DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 07/02/2026.
Claims 1, 10, 15 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1).
Claim 1:
Kippenhan discloses A surgical system, comprising:
a manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package containing a surgical instrument (See sterilization indicators and labels manufactured for surgical instruments in P0003, P0009, P0022, P0145 and P0149.);
a sterility indicator disposed on the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package, the sterility indicator comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the sterility indicator is readable based on the first portion and the second portion being readable, wherein the first portion comprises a non-radiation- sensitive ink and the second portion comprising a radiation-sensitive ink, and wherein the second portion is configured to be readable based on the radiation-sensitive ink being exposed to radiation (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, P0061-P0062 where the variety of sterilization processes are non-radiation and ink color change after sterilization mentioned in P0078, P0085, P0087. See Fig. 17, P0119-P0122 where radiation is an energy source reflected form the sterilization indicator and Fig. 32-33 a sterilization indicator before and after a sterilization cycle mentioned in P0064-P0066.);
at least one data processor disposed in the surgical package (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 18 personal computer mentioned in P0147-P0149.); and
memory disposed in the surgical package and storing instructions configured to, prior to breach of the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package, cause the at least one data processor to perform operations (Taught in P0137-P0138 as previously loaded sterilization indicator data stored in non-volatile memory. Also, see Scan Chemical Indicator Bar Code Prior to Placement in Pack 74 (P0129, P0160) shown in Fig. 25.) comprising:
receive, from a remote server, data characterizing a geo-political location of at least one of the surgical package and the surgical instrument (See exemplary geo-political standards and state laws (P0005-P0006), U.S. sterilization assurance practices (P0011-P0012) for comparison, where the steam vacuum is indicated for a Bowie-Dick pack at exemplary graphical interface screen as a server shown in Fig. 24, P0159. Also, see remote locations P0022, P0149.),
transmit a control signal, based on, at least one of the surgical package or the surgical instrument to alter one or more aspects of the surgical package or the surgical instrument (See Fig. 4, P0148-P0149 electronic communication for monitoring and tracking. Also, see communicated aspects of the surgical package in Fig. 21, Fig. 24, [P0159] some test packs for ethylene oxide sterilizers require an aeration period prior to disposal. The system according to the present invention may be designed to communicate proper disposal procedures to the user and [P0167] FIG. 26 is an example of a computer screen that issues a warning and provides further instructions to a user. This may be presented to a user if an attempt is made to send an article from a failed sterilization cycle to the operating room for use in a surgical procedure.).
Although Kippenhan discloses the surgical system including a sterile packaged surgical instrument is characterized and compliant within a geo political location as mentioned above, Kippenhan does not explicitly teach activating a killswitch when a surgical instrument has crossed a geo-fenced area. Dave teaches:
a geo-fence associated with a geo-political locations,
determine, based on the or the received data, whether at least one of the surgical packages and the surgical instrument has crossed into the geo-fence (See P0005, P0007, P0022 location sensor and exemplary medical device as infusion pump automatically switched in responsive to the changed location, P0037 the remote data server (RDS) of the subject technology used to track the location and status of all networked medical devices.).
transmit a control signal, based on the determination that at least one of the surgical package and the surgical instrument has crossed into the geo-fence, to at least one of the surgical package or the surgical instrument to alter one or more aspects of the surgical package or the surgical instrument, wherein the altered one or more aspects comprise at least an activation of a killswitch disposed in the surgical package, wherein the killswitch, when activated, breaks a circuit that transports power from a battery to the surgical instrument (See Fig. 3, P0059-P0062, receiving input signals in P0078-P0080 disabling physical button until the pump returns to a designated location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of geofencing medical devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Kippenhan to include activating a killswitch when a surgical instrument has crossed a geo-fenced area as taught by Dave to avoid healthcare providers from inappropriately using medical devices outside of a unauthorized, clinical setting mentioned in Dave’s P0003.
Claim 10:
Kippenhan discloses A method, comprising:
receiving, by a surgical system and from a remote server, data characterizing a geo-political location of the surgical system, the surgical system including a manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package, a surgical instrument contained within the manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package (See exemplary geo-political standards and state laws (P0005-P0006), U.S. sterilization assurance practices (P0011-P0012) for comparison, where the steam vacuum is indicated for a Bowie-Dick pack at exemplary graphical interface screen as a server shown in Fig. 24, P0159. Also, see remote locations P0022, P0149.), and a sterility indicator disposed on the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package, the sterility indicator comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the sterility indicator is readable based on the first portion and the second portion being readable, wherein the first portion comprises anon-radiation-sensitive ink and the second portion comprising a radiation-sensitive ink, and wherein the second portion is configured to be readable based on the radiation-sensitive ink being exposed to radiation (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, P0061-P0062 where the variety of sterilization processes are non-radiation and ink color change after sterilization mentioned in P0078, P0085, P0087. See Fig. 17, P0119-P0122 where radiation is an energy source reflected form the sterilization indicator and Fig. 32-33 a sterilization indicator before and after a sterilization cycle mentioned in P0064-P0066.);and
transmitting a control signal, based on at least one of the surgical package or the surgical instrument to alter one or more aspects of the surgical package or the surgical instrument (See Fig. 4, P0148-P0149 electronic communication for monitoring and tracking. Also, see communicated aspects of the surgical package in Fig. 21, Fig. 24, [P0159] some test packs for ethylene oxide sterilizers require an aeration period prior to disposal. The system according to the present invention may be designed to communicate proper disposal procedures to the user and [P0167] FIG. 26 is an example of a computer screen that issues a warning and provides further instructions to a user. This may be presented to a user if an attempt is made to send an article from a failed sterilization cycle to the operating room for use in a surgical procedure.).
Although Kippenhan discloses the surgical system including a sterile packaged surgical instrument is characterized and compliant within a geo political location as mentioned above, Kippenhan does not explicitly teach activating a killswitch when a surgical instrument has crossed a geo-fenced area. Dave teaches:
a geo-fence associated with a geo-political locations,
determining, based on the received data, whether at least one of the surgical packages and the surgical instrument has crossed into the geo-fence (See P0005, P0007, P0022 location sensor and exemplary medical device as infusion pump automatically switched in responsive to the changed location, P0037 the remote data server (RDS) of the subject technology used to track the location and status of all networked medical devices.).
transmitting a control signal, based on the determination that at least one of the surgical package and the surgical instrument has crossed into the geo-fence, to at least one of the surgical package or the surgical instrument to alter one or more aspects of the surgical package or the surgical instrument, wherein the altered one or more aspects comprise at least an activation of a killswitch disposed in the surgical package, wherein the killswitch, when activated, breaks a circuit that transports power from a battery to the surgical instrument (See Fig. 3, P0059-P0062, receiving input signals in P0078-P0080 disabling physical button until the pump returns to a designated location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of geofencing medical devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Kippenhan to include activating a killswitch when a surgical instrument has crossed a geo-fenced area as taught by Dave to avoid healthcare providers from inappropriately using medical devices outside of a unauthorized, clinical setting mentioned in Dave’s P0003.
Claim 20:
Kippenhan discloses A non-transitory computer program product storing instructions which, when executed by at least one data processor forming part of at least one computing system, cause the at least one data processor to implement operations (See Fig. 17-18, P0119-P0122 processor and storage medium in P0025.) comprising:
receiving, by a surgical system and from a remote server, data characterizing a geo-political location of the surgical system, the surgical system including a manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package, a surgical instrument contained within the manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package (See exemplary geo-political standards and state laws (P0005-P0006), U.S. sterilization assurance practices (P0011-P0012) for comparison, where the steam vacuum is indicated for a Bowie-Dick pack at exemplary graphical interface screen as a server shown in Fig. 24, P0159. Also, see remote locations P0022, P0149.), and a sterility indicator disposed on the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package, the sterility indicator comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the sterility indicator is readable based on the first portion and the second portion being readable, wherein the first portion comprises anon-radiation-sensitive ink and the second portion comprising a radiation-sensitive ink, and wherein the second portion is configured to be readable based on the radiation-sensitive ink being exposed to radiation (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, P0061-P0062 where the variety of sterilization processes are non-radiation and ink color change after sterilization mentioned in P0078, P0085, P0087. See Fig. 17, P0119-P0122 where radiation is an energy source reflected form the sterilization indicator and Fig. 32-33 a sterilization indicator before and after a sterilization cycle mentioned in P0064-P0066.); and
transmitting a control signal, based on one or more of the received data or the determination of whether the whether the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package has been sterilized, to at least one of the surgical package or the surgical instrument to alter one or more aspects of the surgical package or the surgical instrument (See Fig. 4, P0148-P0149 electronic communication for monitoring and tracking. Also, see communicated aspects of the surgical package in Fig. 21, Fig. 24, [P0159] some test packs for ethylene oxide sterilizers require an aeration period prior to disposal. The system according to the present invention may be designed to communicate proper disposal procedures to the user and [P0167] FIG. 26 is an example of a computer screen that issues a warning and provides further instructions to a user. This may be presented to a user if an attempt is made to send an article from a failed sterilization cycle to the operating room for use in a surgical procedure.).
Although Kippenhan discloses the surgical system including a sterile packaged surgical instrument is characterized and compliant within a geo political location as mentioned above, Kippenhan does not explicitly teach activating a killswitch when a surgical instrument has crossed a geo-fenced area. Dave teaches:
a geo-fence associated with a geo-political locations,
determining, based on the received data, whether at least one of the surgical packages and the surgical instrument has crossed into the geo-fence (See P0005, P0007, P0022 location sensor and exemplary medical device as infusion pump automatically switched in responsive to the changed location, P0037 the remote data server (RDS) of the subject technology used to track the location and status of all networked medical devices.).
transmitting a control signal, based on the determination that at least one of the surgical package and the surgical instrument has crossed into the geo-fence, to at least one of the surgical package or the surgical instrument to alter one or more aspects of the surgical package or the surgical instrument, wherein the altered one or more aspects comprise at least an activation of a killswitch disposed in the surgical package, wherein the killswitch, when activated, breaks a circuit that transports power from a battery to the surgical instrument (See Fig. 3, P0059-P0062, receiving input signals in P0078-P0080 disabling physical button until the pump returns to a designated location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of geofencing medical devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Kippenhan to include activating a killswitch when a surgical instrument has crossed a geo-fenced area as taught by Dave to avoid healthcare providers from inappropriately using medical devices outside of a unauthorized, clinical setting mentioned in Dave’s P0003.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kippenhan discloses the surgical system of claim 1, the method of claim 10 and wherein the one or more aspects include one or more operations of the surgical instrument usable during a surgical procedure (See Fig. sterilization history for surgical instruments in P0179.).
Claims 2-3, 5, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1) further in view of Nyez (US 2010/0108761 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, although Kippenhan and Dave teach the surgical system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11 mentioned above, Kippenhan and Dave do not explicitly teach when the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package includes a display configured to present visual information. Nyez teaches wherein the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package includes a display configured to present visual information (See Fig. 3, P0017-P0018 and [P0044] the user then is prompted to enter more information, such as the cleaning and sterilizing date of each surgical instrument, whether the process was completed, and other remarks about the instrument.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical tray management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Kippenhan and Dave to include the manufacturer-sealed sterile surgical package includes a display configured to present visual information as taught by Nyez to identify and inventory the medical surgical instruments to facilitate, repair, and replace them mentioned in Nyez’ P0001 and P0003.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, although Kippenhan, Dave and Nyez teach the surgical system of claim 2 and the method of claim 11 mentioned above, Kippenhan further discloses wherein the display is configured to present one or more messages indicating non-compliance with one or more regulations of the geo-political location (See exemplary geo-political standards and state laws (P0005-P0006), U.S. sterilization assurance practices (P0011-P0012) for comparison, where the steam vacuum is indicated for a Bowie-Dick pack at exemplary graphical interface screen shown in Fig. 24, P0159. Also, see Fig. 26 Warning P0162-P0163, and [P0167] an example of a computer screen that issues a warning and provides further instructions to a user. This may be presented to a user if an attempt is made to send an article from a failed sterilization cycle to the operating room for use in a surgical procedure.).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, although Kippenhan and Dave teach the surgical system of claim 1 and the method of claim 10 mentioned above, Kippenhan and Dave do not explicitly teach a capacity to collect medical data and data related to surgical procedures. Nyez teaches wherein the one or more aspects include a capacity to collect medical data and data related to surgical procedures (See Fig. 6, P0047 where the table lists names of the surgical instruments such as Eye Bolt, Screw Kit and Fig. 5 Bone Saw Handle would be used for Orthopedic surgery.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of surgical tray management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Kippenhan and Dave to include the capacity to collect medical data and data related to surgical procedures as taught by Nyez to identify and inventory the medical surgical instruments to facilitate, repair, and replace them mentioned in Nyez’ P0001 and P0003.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1) further in view of Halvorsen (US 2021/0019581 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, although Kippenhan, Dave and Nyez teach the surgical system of claim 3 and the method of claim 12 mentioned above, Kippenhan, Dave and Nyez do not explicitly teach geo-political-location based language of message. Halvorsen teaches wherein a language of the one or more presented messages is based upon the geo-political location (See P0008-P0009 where language is based on geographic location. Also, see P0019, P0059-P0060.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of labelling medical supplies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kippenhan, Dave and Nyez to include the geo-political-location based language of message as taught by Halvorsen when proper translations, printing and shipping of specific labels for specific jurisdictions must be coordinated and performed as mentioned in Halvorsen’s P0003.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1) further in view of Djachiachvili (US 2010/0118138 A1).
Regarding claim 6, although Kippenhan and Dave teach the surgical system of claim 1 mentioned above, Kippenhan and Dave do not explicitly teach disabling functions of the manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package for being non-compliant. Djachiachvili teaches wherein the instructions are configured to disable one or more functions of the manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package, the one or more functions being non-compliant with one or more regulations of the geo-political location (See Fig. 3, removing rejected package and automatically separate defective product in [P0021-P0022] When defect has being detected by the image processing module 260, a fault condition can be generated by a PLC 280. The fault condition (a signal) from the PLC can be used to identify the compromised package so that it can be removed or marked for rejection. As an example, the PLC 280 can send a signal downstream to the frame unload station to identify (mark) fault or to automatically separate defective product from the good product.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sealed sterilized packaging before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kippenhan and Dave to include disabling functions of the manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package for being non-compliant as taught by Djachiachvili to avoid micro objects such as human hair, dust and injection molding debris from becoming embedded between sealing surfaces of sterile surgical instruments as mentioned in Djachiachvili’s P0003.
Regarding claim 15, although Kippenhan and Dave teach the surgical method of claim 10 mentioned above, Kippenhan and Dave do not explicitly teach disabling functions of the manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package for being non-compliant. Djachiachvili teaches wherein the instructions disable one or more functions of the surgical package, the one or more functions being non-compliant with one or more regulations of the geo- political location (See Fig. 3, removing rejected package and automatically separate defective product in [P0021-P0022] When defect has being detected by the image processing module 260, a fault condition can be generated by a PLC 280. The fault condition (a signal) from the PLC can be used to identify the compromised package so that it can be removed or marked for rejection. As an example, the PLC 280 can send a signal downstream to the frame unload station to identify (mark) fault or to automatically separate defective product from the good product.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sealed sterilized packaging before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kippenhan and Dave to include disabling functions of the manufacturer-sealed, sterile surgical package for being non-compliant as taught by Djachiachvili to avoid micro objects such as human hair, dust and injection molding debris from becoming embedded between sealing surfaces of sterile surgical instruments as mentioned in Djachiachvili’s P0003.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1) further in view of Kim (US 2015/0278758 A1).
Regarding claim 8, although Kippenhan and Dave teach the surgical system of claim 1 mentioned above, Kippenhan and Dave do not explicitly teach a customs checkpoint. Kim teaches wherein the geo-political location is a customs checkpoint (See customed information (PP0018, P0100, Fig. 4A) using customs module 430 when checking status of a package (P0068, P0118) including dental supplies shown in Fig. 4C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of package delivery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system Kippenhan and Dave to include a customs checkpoint as taught by Kim as a standard to comply with Customs and Boarder Patrol for safely sending international packages.
Claims 9, 17 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1) further in view of McKinzie (US 11,481,739 B1).
Regarding claim 9, although Kippenhan and Dave teach the surgical system of claim 1 and the method of claim 10 mentioned above, Kippenhan and Dave do not explicitly teach a capacity to deliver controlled substances prohibited or controlled in the geo-political location. McKinzie teaches wherein the one or more aspects include a capacity to deliver one or more controlled substances, wherein the one or more controlled substances are prohibited or controlled in the geo-political location (See Abstract, column 4, lines 5-20 where the kiosk distributes or disposes control substances such as opioids from various locations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of kiosk medication management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kippenhan and Dave to include a capacity to deliver controlled substances prohibited or controlled in the geo-political location as taught by McKinzie as an incentive to easily and safely dispose the controlled substances and opioids that patients are no longer taking as mentioned in McKinzie’s column 8, lines 43-59.
Regarding claim 21, Kippenhan, Dave and McKinzie teach the surgical system of claim 9 mentioned above, and Dave teaches wherein the instructions are transmitted prior to crossing a geo-political border into the geo-political location (Taught in Fig. 2, P0039-P0042 as having sensor range and distinguishing first and second care areas.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of kiosk medication management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kippenhan and McKinzie to include instruction transmitted prior to crossing a geo-political border into the geo-political location as taught by Dave to avoid healthcare providers from inappropriately using medical devices outside of a unauthorized, clinical setting mentioned in Dave’s P0003.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1) further in view of McKinzie (US 11,481,739 B1) and Kim (US 2015/0278758 A1).
Regarding claim 18, although Kippenhan, Dave and McKinzie teach the methos of claim 10 mentioned above, Kippenhan, Dave and McKinzie do not explicitly teach a customs checkpoint. Kim teaches wherein the geo-political location is a customs checkpoint (See customed information (PP0018, P0100, Fig. 4A) using customs module 430 when checking status of a package (P0068, P0118) including dental supplies shown in Fig. 4C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of package delivery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Kippenhan, Dave and McKinzie to include a customs checkpoint as taught by Kim as a standard to comply with Customs and Boarder Patrol for safely sending international packages.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippenhan (US 2010/0217620 A1) in view of Dave (US 2024/0245851 A1) further in view of McKinzie (US 11,481,739 B1) and Hurwitz (US 2010/0311385 A1).
Regarding claim 19, although Kippenhan, Dave and McKinzie teach the method of claim 17 mentioned above, Kippenhan, Dave and McKinzie do not explicitly teach transmit instructions prior to crossing a geo-political border into the geo-political location. Hurwitz teaches wherein the instructions are transmitted prior to crossing a geo-political border into the geo-political location (See Fig. 2, medical instrument has satellite communication where an emergency medicine physician can provide instructions to the caregiver on sight in P0063-P0065 and geo-fencing used for predefined messages transmitted to a person that needs to be contained in a particular area.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of generating medical alerts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kippenhan, Dave and McKinzie to include teach transmit instructions prior to crossing a geo-political border into the geo-political location as taught by Hurwitz to allow for multimedia communications on a non-multimedia rationalized satellite network as mentioned in Hurwitz’ P0039.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 7-8, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. Altering the activation via control signal of a killswitch is now disposed, when it is determined that the surgical instrument or surgical package have crossed into a geo-fence, which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner has entered new rejections under 35 USC § 102, 103 and applied new art and art already of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 09/03/2023
/Anita Y Coupe/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights