation. The claims change a surgical system from one that merely maintains setpoints and shows instantaneous values into one that generates and exposes a new technical measure of cumulative surgical impact, enabling more informed intra-operative and post-operative decisions.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The core concept of the claimed invention is to “assessing the clinical index based at least on a function of the first sequence of measured values” – this is literally an assessment by “a function”, which is abstract, and as argued, produces an equally abstract result of a “clinical index value”. But of course it is not the only limitation claimed and what is claimed must be viewed with the context of the presented specification; however, it is the specification itself which states that the invention is to “determining and relaying information related to the performance of an ophthalmologic operation, and more specifically to a method and apparatus for providing a clinical index of an operation to evaluate the procedure, including the risk to the surgical site due to the operation” (see: specification page 1, lines 5-8). Hence, the specification supports the interpretation made in the rejection and the arguments presented here as to what the core concept of the invention is. As per the reasoning as to why such may be considered a mental process, this is also determined in view of the specification and is because the claims address a “significant challenge relat[ing] to maintaining the intraocular pressure (IOP) within an eye of the patient operated upon” (see: specification, page 1, lines 13-14), where this “need” is addressed by the invention “providing a clinical index that represents the effect of the IOP and possibly additional factors have on the patient's eye, in phacoemulsification and also in other operations” (see: specification page 1, lines 27-30). What is needed and what is provided by the claims is a clinical index produced by an algorithm. In as much as the claims are also directed to the claimed “function” itself, the specification states how “the clinical index may be calculated” (see: specification page 6, lines 34-39). In this way, the present claims may cover mathematical concepts because they, at least broadly, claim the “function”(s) or “formula”(s) by which the clinical index is calculated (see: specification page 6, lines 34-39).
The arguments correctly point out that the claims include more than these recited abstract ideas. The claims reciting abstract idea does not automatically render the claims as a whole abstract, but instead merely indicates further analysis must take place. It is further because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea that render the claims nonstatutory. In this case, the inclusion of the additional elements does not meaningfully transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Is argued that the “a phacoemulsification system with a sensor for sensing an IOP, obtaining sequences of IOP, ultrasonic transducer energy, and balanced-salt-solution flow during the operation”, that the assessment based on these signals is “not something a surgeon could practically perform mentally while simultaneously conducting surgery, nor is it realistically performable with pen-and-paper for every procedure”, and that “the mathematics is not claimed in isolation” with regard to the function and is “tightly tied to, and only meaningful in, the specific technological context of an ophthalmic surgical system”. However, the claimed result is “providing to a user of the medical system an indication of the clinical index” – there is no practical application or inventive concept in the providing of a clinical index. What is provided is abstract in the form of data – see specification Fig. 2A-2B. The core concept of the claims is not to a phacoemulsification system or a sensor, for example, and is instead to an abstract process for producing a clinical index. The additional elements which make performing the assessment convenient are present in the claims, but they are claimed at a high level. The additional element of the “ophthalmic surgical system” is configured through no more than a statement than “providing” said system. The “at least one sensor” is merely configured through no more than a statement than that it is “coupled” to said ophthalmic surgical system “for” sensing a parameter within the eye of a patient such that measurements are taken “by” said at least one sensor. The “ultrasonic transducer” is configured though no more than a statement than that measurements are obtained as produced “by” said ultrasonic transducer. These additional elements are claimed at a high level such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. In as much as the argued additional elements are presently claimed to be utilized most fully in the invention, they are claimed to perform mere data gathering for the supply of said data to the algorithm and function for producing the clinical index. The MPEP 2106.05(g) states that the courts have found mere data gathering to be insignificant extra-solution activity, where for example, performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), which applies to the most complete claiming presented in claim 11.
It is argued that the claimed invention “is used within this specific machine context in that the sensor outputs from the eye and surgical hardware are the required inputs to the clinical-index computation, and the resulting index is presented through the system's display or user interface”, but this is exactly the issue – the machine and sensors are merely employed to collect the outputted data for us in determination of a clinical-index computation that is “presented though the system’s display or user interface” (note the display and user interface are not actually claimed). There is no practical application within the broadly claimed presentation.
It is argued that the claimed invention “is designed to be accumulated during the procedure and used to evaluate the risk and quality of the operation, which in tum informs intra-operative decisions and post-operative assessment of patient outcomes”, but this is intended use that lies outside the scope of invention and is not necessarily acted upon by user, and operation procedures based on the argued decisions are certainly not actively claimed as being performed as part of the invention.
It is argued that “ophthalmic surgical system and sensors define the environment in which the clinical index is generated and dictate the nature of the data being integrated…is not a generic "postsolution" display of a calculation”, but such, as already has been addressed above, is not considered by the courts to be adequate as shown, for example, by displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning), and collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial). The argued “display” (something that is not actually claimed) is indeed, at best, post-solution activity.
It is argued that the claims provide an inventive concept under Step 2B by providing a “metric that changes how the surgical console operates and how the procedure is evaluated…change a surgical system from one that merely maintains setpoints and shows instantaneous values into one that generates and exposes a new technical measure of cumulative surgical impact, enabling more informed intra-operative and post-operative decisions”, but this is not the case – the surgical system does not behave differently based on the results of the clinical index, which is merely provided, and while it may enable more informed decisions, such is not claimed or performed within the context of the claim – it is outside the scope of invention.
These arguments do, however, show a way forward. Can the provided index be integrated in any way that changes how the system operates, such as by altering the argued pressures/outflows, sensor sampling rates, ultrasonic energies applied, irrigation-fluid flow rates?
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (2) the 35 U.S.C. 112/102/103 rejections should be withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments. The closest prior art of record, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0353145 to Kamthan and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0313293 to Singh, neither alone nor in combination teach the claims as amended to incorporate the limitations of claims 7 and 14, as they do not teach said limitations in combination with the other claimed limitations; therefore, the closest prior art of record does not anticipate or otherwise render the claimed invention obvious. Rejection of the claimed combination of limitations would require an unreasonable combination of the available prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682