DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on April 24th, 2026.
Claims 21 and 39 are amended.
Claim 32 has been cancelled.
Claim 41 has been added.
Claims 21 – 31, 33 – 39 and 41 are pending in current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited claim limitation regarding, “manual movement of the instrument driver”, “instrument driver off of the line”.
In this instant case, upon further review, skilled in the art could not applicant recited claim limitation within applicant’s written description. Further supplemental is required.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 37 and 39 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “manual movement of the instrument driver” were not described in the written description to convey skilled in the art, at the time of filing, that claim subject were described that the applicant was filed.
In this instant case, the closest written description skilled in the art located directs to “manual movement of the robotic arm” as different components of the robotic surgery system applicant claimed as differ.
Regarding claim 37, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “manual movement of the device manipulator” were not described in the written description to convey skilled in the art, at the time of filing, that claim subject were described that the applicant was filed.
In this instant case, the closest written description skilled in the art located directs to “manual movement of the robotic arm” as different components of the robotic surgery system applicant claimed as differ.
Regarding claim 39, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “manual movement of the drive mechanism” were not described in the written description to convey skilled in the art, at the time of filing, that claim subject were described that the applicant was filed.
In this instant case, the closest written description skilled in the art located directs to “manual movement of the robotic arm” as different components of the robotic surgery system applicant claimed as differ.
Claims 21 – 41 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.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon the dependency.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “processors configured to cause system to…manual movement of the instrument driver” does not particularly and distinctly point out applicant’s invention that ought to be set forth particularly as to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention as whether the movement caused manually or by processor that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly.
Further, skilled in the art could not locate applicant’s claim limitation regarding “manual movement of the instrument driver” as to ascertain the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 37, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “processors configured to cause system to…manual movement of the device manipulator” does not particularly and distinctly point out applicant’s invention that ought to be set forth particularly as to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention as whether the movement caused manually or by processor that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly.
Further, skilled in the art could not locate applicant’s claim limitation regarding “manual movement of the device manipulator” as to ascertain the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 39, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “processors configured to cause system to…manual movement of the drive mechanism” does not particularly and distinctly point out applicant’s invention that ought to be set forth particularly as to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention as whether the movement caused manually or by processor that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly.
Further, skilled in the art could not locate applicant’s claim limitation regarding “manual movement of the drive mechanism” as to ascertain the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claims 21, 37 and 39, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “movement…off of the line” does not particularly and distinctly point out applicant’s invention that ought to be set forth particularly as to ascertain metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention as whether the movement caused manually or by processor that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding movement…off of the line directs to a positive recitation of the negative limitation in substantial context where skilled in the art could only locate “stay in a straight line along the same axis” opposite from the recited claim limitation regarding “movement…off of the line”.
Please also see MPEP 2173.05(i). Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining.").
Appropriate further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 21 – 24 and 26 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Draper et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0289431) in view of Shoham (US Pat Pub No. 2017/0055940).
Regarding claim 21, Draper er al shows a robotic surgery system comprising (See at least Para 0023 and 0024 for surgical robot system): a robotic arm (See at least Para 0029 for robotic arm);
an instrument driver attached to the robotic arm (See at least Para 0030 for instrument device manipulator IDM 190 with changer interface coupled to robot arm);
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the instrument driver ( See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions (See at least claims 15 for EM sensor sense EM field based on positioning of the EM sensor relative to EM generator; claim 16 for alignment member with acoustic reflector receive reflect acoustic waves relative to acoustic emitter; claim 17 for alignment using magnet for positioning of magnet relative to a magnetic field sensor in the manipulator assembly) of the instrument driver and a cannula placed in a patient (See at least Para 0042 for patient introducer 301 attached to patient via cannula port 320 also shown on figure 3A; Para 0007 for alignment member connected to the introducer tube and interface with manipulator assembly; also on Para 0047, 0048 and 0052 for alignment member 309 as marking marker for geometrically three dimensional space defined and recorded; Para 0054 spatial positioning of IDM with respective in relation to alignment member 309);
processor configured to cause the system to at least (See at least Para 0086 for processor for robot actuation function instruction):
constrain movement of the instrument driver along a line between a position of the instrument driver and a position of the cannula (See at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B);
direct movement of the instrument driver along the line by which movement of the instrument driver is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by the first sensor (See at least Para 0064 for alignment member 309 as laser sensor, Para 0065 - 0067 for LED sensor, acoustic sensor and magnetic sensor; also at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B); however, Draper does not further discuss direct manual movement of the movement while preventing the manual movement off the line.
Shoham et al further shows manual movement (See at least Para 0002 for surgical needle insertion manually) while preventing the manual movement of the drive mechanism off of the line ( See at least Para 0005 for keep tool guide in the same trajectory/line relative to target lesion as preventing off the line; Para 0007 for maintain tool guided as its original position regardless of the change of robot; Para 0039 for trajectory determined ab initio, from the beginning, without changing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time filing, to provide tool movement line maintenance as taught by Shoham, in order providing target lesion tracking discussed by Shoham, as also for the surgical robot operation of Draper et al, as using known trajectory maintenance technique of Shoham to improve similar robotic surgical insertion method and apparatus of Draper et al, yielding predictable result.
Regarding claim 37, Draper et al shows a robotic surgery system (See at least Para 0023 and 0024 for surgical robot system) comprising:
a robotic arm (See at least Para 0029 for robotic arm);
a device manipulator attached to the robotic arm (See at least Para 0030 for instrument device manipulator IDM 190 with changer interface coupled to robot arm),
the device manipulator is configured to hold a surgical instrument (See at least Para 0039 for IDM 190 manipulate an endoscope) and drive a first end of the surgical instrument into a patient via a cannula placed in the patient (See at least Para 00020 for surgical tool as endoscope, operated by IDM 190, into port/cannula via patient introducer);
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the device manipulator (See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions of the device manipulator and the cannula (See at least claims 15 for EM sensor sense EM field based on positioning of the EM sensor relative to EM generator; claim 16 for alignment member with acoustic reflector receive reflect acoustic waves relative to acoustic emitter; claim 17 for alignment using magnet for positioning of magnet relative to a magnetic field sensor in the manipulator assembly);
a second sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the device manipulator (See at least Para 0080 for robotic system 110 feedback control with sensor as input to the feedback during alignment; also on Para 0039 for aligning portion using force feedback and inertia control from user 205 where the force feedback input using force sensor);
processors configured to cause the system to at least(See at least para 0033 for processor and control circuitry to move robot):
direct a position of the device manipulator towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by the first or the second sensor (See at least Para 0048 for alignment position/orientation with respect to patient introducer 301, attached to Pot 320 on Para 0073, to align IDM 190);
constrain movement of the device manipulator along a line between the position of the device manipulator and the position of the cannula (See at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B);
direct movement of the device manipulator along the line by which movement of the device manipulator is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by the first or second sensor (See at least Para 0064 for alignment member 309 as laser sensor, Para 0065 - 0067 for LED sensor, acoustic sensor and magnetic sensor; also at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B);
drive manual movement of the instrument driver (See at least Para 0038 for user apply physical force to IDM 190 or robotic arm 175; also on Para 0039 for aligning portion using force feedback and inertia control from user 205); however, Draper does not further discuss direct manual movement of the movement while preventing the manual movement off the line.
Shoham et al shows manual movement (See at least Para 0002 for surgical needle insertion manually) while preventing the manual movement of the drive mechanism off of the line ( See at least Para 0005 for keep tool guide in the same trajectory/line relative to target lesion as preventing off the line; Para 0007 for maintain tool guided as its original position regardless of the change of robot; Para 0039 for trajectory determined ab initio, from the beginning, without changing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time filing, to provide tool movement line maintenance as taught by Shoham, in order providing target lesion tracking discussed by Shoham, as also for the surgical robot operation of Draper et al, as using known trajectory maintenance technique of Shoham to improve similar robotic surgical insertion method and apparatus of Draper et al, yielding predictable result.
Regarding claim 39, Draper et al shows a robotic surgery system (See at least Para 0023 and 0024 for surgical robot system) comprising:
a robotic arm (See at least Para 0029 for robotic arm);
a drive mechanism attached to the robotic arm(See at least Para 0030 for instrument device manipulator IDM 190 with changer interface coupled to robot arm);
a first sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism (See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the first sensor being configured to detect relative spatial positions (See at least claims 15 for EM sensor sense EM field based on positioning of the EM sensor relative to EM generator; claim 16 for alignment member with acoustic reflector receive reflect acoustic waves relative to acoustic emitter; claim 17 for alignment using magnet for positioning of magnet relative to a magnetic field sensor in the manipulator assembly) of the drive mechanism and a cannula placed in a patient (See at least Para 0042 for patient introducer 301 attached to patient via cannula port 320 also shown on figure 3A; Para 0007 for alignment member connected to the introducer tube and interface with manipulator assembly; also on Para 0047, 0048 and 0052 for alignment member 309 as marking marker for geometrically three dimensional space defined and recorded; Para 0054 spatial positioning of IDM with respective in relation to alignment member 309);
a second sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the drive mechanism different than the first sensor (See at least Para 0080 for robotic system 110 feedback control with sensor as input to the feedback during alignment; also on Para 0039 for aligning portion using force feedback and inertia control from user 205 where the force feedback input using force sensor),
the second sensor being configured to collect data when an operator applies a force to a first portion of the robotic arm or the drive mechanism and manually moves the robotic arm or the drive mechanism (See at least Para 0080 for robotic system 110 feedback control with sensor as input to the feedback during alignment; also on Para 0039 for aligning portion using force feedback and inertia control from user 205 where the force feedback input using force sensor while user moves robotic arm cause force data feedback)
processors configured to cause the system (See at least para 0033 for processor and control circuitry to move robot) to:
direct a position of the drive mechanism towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by the first or second sensor(See at least Para 0048 for alignment position/orientation with respect to patient introducer 301, attached to Pot 320 on Para 0073, to align IDM 190);
constrain movement of the drive mechanism along a line between the position of the drive mechanism and the position of the cannula (See at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B);
direct movement of the drive mechanism along the line by which movement of the drive mechanism is constrained to dock the robotic arm to the cannula based on data collected by the first or second sensor (See at least Para 0064 for alignment member 309 as laser sensor, Para 0065 - 0067 for LED sensor, acoustic sensor and magnetic sensor; also at least Para 0005 for patient introducer with introducer tube guide the surgical tool into the cannula tube along the curved line on Para 0020; also at least Para 0045 for patient introducer 30 includes alignment member 309 align with IDM 190 with virtual rail 330 also exhibited on Figure 3B); however, Draper does not further discuss direct manual movement of the movement while preventing the manual movement off the line.
Shoham et al shows manual movement (See at least Para 0002 for surgical needle insertion manually) while preventing the manual movement of the drive mechanism off of the line ( See at least Para 0005 for keep tool guide in the same trajectory/line relative to target lesion as preventing off the line; Para 0007 for maintain tool guided as its original position regardless of the change of robot; Para 0039 for trajectory determined ab initio, from the beginning, without changing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time filing, to provide tool movement line maintenance as taught by Shoham, in order providing target lesion tracking discussed by Shoham, as also for the surgical robot operation of Draper et al, as using known trajectory maintenance technique of Shoham to improve similar robotic surgical insertion method and apparatus of Draper et al, yielding predictable result.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Draper et al shows the first sensor comprises a vision-based sensor with camera (See at least Para 0070 for alignment using camera sensor).
Regarding claim 24, Draper et al shows the vision-based sensor is attached to the instrument driver (See at least Para 0052 for physical feature in curved surface of alignment member 309 to be visually shape matched using camera for alignment by instrument driver IDM 190 on Para 0070).
Regarding claims 26 - 28, Draper et al shows a second sensor as non – vision based force or torque sensor coupled to either the robotic arm or the instrument driver (See at least Para 0039 for force feedback with moving the robotic arm; also on Para 0080 for sensor implemented as input to the feedback; also on Para 0030 for robotic arm 175 with joint torque sensing),
Regarding claim 29, Draper et al shows the non-vision based sensor is attached to the instrument driver (See at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190).
Regarding claim 30, Draper et al shows the non-vision based sensor comprises a switch (See at least Para 0038 for IDM 190 includes admittance button 410).
Regarding claim 31, Draper et al shows non-vision based sensor is positioned on a front end of the instrument driver (See at least figure 4B for admittance button located at the front end of IDM 190).
Regarding claim 32, Draper et al shows the non-vision based sensor is positioned on a back end of the instrument driver (See at least Para 0030 for robotic arm 175 with joint level torque sensing at the joint coupled with IDM 190 on Para 0030 as at the back end of the instrument driver).
Regarding claim 33, Draper et al shows the second sensor is configured to collect data when an operator applies a force to a first portion of the robotic arm or the instrument driver and manually moves the robotic arm or the instrument driver (See at least Para 0038 for user apply physical force to IDM 190 or robotic arm 175; also on Para 0039 for force feedback with sensors as input to feedback on Para 0080).
Regarding claim 34, Draper et al shows the instrument driver is configured to hold a surgical instrument (See at least Para 0030 for IDM 190 manipulate surgical tools and instruments),
the instrument driver is configured to drive a first end of the surgical instrument into the patient via the cannula placed in the patient (See at least Para 0043 for patient introducer 301 with first opening receive surgical tool 115 from IDM 190 and second opening guide tool 115 into cannula port).
Regarding claim 35, Draper et al shows the instrument driver is attached to a distal end of the robotic arm that is away from the first end of the surgical instrument (See at least Para 0043 for patient introducer 301 with first opening receive surgical tool 115 from IDM 190 and second opening guide tool 115 into cannula port).
Regarding claim 36, Draper et al shows processor is configured to cause the system to direct a position of the instrument driver towards a position of the cannula based on data collected by the first sensor (See at least Para 0044 for alignment for cannular port 320 with respect to patient introducer 301 and surgical tool 115 from IDM 190; also on at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190).
Regarding claim 38, Draper et al shows the device manipulator is attached to a distal end of the robotic arm (See at least Para 0030 for robot arm 175 coupled with IDM 190) that is away from the first end of the surgical instrument (See at least Para 0043 for surgical tool 115 at patient introducer proximal end 303).
Regarding clam 40, Draper et al shows the drive mechanism is configured to hold a surgical instrument (See at least Para 0030 for IDM 190 manipulated surgical tool 115),
the drive mechanism is configured to drive a first end of the surgical instrument into the patient via the cannula placed in the patient (See at least Para 0044 for alignment for cannular port 320 with respect to patient introducer 301 and surgical tool 115 from IDM 190; also on at least Para 0066 for acoustic sensor included with instrument manipulator 190, Para 0067 for magnetic sensor on manipulator assembly IDM 190, Para 0030, positional alignment; Para 0068 for EM sensor on IDM 190),
the drive mechanism is attached to a distal end of the robotic arm that is away from the first end of the surgical instrument (See at least Para 0030 for robot arm 175 coupled with IDM 190; also at least Para 0043 for surgical tool 115 at patient introducer proximal end 303).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draper modified further in view of Davids et al (US Pat Pub No. 2018/0161024).
Regarding claim 25, Draper et al shows fiducial configured to be detected by the vision-based sensor (See at least Para 0052 and 0055 for markings and protrusion to be alignment with IDM 190 with visual shape matching using camera for alignment by instrument driver IDM 190 on Para 0070); Draper does not further specify the cannula comprise a fiducial.
Davis et al further shows cannula comprises a fiducial (See at least Para 0049 for fiducial marker 58 imposed on obturator mounted upon cannula as a cannula and obturator assembly for imaging and visualization purpose on Para 0004).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide fiducial marker upon cannula, as taught by Davis, for the fiducial visual detection of Draper, in order to provide clear and near vision capture for surgical procedure, as desired by both surgery medical device of both Draper and Davis.
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s remark that applicant newly recited claim limitation does not show by Draper et al as previously discussed during; however, upon further review, applicant’s attention is now directed to Draper et al in view of Shoham et al as new recited above;
In this instant case, Shoham et al further discussed manual operation upon surgical tool and prevention for the surgical instrument changing the trajectory line as during manual operation from the beginning of the surgery insertion. Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 9 above.
However, upon further detailed review during examination, skilled in the art also could not locate applicant newly recited claim limitation regarding, “direct manual movement of the instrument driver” and “ preventing… off of the line” within applicant’s written description.
Skilled in the art at most could only locate manual movement of the robot arm and movement stay in a straight line along the same axis as differ from applicant’s claim limitation in substantial content.
Further, applicant recited claim limitation directs “processors configured to cause the system…direct manual movement…” does not particularly exhibit and commensurate the natural of manual movement as claimed since processor causing the system is not manual. Appropriate further clarification is advised.
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 Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights