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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objection for claim 16, applicant’s amendments have addressed this issue and it is hereby withdrawn. It is emphasized that applicant’s response does not address the duplicate claim objection of claims 3 and 16, therefore this objection remains.
Regarding the 112a written description rejection, applicant’s arguments and related amendments are not persuasive. While the examiner understands what applicant’s intended meaning is for the claim language, the examiner maintains that the current claim language continues to include/encompass an interpretation where the first and second arm physically fit within, i.e. are located inside, the cylindrical section of the elongate body. The issue is with the language “fit within” as this means (or could mean) that it physically fits inside/within the elongate body. The examiner highly recommends that applicant use the language from the specification that relates/compares the size/shape of the arms in the elongated configuration to the size/shape of the cylindrical housing, i.e. "the width of arms 346A-B and 348A-B is narrower than the width of the body 352”, "the height of the arms 348A-B (and 346A-B although hidden in the Figure) is less than the height of body 352,". Specifically, the language “fits within” should be removed/deleted from the claims, as this includes an interpretation of the arms physically fitting within/inside the cylindrical housing. Therefore, the examiner is maintaining the 112a written description rejection.
Regarding the 112b rejections, while applicant’s amendments and related arguments have addressed/overcome the issue with “generally cylindrical portion”, the examiner maintains that the “fits within” is still a 112b issue, as explained above in relation to the 112a written description. It’s unclear if the claimed scope includes an interpretation where the arms physically fit inside the cylindrical portion. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 103 rejection of claim 1, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Farritor ‘412 describes a different insertion arrangement, specifically a “substantially parallel arrangement” that “minimizes the overall ‘footprint’ of the device 10, so as to allow the smallest possible incision”, and that this configuration is a significant distinction than the configuration claimed which requires the arms to fit within the exterior perimeter of the cylindrical section of the elongated body. First and foremost, the examiner contends that “substantially parallel” anticipates the current claim language, as no part of the arms is outside of the exterior perimeter of the cylindrical housing, and therefore they “fit inside” as claimed. Furthermore, “substantially parallel”, specifically the word “substantially” encompasses a degree of tolerance/adjustment, such that the arms are slightly smaller than the cylindrical housing. Lastly, and most importantly, the explicit discussion of wanting the “smallest possible incision” provides a POSITA with explicit motivation to minimize the size, i.e. heigh and width, of the arms… with this minimization resulting in arms that fit within the exterior perimeter of the cylindrical section of the elongate body. Specifically, if Farritor ‘412 arms are parallel to the cylindrical housing, i.e. equal in size, then any reduction in the height and width of the arms (in order to reduce the size of the incision) will inherently result in the arms fitting inside the perimeter of the cylindrical housing. The examiner disagrees with applicant, as this is very much a matter of routine optimization, i.e. minimizing the overall footprint (which includes all dimensions, i.e. height and width) in order to minimize the incision. Again, any reduction is height/width of the arms will inherently meet the claimed configuration, so it’s unclear how/why applicant argues that this is “not merely select a size from a known range”. It is reiterated that because the arms in Farritor ‘412 are substantially parallel/equal, any reduction to the footprint of the arms (which includes height, width and length), while in the elongated position, will inherently result in the arms fitting within the exterior perimeter of the cylindrical section. The art does not have to explicitly state that the arms fit within the perimeter, only that the resulting size/shape of the modification (based on the reduction/minimization in size/shape), does fit inside. As discussed above, any reduction in size would inherently fit within the perimeter, as the arms are currently taught as substantially parallel/equal, therefore any reduction resulting in arms that are slightly smaller would fit within the cylindrical housing perimeter. It is emphasized that applicant’s reason for the claimed shape/size is also to minimize the incision. Therefore, prior art showing almost exactly the same size/shape/configuration and explicitly teaching a desire to minimize the footprint to reduce an incision size meets the requirements for optimization of a result effective variable. Furthermore, the rejection proposed a different modification, i.e. making the cylindrical section slightly bigger, as opposed to making the arms smaller, which has not been addressed by applicant. Therefore, the examiner is maintaining the 103 rejection.
Regarding the 103 rejection for claim 14, applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed configuration/arrangement and the specific reason behind it are considered persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejection is withdrawn. The examiner considers the previously applied prior art references to be the closest/most pertinent to applicant’s claimed invention, therefore there is no longer a prior art rejection. However, the claims are not allowable, based on the 112 rejections. It is noted that any amendments (to address the 112 issues) that change the scope of the claim would require further search and consideration, and art could potentially be applied at that time.
Regarding the 103 rejection for claim 16, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are considered unpersuasive, as discussed above. Applicant further argues that “claim 16 also recites the additional actuator and drivetrain architecture discussed above with respect to claim 14, including first and second pitch drivetrains and first and second roll drivetrain assemblies. In particular, claim 16 recites, for each side, that the pitch motor driveshaft is rotatably disposed through a lumen of the corresponding shoulder driveshaft and that the pitch driven gear is rotatably disposed within the corresponding shoulder assembly. These limitations define a nested shoulder drivetrain architecture that mechanically packages the pitch and roll drivetrain components relative to the shoulder assemblies, further distinguishing claim 16 from the applied Farritor references.”, which is not considered persuasive as none of this subject matter (see bolded limitations above) are recited in claim 16. In fact, the words “pitch” or “lumen” do not appear anywhere in claim 16. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current claim language and the examiner is maintaining the 103 rejection, as applicant’s arguments have not apprised the examiner to any errors (other than what is already addressed above, in relation to claim 1).
Priority
For clarity, the effective filing date of the current application is 5/10/2024, as the parent applications fail to provide support for the limitation “wherein the first arm and the second arm fit within an exterior perimeter of the generally cylindrical portion of the distal section of the elongate device body when the robotic surgical device is in an elongated configuration”.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[Claims 1, 14 and 16] The scope of the limitations “wherein, when the robotic surgical device is in an elongated configuration, the first arm and the second arm fit within a cross-sectional exterior perimeter of the cylindrical section of the elongate device body” (claims 1 and 16) and “wherein, when the robotic surgical device is in an elongated configuration, the first arm and the second arm fit within a cross-sectional exterior perimeter of the distal section of the device body housing” (Claim 14) is not fully supported by the specification. Specifically, the current claim language includes an interpretation where the arms are positioned/located/fit completely inside/within the cylindrical portion/section, i.e. the arms are inside the cylindrical portion such that the cylindrical portion physically surrounds arms. However, the specification does not provide support for such an interpretation. As made clear in Figs. 12B-F and Par 0126 of applicant’s specification, this language is intended to mean that “the width of arms 346A-B and 348A-B is narrower than the width of the body 352” and “the height of the arms 348A-B (and 346A-B although hidden in the Figure) is less than the height of body 352”, but the arms are never positioned inside/within the cylindrical body. However, this is not what is currently claimed and the BRI of the claim includes/encompasses an interpretation that is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure and therefore fails the written description requirement.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
[Claims 1, 14 and 16] The limitations “wherein, when the robotic surgical device is in an elongated configuration, the first arm and the second arm fit within a cross-sectional exterior perimeter of the cylindrical section of the elongate device body” (claims 1 and 16) and “wherein, when the robotic surgical device is in an elongated configuration, the first arm and the second arm fit within a cross-sectional exterior perimeter of the distal section of the device body housing” (Claim 14) are unclear.
Based on the inconsistency between the BRI and the specification, as discussed above in relation to the written description rejection, the scope of this claim limitation is unclear. Specifically, it’s unclear if this is intended to encompasses/include an interpretation where the arms are positioned physically within/inside the cylindrical portion. While this interpretation is not supported by the specification, it is encompassed by the BRI and plain meaning/understanding of the current claim language. MPEP 2173.03 states “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0405412 to Farritor (Farritor ‘412) or in the alternative as unpatentable over Farritor ‘412 in view of US 2023/0181272 to Farritor (Farritor ‘272) or US 2014/0303434 to Farritor et al. (Farritor ‘434).
[Claim 1] Farritor discloses a robotic surgical device (Abstract; system 1, Figs. 1A-B, 2 and 3) comprising:
(a) an elongate device body (device 10, Figs. 2 and 3), the body comprising:
(i) a cylindrical section (device body 10A. The device body 10A appears cylindrical in shape in the drawings; see Fig. 5A, 6A, 8A, 9, 11, etc. If applicant disagrees, see additional explanation below); and
(ii) a proximal section (10C) having a proximal section diameter that is greater than a distal section diameter (as can be seen in Figs. 1B, 2 and 3, the proximal section has 10C has a diameter that is greater than the device body 10A, e.g. in Fig. 1B the portion above where the surgeon is grabbing, i.e. proximal section 10C, is greater in diameter than the section where the surgeon is grabbing, i.e. device body 10A);
(b) a first arm (first arm 14) operably coupled to a distal end of the elongate device body via a first shoulder assembly (shoulder 14A; at least Par 0145; Fig. 1A); and
(c) a second arm (second arm 16) operably coupled to the distal end of the elongate device body via a second shoulder assembly (shoulder 16A; at least Par 0145; Fig. 1A),
wherein the first arm and the second arm (14 and 16) fit within an exterior perimeter of the generally cylindrical portion of the distal section (10A) of the elongate device body (10) when the robotic surgical device is in an elongated configuration (Figs. 2, 3 and 5B; Par 0154. As can be seen in Fig. 5B, the width/diameter of arms 14 and 16 is substantially the same/identical to the width/diameter of device body 10A. Similarly, as shown in Figs. 2-3, it’s clear that the length of the arms 14 and 16 is less than the length of the device body 10A. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 below).
Regarding the term “cylindrical”, as pointed out above, the figures appear to show the device being cylindrical in shape. However, if this is not the case, then it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device body 10A to be cylindrical in shape, as a commonly known and used shape for similar hand-held surgical devices in order to be easily grasped by an operator/surgeon, e.g. see Fig. 1B. This is also considered an obvious change in shape; see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding the limitation of a cylindrical section having a distal section diameter ranging from about 25 mm to about 30 mm, Farritor ‘412 is silent to the specific diameter/width of this distal section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a distal section diameter of about 25 mm to about 30 mm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art; MPEP 2144.05. It’s clear from Fig. 10B and Pars 0145-147 and 0154 (“It is understood that the insertion configuration minimizes the overall “footprint” of the device 10, so as to allow the smallest possible incision”), that there are multiple considerations for the width of the distal section, as this distal section is inserted into the body and held by the user/surgeon. Therefore, a width is clearly chosen to be small enough to fit into a small incision in the body, access a particular anatomical target within the body and be comfortably held/grasped by a surgeon’s hand. Additionally or alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 states “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to choose the width of this distal section with all these considerations in mind, i.e. size of incision in the body, particular anatomy being targeted/treated, and the comfortability and hand size of a surgeon holding/grasping the device, which are all within the routine skill and knowledge of a POSITA. It is emphasized that there are no unexpected results or criticality to the claimed diameter.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the first arm and the second arm fit within an exterior perimeter of the generally cylindrical portion of the distal section of the elongate device body when the robotic surgical device is in an elongated configuration”, as discussed above, Figs. 2-3 and 5B appear to explicitly show the claimed relative sizes and configuration. If applicant disagrees, then this is considered an obvious change in size and/or shape to either make the device body bigger, i.e. longer and wider, or the arms smaller, i.e. shorter and narrower; see MPEP 2144.04. If applicant continues to disagree, both Farritor ‘434 (Figs. 1A-D and 12A-D; Par 0110) and Farritor ‘272 (Fig. 3B) explicitly show the claimed configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size and/or shape of the device body (10A) and first and second arms (14 and 16) of Farritor ‘412 so that that arms are able to fit within an exterior perimeter of the device body, as taught by Farritor ‘434 or Farritor ‘272. It is emphasized that the goal of all of these references is to design a robotic surgical device that includes an insertion configuration that allows for the “smallest possible incision”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to choose/try any relative dimensions of the device body and first/second arms as this is optimization of a result effective variable; MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04). It is emphasized that there is no criticality or unexpected results to the claimed dimensions. Applicant has chosen the claimed configuration/dimensions to minimize the size of the incision within the patient, which is the same reason/functionality disclosed by the prior art, therefore the selection of the specific relative dimensions of the arms and device body in order to achieve such a minimized incision are obvious.
[Claim 2] Farritor ‘412 teaches wherein the first arm (14) comprises a first upper arm (14B; Fig. 1A) and the second arm (16) comprises a second upper arm (16B; Fig. 1A) each of the first and second arms comprises an upper arm (upper arms 14B and 16B) comprising:
(a) a rotation drivetrain (motor gearhead 162, worm shaft 164, worm gear 166 and worm wheel 168 all shown within upper arm 16B, Fig. 23) comprising a rotation actuator (motor gearhead 162, Fig. 23);
(b) a roll drivetrain assembly (motor 154, and gears 156,158, and 160, Fig. 23) comprising a roll actuator (motor 154) disposed adjacent to the rotation actuator (motor 154 is adjacent to motor gearhead 162, Fig. 23)
wherein the rotation actuator and the roll actuator of the first upper arm, and the rotation actuator and the roll actuator of the second upper arm are arranged to form a matrix of four actuators (As seen in Fig. 23 which only shows the second upper arm 16B, it’s clear that the two actuators, i.e. rotation actuator 162 and roll actuator 154, of the second upper arm 16B are located directly adjacent to each other, which is interpreted as or defines a 2 x 1 matrix. It is noted that when the two upper arms 14B and 16B are parallel to each other, as shown in the insertion position in Fig. 5B, the two actuators of the first arm 14 will be directly adjacent the two actuators of the second arm 16, which is interpreted as or defines a 4x1 or 2x2 matrix, depending on the rotation/position of the upper arms.
[Claims 3 and 5] As discussed in relation to claim 2 above, the 4x1 or 2x2 matrix is formed when the two upper arms are adjacent and parallel to each other (as shown in the insertion position of Fig. 5B). The examiner interprets this configuration/matrix as facilitating the first arm and second arm to fit within the exterior perimeter of the generally cylindrical portion when the robot is in the elongated configuration. Specifically, this matrix of 4 actuators defines an effective diameter for the upper arms which determines a size of incision/cavity formed in a patient through which the robotic surgical device may be inserted when in the elongated configuration (Figs. 1B and 5B and Pars 0145-147 and 0154).
[Claim 4] As best seen in Fig. 23, the rotation actuator (162) and the roll actuator (154) of the second upper arm (16B) have the same (or extremely similar) diameter. It stands to reason that the rotation actuator and roll actuator of the first upper arm (14B) are designed in the same manner, i.e. duplicates of the actuators in the second upper arm. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the figures explicitly show/describe 4 actuators with a common diameter. If applicant disagrees, the examiner takes the position that a change in the size of the diameter of either actuator, so that the diameters of both the roll and rotation actuators are the same, is an obvious engineering/design choice. Stated differently, it is obvious for a POSITA to select, try or choose actuators/motors all having the same size, as this is well within the routine engineering decisions when designing a robot. MPEP 2144.04 states “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”
[Claim 6] Farritor ‘412 teaches wherein each of the first and second arms comprises an upper arm (upper arms 14B and 16B, Fig. IA) comprising:
(a) the rotation drivetrain (motor gearhead 162, worm shaft 164, worm gear 166 and worm wheel 168 all shown within upper arm 16B, Fig. 23) further comprises:
(i) a rotation motor gear (worm gear 166, Fig. 23) rotatably coupled to the rotation actuator via a rotation motor driveshaft (worm gear 166 rotatably coupled to motor gearhead 162 via worm shaft 164, Fig. 23); and
(ii) a rotation driven gear rotatably coupled to the rotation motor gear (worm wheel 168 rotatably coupled to worm gear 166, Fig. 23), wherein the rotation driven gear rotates around an axis that is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the rotation actuator (worm wheel 168 rotates perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of motor gearhead 162, Fig. 23); and
(b) the roll drivetrain assembly (motor 154, and gears 156,158, and 160, Fig. 23) further comprises:
(i) at least one roll gear rotatably coupled to the roll actuator (gear set 156 coupled to motor 154, Fig. 23); and
(ii) an elbow driveshaft rotatably coupled to the at least one roll gear (elbow driveshaft comprised of curved concave region 172 and output shaft 170, Figs. 22 and 23; output shaft 170 rotatably coupled to gear 156 through other surrounding components, Fig. 23; shaft 170 is for joint 4 at elbow joint 106, Figs. 14 and 23; Par 0187), wherein the elbow driveshaft is rotationally constrained to the elbow assembly (shaft 170 for rotation at elbow joint 106, Figs. 14 and 23; Par 0187), the elbow driveshaft comprising a lumen defined therethrough (region 172 allows passage through it, Par 0187; Fig. 22),
wherein the rotation motor driveshaft is rotatably disposed through the lumen (worm gear 166 shown in region 172, Fig. 22), and
wherein the rotation driven gear is rotatably disposed within the elbow assembly (worm wheel 168 rotates within region 172, Fig. 2).
[Claim 7 and 8] Farritor ‘412 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second arm widths range from about 13 mm to about 15 mm (or about 14 mm), and wherein the first and second arm depths range from about 20 mm to about 26 mm (or about 23 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second arm widths ranging from about 13 mm to about 15 mm, and first and second arm depths ranging from about 20 mm to about 26 mm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, specifically in order to ensure that the robotic surgical device is sized to access/treat a particular patient anatomy. Additionally or alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 states “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the desired widths of the arms based on numerous considerations including the type of surgery, size of the incision within the body, anatomy being treated, etc., which are all within the routine skill and knowledge of a POSITA. It is emphasized that there are no unexpected results or criticality to the claimed widths. Additionally, based on the fact that Farritor ‘412 explicitly desires the incision to be “as small as possible” it would be obvious to choose/try the arm dimensions, i.e. width and depth, to achieve such a small incision.
[Claim 9] Farritor ‘412 discloses a cameral port (10E) on the proximal section (10C; Fig. 3; Pars 0151 and 0193)
[Claims 11 and 12] Farritor ‘412 discloses wherein the first and second upper arms further comprises a first and second upper arm housing (exterior of arms 14B and 16B, Fig. IA) and a first and second proximal attachment structure disposed at a proximal end of the upper arm housing (right shoulder joints 14D and 16D, Fig. IA), wherein the first and second proximal attachment structure is configured to be coupleable to the first and second shoulder assemblies (right shoulder joints 14D and 16D attach to shoulders 14A and 16A, Fig. IA), wherein the rotation and roll drivetrains are disposed within the first and second upper arm housing (motor gearhead 162, worm shaft 164, worm gear 166 and worm wheel 168, motor 154, and gears 156,158, and 160 all shown within upper arm 16B, Fig. 23).
[Claim 13] Farritor ‘412 teaches wherein each of the first and second arms comprises a forearm (forearms 14C and 16C, Fig. 1A) rotatably coupled to the upper arm (forearms 14C and 16C rotate at coupling with upper arms 14B and 16B respectively, Fig. 14) and an end effector operably coupled to the forearm (tool 18 and end effector 20, Fig. IA).
[Claim 16] See explanation for claims 1, 2 and 3, above.
[Claim 17] See explanation for claim 4, above.
[Claim 18] See explanation for claim 5, above.
[Claim 19] See explanation for claim 7, above.
[Claim 20] See explanation for claim 8, above.
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 Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 EST.
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 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
