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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-15 and 19-22 in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2026.
During a telephone conversation with John Damron on 7/14/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species 1A, 2A, 3A, 4B, and 5A. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected species. The elected species are:
1A: "Any of the aspects herein, wherein the predetermined configuration correlates to when the portion of the drape is substantially flat" [0020] and "the predetermined configuration may correlate to whether the drape 102 or the portion 108 of the drape 102 is sufficiently flat or positioned so as to provide a clear view of the component 104 underneath the portion 108 of the drape 102" [0055],
2A: "Any of the aspects herein, wherein the one or more indicia is disposed on the drape" [0024] and "In the illustrated embodiment, at least one indicia 106 is disposed on at least a portion 108 of the drape 102" [0053],
3A: "In some embodiments, the at least one indicia 106 may not be positioned near the at least one marker 103" [0053],
4B: "In other embodiments, the at least one navigational marker 103 and the at least one indicia 106 may be disposed outside of the drape 102" [0053], and
5A: "The third set of indicia 106C may match the second set of indicia 106B' of the component 104'. In such embodiments, the drape 102' may be aligned to the component 104' by aligning the third set of indicia 106C to the second set of indicia 106B'. Such alignment may, for example, aid in positioning the drape 102' in a predetermined configuration" [0061].
Specification
The use of the terms “Apple”, “Intel”, “Nvidia” throughout instant specification paragraph [0045], “O-arm” and “QR code”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
In re claim 1, the limitation “a drape” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a cloth of hanging in loose folds or hanging loosely from the thing that it covers.
In re claim 3, the limitation “flatness” is best understood, in light of the specification to indicate the drape being flush to the device or component underneath the surgical drape and lacking wrinkles, distortion, or deformation (Instant Specification: [0055]).
In re claim 14, the limitation “substantially flat” is best understood, in light of the specification to indicate the drape being flush to the device or component underneath the surgical drape and lacking wrinkles, distortion, or deformation (Instant Specification: [0055]).
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 13- 14 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 13 recites the limitation "the drape" on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 14, see above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, In re claim 13. As a result, the limitation “the drape” on line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-5, 7-15, 19-21 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 1-5, 7-21 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p. 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, p. 50, January 7, 2019).
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a system. Claim 13 is drawn to a system. Claim 19 is drawn to a system.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of pre-solution activity of data gathering and generic computer components for collecting and processing data. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
receive information about the one or more indicia, and
determine, based on the information, whether or not the portion of the drape is in the predetermined configuration.
In re claim 13, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies. In particular, claim 13 recites the following limitations:
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
receive information about the one or more indicia from a sensor,
detect the one or more indicia based on the information, and
determine, based on the detected indicia, whether or not the drape is in a predetermined configuration.
In re claim 19, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies. In particular, claim 19 recites the following limitations:
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
correlate the predetermined configuration with the one or more indicia,
receive information about the one or more indicia, and
determine whether the drape is in the predetermined configuration based on the one or more indicia.
These limitations of claim 1, 13, and 19 are drawn to an abstract idea because they are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are steps merely comprised of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
Claim 1 recites the following emphasized (indicated in bold) additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
A system comprising:
a drape;
one or more indicia, wherein the one or more indicia indicate whether or not the portion of the drape is in a predetermined configuration;
at least one processor; and
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
receive information about the one or more indicia, and
determine, based on the information, whether or not the portion of the drape is in the predetermined configuration.
The additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. The drape and indicia are insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor and memory are computer elements that carry out abstract steps described in claim 1 (see 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the judicial exception does not integrate the claim as a whole into a practical application because the claimed invention does not improve another technology or technical field. The alleged improvement made by the claimed invention as argued by the application above sets forth the improvement in a conclusory manner and the claim does not include the components or steps of the invention that the improvement described.
In re claim 13, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies. Claim 13 recites the following emphasized (indicated in bold) additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
at least one processor; and
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
receive information about the one or more indicia from a sensor,
The additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensor amounts to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering to receive information.
In re claim 19, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity.
Regarding the limitations “a drape” and “one or more indicia, wherein the one or more indicia indicate whether or not the portion of the drape is in a predetermined configuration”, see Kaska (US 20090255541) which discloses a sterile drape with adhesive attachment means (i.e. indicia) [0038, 0041]. Thus, the limitations directed to the medical device and electrodes are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the reference above.
Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more. The processor and memory are computer elements that carry out abstract steps described in claim 1. Reconsidering the claim limitations individually and as a combination, the claims fail to meet the requirements for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. All uses of the recited abstract idea require the pre- solution data gathering.
In re claim 13, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies. The additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensor amounts to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering to receive information. Regarding the limitations “a sensor”, see Rosinski (US 20200289206) which discloses a conventional sensor for identifying when an object is in the desired area [0019]. Thus, the limitations directed to the medical device and electrodes are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the reference above.
In re claim 19, see above (In re claim 1). Substantially, the same reasoning applies.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 12, 14-15, 20-21 recite the same abstract idea as their respective parent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea.
In re claim 5, see above 35 U.S.C. In re claim 1. Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as its parent claim, claim 1, with the additional limitation “wherein the one or more indicia is at least one of a QR code, magnetic dots, a barcode, or a pattern” containing an additional element indicated in bold. Regarding the limitation, see Faries (US 5653938) which discloses a method wherein a drape comprises a barcode (Col. 5, ln. 35-38). Thus, the limitations directed to the medical device and electrodes are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the reference above. Reconsidering the claim limitations individually and as a combination, the claims fail to meet the requirements for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In re claim 7, see above 35 U.S.C. In re claim 1. Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as its parent claim, claim 1, with the additional limitation “wherein the information is at least on of an image received from a camera and sensor data received from a sensor” containing an additional element indicated in bold. Regarding the limitation, see Hall (US 20190012944) which discloses a user interface for sterile fields wherein an image captured by a camera is processed. Thus, the limitations directed to the medical device and electrodes are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the reference above. Reconsidering the claim limitations individually and as a combination, the claims fail to meet the requirements for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In re claim 10, see above (In re claim 7). Substantially, the same reasoning applies.
In re claim 11, see above 35 U.S.C. In re claim 1. Claim 11 recites the same abstract idea as its parent claim, claim 1, with the additional limitation “wherein the one or more indicia comprises at least one optically visible indicia and at least one infrared marker” containing an additional element indicated in bold. Regarding the limitation, see Marti (US 20220265362) discloses an optical tracking system for surgical environments that uses the IR spectrum [0003]. Thus, the limitations directed to the medical device and electrodes are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the reference above. Reconsidering the claim limitations individually and as a combination, the claims fail to meet the requirements for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (Han, F., Wan, T., & Stylios, G. K. (2010, June). Grade Assessment of Fabric Surface Wrinkling by Using Image Analysis. In 2010 Third International Conference on Information and Computing (Vol. 2, pp. 9-12). IEEE.)
In re claim 1, Han discloses a system comprising:
a drape (Pg. 10, Section II, “the primary fabric surfaces”);
one or more indicia (Pg. 10, Section II, “the surface of wrinkles”), wherein the one or more indicia indicate whether or not the portion of the drape is in a predetermined configuration (Fig. 5: pucker grade of 5 is indicated as “No Seam Pucker”; Pg. 11, Section IV, “flatter surfaces generally exhibit a lower mean pucker index”; note: the predetermined configuration is the drape being flat);
at least one processor (Pg. 9, Section II, part of “a PC”); and
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor (Pg. 9, Section II, part of “a PC”) that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
receive information about the one or more indicia (Fig. 1; Pg. 9-10, Section II), and
determine, based on the information, whether or not the portion of the drape is in the predetermined configuration (Fig. 2; Pg. 10, Section III: “an automated assessment of the appearance of seam pucker based on the pucker index statistics algorithm”).
In re claim 2, Han discloses a system comprising:
wherein the memory stores additional data for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, further cause the at least one processor to (Pg. 9, Section II, “a PC”):
generate a notification when the portion of the drape is not in the predetermined configuration (Fig. 5: displays seam pucker grade; pg. 10, section III: “Normally, Class 5 and 4 are acceptable, Class 3 is critical or borderline, and Class 2 and 1 are unacceptable”; note: when drape is determined to be wrinkled, a grade of 1, 2, 3, or 4 is displayed).
In re claim 3, Han discloses a system comprising:
wherein the memory stores additional data for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, further cause the at least one processor to (Pg. 9, Section II, “a PC”):
determine a quality of the one or more indicia based on the information (“The material at the periphery is always much less wrinkled than the central portions of the fabric”), the quality of the one or more indicia correlating to a degree of flatness of the portion of the drape (Pg. 10, III, “this visual assessment of grade level of fabric surface wrinkling can be expressed in terms of pucker severity”; note: the pucker severity/grade can be used to indicate a degree of flatness; see Claim Interpretations, In re claim 3),
wherein the notification includes the degree of flatness of the portion of the drape (Fig. 5: displays seam pucker grade indicative of the wrinkles in the drape).
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soto (US 20190099232).
In re claim 1, Soto discloses a system (Fig. 13) comprising:
a drape (Fig. 13: 22);
one or more indicia (80, 87, 90),
wherein the one or more indicia indicate whether or not the portion of the drape is in a predetermined configuration [0032, 0065-0067];
at least one processor (part of controller 89; Incorporated Reference Moctezuma (US 20170000572): [0107]: run by CPU i.e. processor); and
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to (part of controller 89; Incorporated Ref. Moctezuma: [0107]: stored on memory devices and run by a processor):
receive information about the one or more indicia [0066-0067], and
determine, based on the information, whether or not the portion of the drape is in the predetermined configuration ([0006, 0066]: controller determines when a circuit is closed, two circuits must be closed to indicate a properly installed drape).
In re claim 2, Soto discloses wherein the memory stores additional data for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, further cause the at least one processor to:
generate a notification when the portion of the drape is not in the predetermined configuration ([0066-0068]: “the indicator LED remains illuminated a second color (e.g., red/orange) until the surgical drape 22 is properly aligned”).
In re claim 4, Soto discloses:
wherein determining whether or not the portion of the drape is in the predetermined configuration comprises comparing the detected one or more indicia to a predetermined indicia ([0006, 0066-0067, 0069]: indicia disposed on the drape and device are inherently predetermined in order to indicate proper placement),
wherein the portion of the drape is not in the predetermined configuration when the one or more indica does not substantially match the predetermined indicia ([0066-0067]: the drape is not considered properly placed until it is properly aligned with indicia).
In re claim 5, Soto discloses wherein the one or more indicia is at least one of a QR code, magnetic dots (Fig. 2: 32; [0038. 0068]), a barcode [0070], or a pattern.
In re claim 7, Soto discloses wherein the information is at least one of an image received from a camera and sensor data received from a sensor [0066, 0068-0070].
In re claim 8, Soto discloses,
wherein the one or more indicia is a first set of one or more indicia (Fig. 4: 50) and
wherein the system further comprises a second set of one or more indicia (42; [0047]; note: the kinematic couplers 42 are visible on the ring assembly and indicate when the ring assembly is properly configured as they line up with indicia 50) disposed on a component.
In re claim 9, Soto discloses
wherein detecting the one or more indicia comprises detecting the first set of one or more indicia and the second set of one or more indicia [0047],
wherein the memory stores additional data for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, further cause the at least one processor to:
determine an alignment of the drape to the surgical device based on an alignment of the first set of one or more indicia to the second set of one or more indicia [0044-0047, 0066].
In re claim 11, Soto discloses wherein the one or more indicia comprises at least one optically visible indicia [0067] and at least one infrared marker ([0069]: “localizer camera 94 that detects signals (e.g. IR) from the LEDs”).
In re claim 12, Soto discloses wherein the one or more indicia is disposed on at least a portion of the drape ([0044]: “The ring assembly 44 also includes a plurality of indicia 50 on the arm drape portion 24 of the surgical drape”).
In re claim 13, Soto discloses system (Fig. 13) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 13: part of controller 89; Incorporated Reference Moctezuma (US 20170000572): [0107]: run by CPU i.e. processor); and
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to (part of controller 89; Incorporated Ref. Moctezuma: [0107]: stored on memory devices and run by a processor):
receive information about the one or more indicia from a sensor [0066, 0068-0070],
detect the one or more indicia based on the information [0066-0068], and
determine, based on the detected indicia, whether or not the drape is in a predetermined configuration ([0006, 0066]: controller determines when a circuit is closed, two circuits must be closed to indicate a properly installed drape).
In re claim 14, Soto discloses wherein the predetermined configuration is when the portion of the drape is substantially flat ([0055]: “maintain a flat or planar surface of the surgical drape 22”).
In re claim 15, Soto discloses wherein
the information is at least one image obtained from the sensor [0066-0069] and
detecting the one or more indicia includes processing the at least one image using an image processing algorithm to detect the one or more indicia ([0066-0069]; Incorporated Reference Moctezuma (US 20170000572): [0018-0022]: “The software converts the signals received from the camera unit 36 into data representative of the position and orientation of the objects being tracked” ).
In re claim 19, Soto discloses a system comprising:
a drape (Fig. 13: 22);
one or more indicia (80, 87, 90),
wherein the one or more indicia indicate whether or not a portion of the drape is in a predetermined configuration [0032, 0065-0067];
at least one processor (part of controller 89; Incorporated Reference Moctezuma (US 20170000572): [0107]: run by CPU i.e. processor); and
a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor that, when processed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to (part of controller 89; Incorporated Ref. Moctezuma: [0107]: stored on memory devices and run by a processor):
correlate the predetermined configuration with the one or more indicia [0006, 0065-0067],
receive information about the one or more indicia [0066-0067], and
determine whether the drape is in the predetermined configuration based on the one or more indicia ([0006, 0066]: controller determines when a circuit is closed, two circuits must be closed to indicate a properly installed drape).
In re claim 21, Soto discloses wherein the one or more indicia is disposed on the drape ([0044]: “The ring assembly 44 also includes a plurality of indicia 50 on the arm drape portion 24 of the surgical drape”).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto (US 20190099232) in view of Barnett (US 20180338801).
In re claim 10, Soto discloses:
wherein the memory stores additional data for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, further cause the at least one processor to:
receive an image from a camera ([0006, 0069-0070]; Incorporated Reference Moctezuma (US 20170000572): [0018-0022]).
Soto lacks:
determine, from the image, at least one of
an obstruction of the one or more indicia or
movement of the one or more indicia [0067-0069].
Barnett discloses a system for tracking medical instruments throughout a procedure (abstract) that, similar to the system disclosed by Soto, discloses a drape with markers (i.e. indicia) to help properly prepare a sterile area [0050, 0070]. In addition, Barnett discloses a camera to detect the markers (instrument marks, zone markers, drape markers) which keeps track of the positioning of the markers and determines which instruments come into contact with the sterile field [0050, 0052-0053] and discloses utilizing non-visible markers in addition to visible markers which will help when a marker is not readily visible, for example, when the drape or instrument is folded over a markers (i.e. obstruction of the one or more indicia; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Soto to provide wherein the camera determines movement of the one or more indicia and visible and non-visible markers as taught by Barnett because it would help the surgeon to keep track of which part of the drape remains sterile as the sterile field definition is adjusted and shifted (Barnett: [0050-0053]). In addition, with a visible and non-visible markers, the system would be able to determine if indicia is obstructed as the marker would not be visible in the image but would be otherwise detected.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto (US 20190099232) in view of Faries (US 5653938).
In re claim 20, Soto lacks:
wherein correlating the predetermined configuration to the one or more indicia includes storing information about a layout of the one or more indicia when the drape is in the predetermined configuration.
Faries discloses an apparatus for determining the sterility of a drape (Fig. 1; abstract) that, like the system disclosed by Soto, utilizes indicia to determine if a surgical drape is in a correct configuration (Col. 6, ln. 23-38). In addition, Faries discloses storing information of the bar codes scanned (i.e. indicia) to determine if the drape has been utilized (Col. 2, ln. 57-66; Col. 5, ln. 38-42) when the bar code of the drape lines up with a reader socket or window (i.e. when the drape is in a predetermined configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Soto to provide wherein storing information about a layout of the one or more indicia when the drape is in the predetermined configuration as taught by Faries because it would keep track of if the drape has been utilized before and is no longer sterile (Faries: col. 5, ln. 50-55) and could also track the frequency of the drape falling out of the proper configuration and/or being readjusted into the proper configuration.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seita (Seita, D., Jamali, N., Laskey, M., Tanwani, A. K., Berenstein, R., Baskaran, P., ... & Goldberg, K. (2019, October). Deep transfer learning of pick points on fabric for robot bed-making. In The International Symposium of Robotics Research (pp. 275-290). Cham: Springer International Publishing) discloses a surgical robot that analyzes a bed sheet for wrinkles and determines pick points of the sheet to then make the bed.
Williams (US 5490524) discusses a surgical drape adapted to cover a C-arm device and further discusses wrinkles along the C-arm, distorting laser beam transmission (Col. 2, ln. 1-31).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALLE M WELCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am to 5:00 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, David E Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/HALLE MARGARET WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights