CTNF 18/683,651 CTNF 99336 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 20-21, 23-24, and 26-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 2026 . 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 16-17, 19, and new claims 30-35 in the reply filed on 06 February 2026 is acknowledged. Response to Amendment This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 06 February 2026. As per the amendment: claims 4, 8, 12, 14-15, 18, and 21-29 are cancelled, claims 30-35 have been newly added, claim 20 has been withdrawn, and no claims have been amended. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 16-17, 19, and 30-35 are presently pending and under examination. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/05/2024, 06/28/2024, 07/09/2025, and 02/06/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 19, 30, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Au et al. (US 2014/0128849 A1), hereinafter Au . Regarding claim 1 , Au et al. (US 2014/0128849 A1) discloses a medical device (a medical instrument 200) , comprising: a chassis component (backend mechanism 230) comprising a bottom and an opening defined in the bottom (view Examiner modified Figure 2A, [0024] “) ; and a capstan (capstan 235) comprising an upper portion, a lower portion, and a spool between the upper portion and the lower portion (view Examiner modified Figure 2a) ; wherein the upper portion of the capstan is supported within the opening of the chassis component (view Figures 2-6 and Examiner modified figure 2A: the drive motor connects to the capstan which is located at an opening in the chassis) ; and wherein the spool comprises a cable wrap surface (view Figures 2-6, [0024] “For example, tendon 221 may be wound around capstan 235 so that counterclockwise rotation of capstan 235 reels in more of tendon 221 from the side of tendon 221 leading to steering section 210, and tendon 222 may be wound around capstan 235 so that counterclockwise rotation of capstan 235 feeds out more of tendon 222 toward steering section 210.”) and a side wall opposing the bottom of the chassis component (view Examiner modified Figure 2B) . PNG media_image1.png 315 673 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 247 388 media_image2.png Greyscale Examiner Modified Figure 2A (LEFT), 2B (RIGHT) Regarding claim 2 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein: the medical device further comprises a cable guide (Figures 2-6: preload system 240,340,440, 540, and 640) and a cable (tendons 221 and 222) ; the cable extends from the cable guide to the cable wrap surface of the spool (view Figures 2-6, [0026] “In other embodiments, preload system 240 can be actively controlled (e.g., applying tensioning when a minimum tendon tension or slack is detected or maintaining a predetermined tendon tension or tension range). In the embodiment of FIG. 2, proximal ends of tendons 221 and 222 extend from capstan 235 to preload system 240.”); and on a condition in which the cable is in an untensioned state, a slack loop exists in the cable between the cable guide and the spool ([0026] “a preload system 240 can be employed to maintain minimum and equal tension in tendons 221 and 222, avoiding slack in tendons 221 and 222 as well as biased motion in steering section 210 even when neither motor 250 nor knob 260 applies a torque to capstan 235. Preload system 240 can be passive such that the applied tension does not need to respond to a control or feedback system. In other embodiments, preload system 240 can be actively controlled (e.g., applying tensioning when a minimum tendon tension or slack is detected or maintaining a predetermined tendon tension or tension range).”). Regarding claim 3 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 2 (as shown above), wherein: on a condition in which the capstan rotates to wind the cable about the cable wrap surface of the spool to cause the cable to transition from the untensioned state to a tensioned state, the slack loop of the cable is guided onto the spool by the bottom of the chassis component and the side wall of the spool ([0024] “In the illustrated embodiment, backend mechanism 230 includes a capstan 235 around which portions of both actuating tendons 221 and 222 are wound in opposite directions. For example, tendon 221 may be wound around capstan 235 so that counterclockwise rotation of capstan 235 reels in more of tendon 221 from the side of tendon 221 leading to steering section 210, and tendon 222 may be wound around capstan 235 so that counterclockwise rotation of capstan 235 feeds out more of tendon 222 toward steering section 210.”, [0026] “In particular, each tendon 221 or 222 may wrap around capstan 235 for a set wrapping angle (that could be less than a full turn or include more than one turns) around capstan 235, and the proximal ends of tendons 221 and 222 extend past capstan 235 to connect to preload system 240. Tendons 221 and 222 are not required to be permanently attached to capstans 235 and thus may be able to slip relative to capstans 235, for example, when motor 250 or knob 260 turns in a direction that feeds tendon 221 or 222 out toward steering section 210. However, the wrap angle and the tension applied by preload system 240 are such that when motor 250 or knob 260 pulls in from the distal end of tendon 221 or 222, the torque applied by motor 250 or knob 260 controls the tension in the distal portion of that tendon 221 or 222.”). Regarding claim 6 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above) , wherein: the chassis component comprises an upper chassis and a lower chassis (view Figure 2-5 and 7A-7B, view Examiner modified figure 2C), the opening of the chassis component is in the upper chassis ;the upper portion of the capstan is supported within the opening of the upper chassis; and the lower portion of the capstan is supported by the lower chassis (view Examiner modified Figure 2C). PNG media_image3.png 273 520 media_image3.png Greyscale Examiner Modified Figure 2C Regarding claim 7 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 2 (as shown above), wherein: the medical device further comprises a tool member ([0020] “A drive system for a medical instrument can employ a single motor driven capstan on which two actuating tendons are oppositely wound for self-antagonistic drive of an actuated structure such as an end effector.”); the tool member moves from a first motion limit position through a defined range of motion to a second motion limit position ([0020] “. In general, an antagonistic drive can actuate a degree of freedom using two drive cables or tendons respectively connected to pull in opposing directions”, [0021] “Ring 214 may be a rigid structure having actuating tendons 221 and 222 coupled to opposite edges of ring 214, so that pulling on tendon 221 or 222 tends to bend flexible tubing 212 in one direction or the opposite direction of one degree of freedom of motion of ring 214. In a typical embodiment, a second pair of tendons (not shown) may be connected to actuation ring 214 for actuated movement in another degree of freedom for movement of ring 214”) ; and the cable is coupled to the spool such that the cable is routed about the cable wrap surface of the spool by no more than two revolutions as the spool rotates to move the tool member through the defined range of motion ([0026] “In particular, each tendon 221 or 222 may wrap around capstan 235 for a set wrapping angle (that could be less than a full turn or include more than one turns) around capstan 235, and the proximal ends of tendons 221 and 222 extend past capstan 235 to connect to preload system 240”). Regarding claim 19 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 2 (as shown above), wherein: the upper portion of the capstan comprises a cable anchor portion; and a proximal portion of the cable is secured to the capstan with a wrapping about the cable anchor portion ([0031] “In the embodiment of FIG. 5, the proximal ends of tendons 221 and 222 can be attached to or fixed on capstan 235.”, view Examiner modified Figure 5). PNG media_image4.png 374 434 media_image4.png Greyscale Examiner Modified Figure 5 Regarding claim 30 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 2 (as shown above) , wherein: the cable is coupled to the spool such that the cable is routed about the cable wrap surface of the spool by no more than two revolutions ([0026] “In particular, each tendon 221 or 222 may wrap around capstan 235 for a set wrapping angle ( that could be less than a full turn or include more than one turns) around capstan 235, and the proximal ends of tendons 221 and 222 extend past capstan 235 to connect to preload system 240.”). Regarding claim 34 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the spool comprises a second side wall opposite the side wall; and the second side wall of the spool is located within the opening of the chassis component (view Examiner Modified Figure 2B: there is another wall opposite the side wall which extends into the opening) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 16, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au . Regarding claim 5 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above). Although Au fails to explicitly fails to disclose wherein the side wall of the spool slopes away from the bottom of the chassis component. However, Au, directed to a medical instrument with a preload system for preventing slack, with a similar objective to the instant application comprising similar structural components and thus it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the side wall of the spool slope away from the bottom of the chassis component to prevent extra friction, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter of choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally the present disclosure has no criticality for having the side wall of the spool slope away from the bottom of the chassis component. Regarding claim 16 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above). Although, Au fails to explicitly teach wherein: a diameter of the capstan tapers inwards from the spool towards the lower portion of the capstan. However, Au is directed to medical instrument with a preload system to maintain minimum tensions in the tendons to prevent slack (Abstract, [0027]), a similar objective to the instant application and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter of the capstan taper inward from the spool toward the lower portion of the capstan, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter of choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally the present disclosure has no criticality for having the diameter of the capstan taper inwards from the spool towards the lower portion of the capstan. Regarding claim 31 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein: the side wall of the spool has an outer circumference (view Examiner modified figure 2a). Au fails to explicitly teach the spool having a radiused edge at the outer circumference. However, Au is directed to medical instrument with a preload system to maintain minimum tensions in the tendons to prevent slack (Abstract, [0027]), a similar objective to the instant application and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spool have a radiused edge at the outer circumference to prevent snagging and allow for cable to move around smoothly, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter of choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally the present disclosure has no criticality for having the spool having a radiused edge at the outer circumference . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 2020/00315728 A1), hereinafter Johnson . Regarding claim 9 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above). Au fails to disclose wherein: the medical device further comprises a cable and a bearing; the cable comprises a proximal portion coupled to the capstan; and the bearing supports the upper portion of the capstan within the chassis component and surrounds the proximal portion of the cable . However, Johnson teaches a surgical tool includes a surgical tool includes a driving housing with “drive assembly mounted to the input shaft and including an upper capstan rotatably mounted to the input shaft with a first one-way bearing, and a lower capstan rotatably mounted to the input shaft with a second one-way bearing. First and second drive cables are coupled to the upper and lower capstans and extend to an end effector of the surgical tool.” (Abstract, [0065], Figure 8-9). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Au to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to have the medical device further comprises a cable and a bearing; the cable comprises a proximal portion coupled to the capstan; and the bearing supports the upper portion of the capstan within the chassis component and surrounds the proximal portion of the cable, as these prior art references are directed to surgical tools for eliminating slacks in drive cables. One would be motivated to do this to mitigate friction, as recognized by Johnson ([0062]). Regarding claim 10 , Au in view of Johnson teaches the medical device of claim 9 (as shown above). Au fails to disclose wherein: the proximal portion of the cable is coupled to the capstan in a wrapped configuration; and the bearing surrounds the proximal portion of the cable to assist in maintaining the wrapped configuration of the proximal portion of the cable. However, Johnson teaches wherein: the proximal portion of the cable is coupled to the capstan in a wrapped configuration ([0065] “As mentioned above, rotating the upper capstan 808a in the first angular direction 810a may cause the first drive cable 608a (FIGS. 6 and 8) to wrap about the upper capstan 808a.”); and the bearing surrounds the proximal portion of the cable to assist in maintaining the wrapped configuration of the proximal portion of the cable ([0065] “Consequently, when the input shaft 804 is rotated in the first angular direction 810a, the first one-way bearing 908a may bind against the input shaft 804 and transfer the torque from the input shaft 804 to the upper capstan 808a, and thereby drive the upper capstan 808a in the first angular direction 810a.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Au to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to have the proximal portion of the cable is coupled to the capstan in a wrapped configuration; and the bearing surrounds the proximal portion of the cable to assist in maintaining the wrapped configuration of the proximal portion of the cable, as these prior art references are directed to surgical tools for eliminating slacks in drive cables. One would be motivated to do this to mitigate friction, as recognized by Johnson ([0062]). Regarding claim 11 , Au in view of Johnson discloses the medical device of claim 9 (as shown above). Au fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bearing is a first bearing: the medical device further comprises a second bearing; wherein the first bearing is coupled to the upper portion of the capstan; and the second bearing supports the lower portion of the capstan. However, Johnson teaches wherein the bearing is a first bearing (the first one-way bearing 908a): the medical device further comprises a second bearing (a second one-way bearing 908b); wherein the first bearing is coupled to the upper portion of the capstan ([0064] “the upper capstan 808a may be rotatably mounted to the input shaft 804 via the adapter 906 and the first one-way bearing 908a”) ; and the second bearing supports the lower portion of the capstan ([0067] “The second one-way bearing 908b may be operatively coupled to the lower capstan 808b.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Au to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to have wherein the bearing is a first bearing: the medical device further comprises a second bearing; wherein the first bearing is coupled to the upper portion of the capstan; and the second bearing supports the lower portion of the capstan, as these prior art references are directed to surgical tools for eliminating slacks in drive cables. One would be motivated to do this to mitigate friction, as recognized by Johnson ([0062]). Regarding claim 13 , Au in view of Johnson teaches the medical device of claim 11 (as shown above), wherein: the spool of the capstan is located adjacent to the chassis component (view Figure 2). Au fails to disclose such that on a condition in which tension in the cable causes a lateral load on the capstan, a portion of the lateral load on the first bearing is larger than a portion of the lateral load on the second bearing. ` However, Johnson teaches “a drive assembly for a surgical tool that includes a first capstan assembly including an upper capstan rotatably mountable to an input shaft of the surgical tool with a first one-way bearing, a lower capstan assembly including a lower capstan rotatably mountable to the input shaft with a second one-way bearing, a compliant member operatively coupled to and extending between the upper and lower capstan assemblies, wherein the compliant member provides constant opposing torsional loads on the upper and lower capstan assemblies that urge the upper and lower capstans to counter-rotate” ([0079]). Although Johnson does not specifically state that on a condition in which tension in the cable causes a lateral load on the capstan, a portion of the lateral load on the first bearing is larger than a portion of the lateral load on the second bearing, it would be obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose to have the lateral load on the first bearing be larger than a portion of the lateral load on the second bearing and incorporate it into the system of Au and Johnson since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., the partial load on first bearing is smaller than the second bearing, the partial load on first bearing is the same as the second bearing, the partial load on first bearing is larger than the second bearing) to the recognized need (reducing slack) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable expectations of success. Therefore, "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 103" KSR Int' I Co. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kadokura (WO 2020/102780 A1), hereinafter Kadokura . Regarding claim 17, Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above). However, Au fails to explicitly teach wherein: the capstan comprises a plurality of radial ribs between the spool and the lower portion of the capstan; and a diameter of each rib from the plurality of radial ribs decreases between the spool and the lower portion of the capstan . However, Kadokura (WO 2020/102780 A1) teaches an invasive teleoperated surgical system comprising a capstan (Abstract) wherein the capstan (capstan 1136) comprising a plurality of radial ribs (view Figure 13A-13C) and the diameter of each rib from the plurality of radial ribs decreases between the spool and the lower portion of the capstan (view Figure 13A-13C: the ribs 1156 decrease as the shape is a cone shape). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Au to incorporate the teachings of Kadokura to have the : the capstan comprises a plurality of radial ribs between the spool and the lower portion of the capstan; and a diameter of each rib from the plurality of radial ribs decreases between the spool and the lower portion of the capstan, as these prior art references are directed to surgical systems with capstans. One would be motivated to do this to prevent cable slippage and more accurately control the end effectors, as recognized by Kadokura (pg. 2, lines 11-13) Regarding claim 35 , Au discloses the medial device of claim 1 (as shown above). Au fails to explicitly teach wherein: the capstan consists essentially of a monolithic polymer material. However, Kadokura (WO 2020/102780 A1) teaches an invasive teleoperated surgical system wherein the capstan consists essentially of a monolithic polymer material (pg. 22, line 7: “Capstan 1136 is a contiguous and monolithic structure”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Au to incorporate the teachings of Kadokura to have the capstan consist essentially of a monolithic polymeric material, as these prior art references are directed to surgical system with capstan. One would be motivated to do this to enhance structural strength . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beckman et al. (US 2022/0226056 A1), hereinafter Beckman . Regarding claim 33 , Au discloses the medical device of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein: the cable is a polymeric construction ([0022] “each tendon 221 or 222 may be a Bowden cable, e.g., a pull wire enclosed in a housing, which will minimize the bending of tube 220. Tendons 221 and 222 can otherwise be stranded cables, wires, rods, or tubes made of metal, a polymer , or other material.”). Au fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the cable is a polymeric braided construction. However, Beckman et al. (US 2022/0226056 A1) teaches a robotic surgical tool wherein: the cable is a polymeric braided construction ([0147] “the drive cables 1816a,b may comprise any of the other types of drive members mentioned herein and may thus alternatively comprise a band, a line, a cord, a wire, a woven wire, a rope, a string, a twisted string, an elongate member, a belt, a flexible shaft, or any combination thereof. Moreover the drive cables 1816a,b can be made from a variety of materials including, but not limited to, a metal (e.g., tungsten, stainless steel, nitinol, etc.), a metallic braided cable, a polymer (e.g., ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene or Dyneema®), a polymer braided cable , a synthetic fiber (e.g., KEVLAR®, VECTRAN®, etc.), an elastomer, or any combination thereof.”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Au to incorporate the teachings of Beckman to have the cable be a polymeric braided construction, as these prior art references are directed to surgical tools. One would be motivated to do to use a polymeric braided cable for increased durability and flexibility . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au in view of Johnson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wardle (US Patent 4,688,555 A), hereinafter Wardle . Regarding claim 32 , Au in view of Johnson discloses the medical device of claim 11 (as shown above). Au fails to disclose wherein: the first bearing is a rolling-element bearing; and the second bearing is a journal bearing. However, Johnson teaches wherein: the first bearing is a rolling-element bearing ([0063] “The first one-way bearing 908 a may comprise, for example, a one-way clutch bearing…”). Au and Johnson, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein: the second bearing is a journal bearing. However, Wardle (US Patent 4,688,555 A) teaches an elongated flexible instrument used in medical applications with a compensating mechanism for protecting operating cables and adjusting slack wherein “The heart of the control mechanism 58 is a pair of control pulleys 126 and 128 associated with the control cables 60 and 62, respectively. By way of an integral stub shaft 130, journal bearing 132” (Column 8, lines 40-44). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Au and Johnson to incorporate the teachings of Wardle to substitute Johnson’s second bearing with Wardle’s journal bearing, as these prior art references are directed to reducing slack. One would be motivated to do this as journal bearings are smaller size and well suited for axial loads. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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. /ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /NIKETA PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 2 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 3 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 4 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 5 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 6 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 7 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 8 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 9 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 10 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 11 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 12 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 13 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 14 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 15 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 16 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/683,651 Page 17 Art Unit: 3792
Prosecution Insights