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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated April 29, 2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are pending.
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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joskowicz et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0177081 – “Joskowicz”) in view of Crawford (US PGPUB 2019/0117313 – “Crawford”).
Regarding Claim 1, Joskowicz discloses:
A surgical robot system (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, miniature robot 10; Joskowicz paragraph [0064], “FIG. 1D illustrates schematically the miniature robot of FIG. 1A mounted on a head clamp”) for surgical intervention on a patient (Joskowicz paragraph [0071], “FIG. 1A, which illustrates schematically a miniature robot 10 in use in an image-guided robotic keyhole neurosurgery system”), comprising:
at least one patient fixation unit (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, mounting plate 29) which is adapted to be rigidly and directly attached to the to a head of the patient (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, showing plate 29 directly attached to a patient’s head/skull using screws that attach to the patient’s skull), in order to rigidly fix at least a body portion of the patient with an intervention region relative to the at least one patient fixation unit (Joskowicz paragraph [0076], “the surgeon defines on the image set the desired entry point 18 or points and the desired target location or locations, and determines the robot mounting type (head clamp or skull, depending on clinical criteria) and the desired robot location”);
at least one surgical robot (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, robot 10) that is controllable (Joskowicz FIG. 1A, cable 26; Joskowicz paragraph [0073], “The robot…may be operated via a single cable 26 from a controller”), the at least one surgical robot comprising a robot base (Joskowicz FIG. 1A, fixed platform 12), which is directly connected to the at least one patient fixation unit (Joskowicz paragraph [0072], “robot consists of a fixed platform 12 that attaches to a mounting plate 24”), as well as a robot arm that is moveable and connected to the robot base and an end effector (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, showing robot 10 connected to guide 16 for needle 20 by a control arm coming from robot 10; Joskowicz paragraph [0073], “The robot…positions and orients the targeting guide 16 to a predefined location”); and
wherein the at least one patient fixation unit (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, mounting plate 29) has a circumferential rail (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, circular Mayfield clamp 28) to which the at least one surgical robot is moveable translationally along the circumferential rail via the robot base at least in sections (Joskowicz paragraph [0078], “When the robot is mounted on a head frame such as a Mayfield clamp 28, as shown in FIG. 1D, the robot 10 is preferably attached thereto by means of an adjustable mechanical arm or mounting plate 29.”; Examiner interprets this as teaching that the mounting plate 29 is movable along the circumference of the Mayfield claim 28).
Joskowicz does not explicitly disclose a tracking system that tracks the end effector.
Crawford teaches a tracking system (Crawford FIG. 5, tracking subsystem 532) that tracks the end effector (Crawford FIG. 3, end-effector 310 on surgical robot system 300; Crawford paragraph [0063], “Tracking subsystem may track the location of certain markers that are located on the different components of system 300 and/or instruments used by a user during a surgical procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Crawford’s tracking subsystem with the surgical robot system disclosed by Joskowicz. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a surgical robot system that is capable of identifying the location of its end effector for purposes of navigation thereof (see Crawford FIG. 6 and Crawford paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 6, Joskowicz in view of Crawford teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Joskowicz further discloses wherein the at least one patient fixation unit is a head holder used in neurosurgery (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, showing mounting plate 29 for robot 10 affixed to Mayfield clamp 28, which is screwed to the patient’s skull).
Regarding Claim 8, Joskowicz in view of Crawford teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Joskowicz further discloses wherein the robot base has a slide with a clamping and/or latching element which is adapted to be guided translationally along the circumferential rail and, when the clamping and/or latching element is activated, to fix a position of the robot base relative to the circumferential rail and, when the clamping and/or latching element is deactivated, to be freely movable again in order to adjust various positions of the at least one surgical robot relative to the at least one patient fixation unit and thus relative to the patient (Joskowicz paragraph [0078], “When the robot is mounted on a head frame such as a Mayfield clamp 28, as shown in FIG. 1D, the robot 10 is preferably attached thereto by means of an adjustable mechanical arm or mounting plate 29.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Joskowicz in view of Crawford teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Crawford further teaches wherein the robot arm is configured to have at least five degrees of freedom to align the end effector with a surgical entry path (Crawford FIG. 6, robot arm 604; Crawford paragraph [0075], “end-effector 602 may engage with robot arm 604 through a locating coupling”; Crawford paragraph [0076], “locating coupling may be any style of kinematic mount that uniquely restrains six degrees of freedom”), and/or the end effector itself has at least one further degree of freedom, in order to allow further articulation within the patient.
Regarding Claim 12, Joskowicz in view of Crawford teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Crawford further teaches wherein the surgical robot system further comprises an external control console which is separate from the at least one patient fixation unit with the at least one surgical robot, wherein the external control console is adapted to transmit a manual input by a user to the end effector and to control the end effector accordingly from a distance (Crawford FIG. 5, controller 538 within motion control subsystem 506; Crawford paragraph [0064], Motion control subsystem 506 may be configured to physically move vertical column 312, upper arm 306, lower arm 308, or rotate end-effector 310…These movements may be achieved by controller 538 which may control these movements through load cells disposed on end-effector 310 and activated by a user engaging these load cells to move system 300 in a desired manner. “).
Regarding Claim 14, Joskowicz discloses:
A control method for a surgical robot system that includes a robot, the control method comprising the steps of:
wherein the robot (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, robot 10) is directly connected via a base of the robot to a circumferential rail of a patient fixation unit (Joskowicz Fig. 1D, Mayfield clamp 28) rigidly connected to the patient (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, showing Mayfield clamp 28 screwed onto the skull of the patient) and moveably translated along the circumferential rail via a base of the robot (Joskowicz paragraph [0078], “When the robot is mounted on a head frame such as a Mayfield clamp 28, as shown in FIG. 1D, the robot 10 is preferably attached thereto by means of an adjustable mechanical arm or mounting plate 29.”; Examiner interprets this as teaching that the mounting plate 29 is movable along the circumference of the Mayfield claim 28), and providing the optical image (Joskowicz paragraph [0068], “tracking markers 702 may be activated such that the infrared markers 702 are visible to the camera 200, 326”);
creating, via the control unit (Joskowicz paragraph [0040], “system hardware consists of: 1) the miniature robot and its controller”), an overlapping with the digital 3D image data and the position of the end-effector tip (Joskowicz FIG. 5, augmented reality images 58; Joskowicz paragraph [0088], “The video monitor preferably shows real-time, augmented reality images 58 consisting of a video image of the actual patient skull and the positioning jig with mounting base in the hand of the surgeon 60, and, superimposed on it, a virtual image of the same jig indicating the robot base in its desired preplanned location”); and
outputting the overlapping as an overlapping representation by a display unit and/or controlling the robot-guided end effector based on the overlapping (Joskowicz FIG. 5, augmented reality images 58; Joskowicz paragraph [0088], “The video monitor preferably shows real-time, augmented reality images 58 consisting of a video image of the actual patient skull and the positioning jig with mounting base in the hand of the surgeon 60, and, superimposed on it, a virtual image of the same jig indicating the robot base in its desired preplanned location”).
Joskowicz does not explicitly disclose:
creating, via an optical image device, an optical image of an intervention region of a patient together with an end-effector tip of a robot-guided end effector,
providing, via a data provision unit, digital 3D image data of the patient;
tracking, via a tracking system, of at least the optical image device and a body portion of the patient fixed relative to the patient fixation unit; and
determining, via a control unit, a position of the end-effector tip relative to the optical image device by machine vision based on the basis of the optical image.
Crawford teaches:
creating, via an optical image device (Crawford FIG. 2, camera 200), an optical image of an intervention region of a patient together with an end-effector tip of a robot-guided end effector (Crawford FIG. 13B, tracking markers 118 on end effector 112; Crawford paragraph [0049], “robotic surgical system 100 can comprise one or more tracking markers 118 configured to track the movement of…end-effector 112, patient 210, and/or the surgical instrument 608”; Crawford FIG. 1, camera 200; Crawford paragraph [0044], “camera 200 may include any suitable camera or cameras, such as one or more infrared cameras (e.g., bifocal or stereophotogrammetric cameras), able to identify, for example, active and passive tracking markers 118”),
providing, via a data provision unit, digital 3D image data of the patient (Crawford paragraph [0044], “camera 200 may scan the given measurement volume and detect the light that comes from the markers 118 in order to identify and determine the position of the markers 118 in three-dimensions”);
tracking, via a tracking system, of at least the optical image device and a body portion of the patient fixed relative to the patient fixation unit (Crawford paragraph [0123], “each frame of data collected consists of the tracked position of the DRB 1404 on the patient 210, the tracked position of the single marker 1018 on the end effector 1014, and a snapshot of the positions of each robotic axis. From the positions of the robot's axes, the location of the single marker 1018 on the end effector 1012 is calculated. This calculated position is compared to the actual position of the marker 1018 as recorded from the tracking system”); and
determining, via a control unit (Crawford FIG. 5, computer subsystem/computer 504; Crawford paragraph [0062], “Computer 504 includes an operating system and software to operate system 300. Computer 504 may receive and process information from other components (for example, tracking subsystem 532, platform subsystem 502, and/or motion control subsystem 506) in order to display information to the user.”), a position of the end-effector tip relative to the optical image device by machine vision based on the basis of the optical image (Crawford FIG. 7A, tracking markers 702 on end-effector 602; Crawford paragraph [0068], “tracking markers 702 may be activated such that the infrared markers 702 are visible to the camera 200, 326”);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Crawford’s tracking subsystem with the surgical robot system disclosed by Joskowicz. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a surgical robot system that is capable of identifying the location of its end effector for purposes of navigation thereof (see Crawford FIG. 6 and Crawford paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 15, Joskowicz in view of Crawford teaches the features of Claim 14, as described above.
Crawford further teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the control method according to claim 14 (Crawford FIG. 5, computer/computer subsystem 504; Crawford paragraph [0062], “Computer subsystem 504…includes an operating system and software to operate system 300.”).
Claims 2-5, 10- 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joskowicz et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0177081 – “Joskowicz”) in view of Crawford (US PGPUB 2019/0117313 – “Crawford”) and Nagler et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0204646 – “Nagler”).
Regarding Claim 2, Joskowicz in view of Crawford teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Crawford further teaches:
at least one optical image unit (Crawford FIG. 2, camera 200), which is adapted to create an image of the intervention region and an end effector tip (Crawford FIG. 13B, tracking markers 118 on end effector 112; Crawford paragraph [0049], “robotic surgical system 100 can comprise one or more tracking markers 118 configured to track the movement of…end-effector 112, patient 210, and/or the surgical instrument 608; Crawford FIG. 1, camera 200; Crawford paragraph [0044], “camera 200 may include any suitable camera or cameras, such as one or more infrared cameras (e.g., bifocal or stereophotogrammetric cameras), able to identify, for example, active and passive tracking markers 118”), and to provide the image in a computer-readable manner (Crawford paragraph [0044], “surgical robot system 100 may also utilize a camera 200…The camera 200 may include any suitable camera or cameras, such as one or more infrared cameras (e.g., bifocal or stereophotogrammetric cameras), able to identify, for example, active and passive tracking markers 118”);
a data provision unit, which is adapted to provide digital 3D image data of the patient (Crawford paragraph [0044], “camera 200 may scan the given measurement volume and detect the light that comes from the markers 118 in order to identify and determine the position of the markers 118 in three-dimensions”; Crawford paragraph [0049], “robotic surgical system 100 can comprise one or more tracking markers 118 configured to track the movement of…patient 210”);
Joskowicz further teaches:
a control unit (Joskowicz paragraph [0040], “system hardware consists of: 1) the miniature robot and its controller”), which is provided and adapted to determine a position of the end effector tip and to generate an overlapping with the digital 3D image data and a positionally correct overlapped position of the end effector tip and to output the overlapping visually via a display unit as an overlapping representation and/or to control the end effector based on the overlapping (Joskowicz FIG. 5, augmented reality images 58; Joskowicz paragraph [0088], “The video monitor preferably shows real-time, augmented reality images 58 consisting of a video image of the actual patient skull and the positioning jig with mounting base in the hand of the surgeon 60, and, superimposed on it, a virtual image of the same jig indicating the robot base in its desired preplanned location”).
Regarding the feature of wherein the tracking system is adapted to detect and track in space at least the at least one optical image unit and at least the body portion of the patient, which is fixed relative to the at least one patient fixation unit, Joskowicz discloses that the patient is fixed to the patient fixation (Joskowicz FIG. 1D, showing plate 29 directly attached to a patient’s head/skull using screws that attach to the patient’s skull).
Crawford further teaches the tracking system is adapted to detect and track in space at least the body portion of the patient (Crawford FIG. 2, camera 200; Crawford paragraph [0044], “The surgical robot system 100 may also utilize a camera 200, for example, positioned on a camera stand 202. The camera stand 202 can have any suitable configuration to move, orient, and support the camera 200 in a desired position. The camera 200 may include any suitable camera or cameras, such as one or more infrared cameras (e.g., bifocal or stereophotogrammetric cameras), able to identify, for example, active and passive tracking markers 118 in a given measurement volume viewable from the perspective of the camera 200.” Examiner interprets this as teaching that the camera stand 202 can be positioned to track the position of the patient, as well as a surgical instrument 608 (shown in Crawford FIG. 6) that is held by the robot arm 104 shown in Crawford FIG. 2.
However, Crawford does not explicitly teach that the instrument being tracked by camera 200 is an optical imagine unit (e.g., a catheter with optical capabilities or an endoscope).
Nagler further teaches the instrument being tracked by camera 200 is an optical imagine unit (Nagler FIG. 7J, catheter 106 with a distal image head camera 113).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagler’s optical catheter with the surgical robot system taught by Joskowicz in view of Crawford. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a surgical robot system that is able to capture real-time images of internal organs/features of the patient, in order to confirm that the stereotactic guidance is accurate.
Regarding Claim 3, Joskowicz in view of Crawford and Nagler teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Joskowicz further discloses wherein the control unit is adapted to determine, via an optical image of the end effector tip, the position, of the end effector tip, relative to the at least one optical image unit by machine vision, and to determine, via a pose of the at least one optical image unit tracked by the tracking system, the position, of the end effector tip relative to the digital 3D image data (Joskowicz paragraph [0090], “the system also includes a surface scan processing module, which automatically extracts three sets of points from the intraoperative 3D surface scan generated by the 3-D surface scanner 36: 1) a forehead (frontal scan) or ear cloud of points (lateral scan); 2) preferably four eye or ear landmark points; and 3) the registration jig cloud of points (when the jig is present in the scan). The forehead/ear cloud of points is computed by first isolating the corresponding areas and removing outliers. The landmark points are extracted by fitting a triangular mesh and identifying the areas of maximum curvature as in the CT/MRI images. The jig cloud of points is computed by isolating the remaining points.”; Joskowicz paragraph [0093], “tracking an…end-effector 112…to be tracked in 3D”).
Regarding Claim 4, Joskowicz in view of Crawford and Nagler teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Crawford further teaches wherein the end effector has a predefined optical marking pattern (Crawford FIG. 13B, tracking markers 118 on end-effector 112), and the control unit is adapted to determine the position of the end effector tip based on the predefined optical marking pattern detected by the at least one optical image unit (Crawford paragraph [0052], “light emitted from and/or reflected by markers 118 can be detected by camera 200 and can be used to monitor the location and movement of the marked objects”).
Regarding Claim 5, Joskowicz in view of Crawford and Nagler teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Crawford further teaches wherein an optical marker is arranged on the at least one end effector (Crawford FIG. 13B, tracking markers 118 on end-effector 112) or on a terminal member of the robot arm, wherein the optical marker is detected and tracked by the tracking system in order to determine the position and orientation of the end effector tip (Crawford paragraph [0052], “light emitted from and/or reflected by markers 118 can be detected by camera 200 and can be used to monitor the location and movement of the marked objects”).
Regarding Claim 10, Joskowicz in view of Crawford and Nagler teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Crawford further teaches wherein the at least one optical image unit (Crawford FIG. 2, camera 200) is a digital surgical microscope that provides an optical image of the end effector (Crawford FIG. 2, showing surgical robot 102 in the field of view of camera 200) in a computer-readable manner.
Regarding Claim 11, Joskowicz in view of Crawford and Nagler teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Nagler further teaches wherein the at least one optical image unit is an endoscope (Nagler FIG. 7J, catheter 106) with a distal image head (Nagler FIG. 7J, camera 113), which is adapted to create an intracorporeal optical image of the patient (Nagler FIG. 7J, showing unlabeled tumor 103 emitting radiation 12; Nagler paragraph [0145], “as seen in FIG. 7J, tumor 103 is first detected by camera 113, visually”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagler’s endoscope with the surgical robot system taught by Joskowicz in view of Crawford. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a surgical robot system that is able to capture real-time images of internal organs/features of the patient, in order to confirm that the stereotactic guidance is accurate.
Regarding Claim 13, Joskowicz in view of Crawford and Nagler teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Joskowicz further discloses wherein a preoperative intervention plan is stored in the data provision unit of the surgical robot system, and the control unit is adapted to control the end effector semi-autonomously or completely autonomously based on the preoperative intervention plan in order to perform the surgical intervention (Joskowicz paragraph [0086], “FIG. 4 which illustrates schematically the computation method for preoperative robot placement. The goal is to compute the transformation that aligns the planned trajectoryimageplanned 50, (defined by the entry point Pimageentry 18 and target point Pimagetarget 19) in image coordinates, to the targeting guide axis with the robot in its home position, guidehomerobot 52, in robot coordinates.“).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed April 19, 2026, with respect to the claim interpretation of Claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to the claims. The claim interpretation of Claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed April 19, 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to the claims. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed April 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to the claims. The rejection of Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed April 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant asserts that Joskowicz et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0177081 – “Joskowicz”) fails to disclose that the mounting plate 29 being movable on Mayfield clamp 29 in Joskowicz FIG. 1D. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Joskowicz paragraph [0078] states, “When the robot is mounted on a head frame such as a Mayfield clamp 28, as shown in FIG. 1D, the robot 10 is preferably attached thereto by means of an adjustable mechanical arm or mounting plate 29.” Examiner interprets this as teaching that the adjustable mounting plate 29 is movable along the circumference of the Mayfield clamp 28. As such, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Examiner also asks Applicant to consider Mowlai-Ashtiani (US Patent 6,110,182 – “Mowlai-Ashtiani”) and Looper et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0306344 – “Looper”), which describe other teachings of a patient fixation unit that has a circumferential rail to which the at least one surgical robot is moveable translationally along the circumferential rail via the robot base at least in sections, as discussed in the Conclusion section below.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 11, Applicant asserts that Joskowicz in view of Crawford (US PGPUB 2019/0117313 – “Crawford”) and Nagler et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0204646 – “Nagler”) does not teach or suggest the moveably translational robot. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons described the response to arguments for Claim 1. As such, the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 14, Applicant asserts that Joskowicz in view of Crawford and Nagler does not teach or suggest the patient fixation unit moveably translated along the circumferential rail via the base of the robot. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons described the response to arguments for Claim 1. As such, the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
As such, the rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 14, as well as dependent Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include, but are not limited to, the following:
Noonan et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0246085 – “Noonan”), which teaches in Noonan FIG. 6 an endoscope 51 connected to a yaw arc 44 of a robot 40, demonstrating the well-known feature of an endoscope that is controlled/positioned by a robot;
Mowlai-Ashtiani (US Patent 6,110,182 – “Mowlai-Ashtiani”), which teaches in Mowlai-Ashtiani FIG. 1 a halo 80 that supports an attachment element 78, which is connected to a surgical instrument 70, demonstrating the well-known feature of a halo support for surgical instruments, including endoscopes; and
Looper et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0306344 – “Looper”), which teaches in Looper FIG. 1 a surgical retractor securing device with a circumferential bar 30 that supports a capture assembly 100, which is releasably secured to the surgical accessor bar 30 and holds a surgical retractor (see Looper paragraphs [0002] and [0034]).
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
05/19/26
Prosecution Insights