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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
2. 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.
2.1 Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. (US 2019/0206564 A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US 20210249125 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Shelton discloses a method for operating a first surgical system using a remote-second surgical system (Fig. 1, [0216], interactive surgical system 100 includes one or more surgical systems 102 and a cloud-based system (e.g., the cloud 104 that may include a remote server 113 coupled to a storage device 105), Each surgical system 102 includes at least one surgical hub 106 in communication with the cloud 104 that may include a remote server 113), the method comprising:
obtaining support and control information (Abstract, perioperative data) associated with remotely operating the first surgical system (Abstract, [0013]-[0015], Fig. 1, receiving, by a computer system, perioperative data from a plurality of surgical devices (first and second surgical system) located within the facility);
determining, based on the support and control information, that the first surgical system supports image porting and remote control (Abstract, [0014], [0364], determining, by the computer system, procedural context data associated with the plurality of surgical procedures based at least in part on the perioperative data and the images of the facility and any staff members or surgical devices located therein from a plurality of cameras located within the facility);
requesting, based on the determination that the first surgical system supports image porting and remote control (Abstract, [0264], determining, by the computer system, trends associated with the surgical procedures performed in the facility according to the perioperative data and the procedural context data) and [0357], the request can be pushed to the surgical hubs 206 within the medical facility network, and the surgical hubs will thereafter collect that type of surgical instrument, wherein the surgical hubs can collect intraoperative or postoperative data, the surgical hub can receive the captured image and/or video data from the cameras to visually analyze the techniques or physical characteristics of the surgical staff members during the surgical procedure, as requested by the user. Once the request has been entered, the collected data can be shared with, for example, a database defined by the user according to a structured data-sharing ruleset);
receiving, in response to the request, imaging and control information associated with the first surgical system ([0259], [0269], images received from the imaging module, device/instrument display, and/or other visualization systems. The hub display also may display data received from devices connected to the modular control tower in conjunction with images and overlaid images; and surgical hub 106, 206 receives data and image from the data sources throughout the course of the surgical procedure, including data generated each time medical personnel utilize a modular device that is paired with the surgical hub); and
displaying, based on the imaging and control information ([0255], integrate the images from the different imaging device), imaging from the first surgical system ([0228], [0255],[0259], [0269], multiple imaging devices are placed at different positions in the surgical field to provide multiple views. The imaging module 138 can be configured to switch between the imaging devices to provide an optimal view. In various aspects, the imaging module 138 can be configured to integrate the images from the different imaging device. The modular communication hub 203 is connected to a display 212 to display images obtained by some of the devices 1a-1n/2a-2m, for example during surgical procedures), and displaying a control interface associated with the first surgical system ([0251], displaying data relevant to the operation of the modules),
wherein the imaging from the first surgical system and the control interface associated with the first surgical system is associated with the first surgical system operating using a first operating configuration ([0217], [0228], Fig. 2, Fig. 3, An image of the surgical site can be obtained by a medical imaging device, which can be manipulated by the patient side cart 120 to orient the imaging device. The robotic hub can be used to process the images of the surgical site for subsequent display to the surgeon through the surgeon's console).
In addition, Shelton disclose ([0259], [0265],[0266], Fig. 2, Fig. 12-14, the modular control tower and an imaging module configured to receive multiple devices and transfer between the surgical system by the modular communication hub). However, Shelton fails to specifically disclose redirection of imaging and a control interface information from the first surgical system to the second surgical system,
Morgan discloses redirection of imaging and a control interface information from the first surgical system to the second surgical system ([0006], [0139],[0145], Fig. 2-3 and 9-10, medical resource usage data from a plurality of medical hubs located in different medical facility locations, each communicatively coupled to the cloud-based analytics system. The medical resource usage data included data pertaining to medical products, and an image of the surgical site can be obtained by a medical imaging device 124, is allocated).
Shelton and Morgan are analogous art. They relate to communication between robotic surgical devices. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify generate a medical recommendation to change a medical resource usage, taught by Morgan, incorporated with determine the perioperative data associated with a plurality of surgical procedures, taught by Shelton, in order to a general desire for maintaining communication and shared knowledge with other neighboring or similarly situated facilities to improve patient practices by interconnect medical systems and facilities better.
Regarding claim 8, Shelton discloses a method for operating a first surgical system (a surgical system 102), the method comprising:
obtaining support and control information (information from the image device 124) associated with a second surgical system ([0107], [0433], Fig. 2, Fig. 18, An image of the surgical site can be obtained by a medical imaging device 124, which can be manipulated by the patient side cart 120 to orient the imaging device 124);
determining, based on the support and control information (information from the image device 124), that the second surgical system is enabled to support image porting and remote control ([0216], [0433], [0440], Fig. 2, The robotic hub 122 can be used to process the images of the surgical site for subsequent display to the surgeon through the surgeon's console 118 (remote control); and
sending, based on the determination that the second surgical system supports image porting and remote control (Fig. 2, Fig. 9, Fig. 18, the robotic hub 122 can be used to process the images of the surgical site for subsequent display to the surgeon through the surgeon's console 118. Each surgical system 202 includes at least one surgical hub 206 in communication with a cloud 204 that may include a remote server 213), imaging and control information associated with the first surgical system to the second surgical system ([0296], [0270], Fig. 2, Fig. 9, interactive surgical system 200 includes one or more surgical systems 202 (first and second surgical system) communicating with communicate hub 203 to transfer the control data and image from the visualization modules/device 208 and control tower module236).
Shelton fails to disclose the imaging and control information is associated with a first operating configuration being used by the first surgical system; receiving a control setting change request indicating to use a second operating configuration; determining whether to change the operating configuration being used by the first surgical system based on the control setting change request; and based on determination whether to change the operating configuration being used by the first surgical system, sending a control setting change response.
However, Morgan discloses the imaging and control information (information from the image device 124), is associated with a first operating configuration (surgical procedure) being used by the first surgical system (Fig. 1, [0107], the hub 106 cause the visualization system 108 to display a snap-shot of a surgical site, as recorded by an imaging device 124, on a non-sterile display 107 or 109, while maintaining a live feed of the surgical site on the primary display 119. The snapshot on the non-sterile display 107 or 109 can permit a non-sterile operator to perform a diagnostic step relevant to the surgical procedure at the surgical system 112);
receiving a control setting change request indicating to use a second operating configuration (Abstract, Fig. 8-11, [0005], [0139], generating, by the cloud-based analytics medical system, a medical recommendation to change a medical resource usage-practice based on the correlation, and display the medical recommendation to a medical hub at the local facility);
determining whether to change the operating configuration being used by the first surgical system based on the control setting change request (Abstract, [0005],[0148], The processor can determine a correlation between positive outcomes from the outcome data and location data of the medical product, generate a medical recommendation to change a medical resource usage practice based on the correlation, and display the medical recommendation to a medical hub at the local facility); and
based on determination whether to change the operating configuration being used by the first surgical system ([0148], Abstract, based on a medical recommendation to change a medical resource usage practice based on the correlation), sending a control setting change response (Abstract, [0216], [0220], display the medical recommendation to a medical hub at the local facility. The robotic surgical instrument 700 can include a feedback controller, which can be one of any feedback controllers, including, but not limited to a PID, state feedback, a linear-quadratic (LQR), and/or an adaptive controller, for example. The robotic surgical instrument 700 can include a power source to convert the signal from the feedback controller into a physical input such as case voltage, PWM voltage).
Shelton and Morgan are analogous art. They relate to communication between robotic surgical devices. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify generate a medical recommendation to change a medical resource usage, taught by Morgan, incorporated with determine the perioperative data associated with a plurality of surgical procedures, taught by Shelton, in order to a general desire for maintaining communication and shared knowledge with other neighboring or similarly situated facilities to improve patient practices by interconnect medical systems and facilities better.
Regarding claim 3, Shelton discloses the support and control information indicates a plurality of operating configurations associated ([0293], operational configurations of various healthcare facilities to determine whether resource usage could be improved) with the first surgical system that the second surgical system (surgical stapling instruments 7012) is enabled to change ([0290], [0293], the surgical instruments 7012 may be digital surgical devices configured to interact with the cloud 7004 for implementing techniques to improve the performance of surgical operations. Various surgical instruments 7012 and/or surgical hubs 7006 may comprise touch-controlled user interfaces such that clinicians may control aspects of interaction (enabled) between the surgical instruments 7012 and the cloud 7004. Other suitable user interfaces for control such as auditory controlled user interfaces can also be used).
Regarding claim 4, Shelton discloses the support and control information ([0292], aggregated data to determine an optimal usage of resources) indicates a degree of control ([0305], control adjustment or set of control adjustments for one or more modular devices 5102) associated with the second surgical system changing an operating configuration associated with the first surgical system ([0295], [0302]-[0303], [0311], proactively and automatically controlling the paired modular devices 5102 according to the particular step of the surgical procedure that is being performed to reduce the number of times that medical personnel are required to interact with or control the surgical system 5100 during the course of a surgical procedure; and the surgical hub is configured to infer information about the surgical procedure from received data and then control the modular devices paired to the surgical hub based upon the inferred context of the surgical procedure. The control program updating module 7026 could be configured to implement various surgical instrument 7012 recommendations when corresponding control programs are updated), wherein the degree of control is one of partial control or full control ([0510], the display corresponds to a surgical instrument controlled by the individua).
Claims 5 and 18, Shelton discloses determining that the first surgical system switched from the first operating configuration to a second operating configuration ([0429], [0584], [0592], the surgeon switches to the recommended curved-tip vascular stapler 210108, as indicated by the third image 210100c, and then completes the given step of the surgical procedure, as indicated by the fourth image 210100d of the video feed); and displaying updated imaging from the first surgical system ([0429], graphical overlay on the displayed live video feed) and displaying an updated control interface associated with the first surgical system ([0431], the graphical user interface 210200 can display an icon 210208 relaying surgical contextual information or perioperative data received from the connected surgical devices corresponding to the current time stamp of the displayed video feed), wherein the updated imaging and updated control interface is associated with the first surgical system operating using the second operating configuration ([0431], computed system determined a monitored procedural variable deviated from its corresponding baseline. By visually indicating when the computer system determined that the surgeon was deviating from baselines during the surgical procedure via the icons 210204, the surgeon can focus on those portions of the surgical procedure during the postoperative review of the procedure).
Regarding claim 10, Shelton discloses the imaging and control information is first imaging and control information ([0015], [0378]. Fig. 25, the perioperative data associated with a plurality of surgical procedures and images of the facility and any staff members or surgical devices located therein from a plurality of cameras located within the facility), wherein the control setting change response ([0295], [0293], [0345], The control program updating module 7026 surgical instrument 7012 should be upgraded to an improved version based on a higher than expected error rate) comprises second imaging and control information associated with the second operating configuration ( [0381], [0382], the processor 244 captures 211006 image(s) of the surgical staff performing the surgical procedure via, for example, cameras 211802 positioned within the OR 211800. The captured image(s) can include static images or moving images (i.e., video). The images of the surgical staff can be captured at a variety of angles) being used by the first surgical system ([0293], Hubs 7006 and/or surgical instruments 7012 each could also have display screens that display image and data or recommendations provided by the cloud 7004).
Regarding claim 12, Shelton discloses the support and control information indicates a plurality of operating configurations associated ([0293], operational configurations of various healthcare facilities to determine whether resource usage could be improved) with the first surgical system that the second surgical system (surgical stapling instruments 7012) is enabled to change ([0290], [0293], the surgical instruments 7012 may be digital surgical devices configured to interact with the cloud 7004 for implementing techniques to improve the performance of surgical operations. Various surgical instruments 7012 and/or surgical hubs 7006 may comprise touch-controlled user interfaces such that clinicians may control aspects of interaction (enabled) between the surgical instruments 7012 and the cloud 7004. Other suitable user interfaces for control such as auditory controlled user interfaces can also be used).
Regarding claim 13, Shelton discloses the support and control information ([0292], aggregated data to determine an optimal usage of resources) indicates a degree of control ([0305], control adjustment or set of control adjustments for one or more modular devices 5102) associated with the second surgical system changing an operating configuration associated with the first surgical system ([0295], [0302]-[0303], [0311], proactively and automatically controlling the paired modular devices 5102 according to the particular step of the surgical procedure that is being performed to reduce the number of times that medical personnel are required to interact with or control the surgical system 5100 during the course of a surgical procedure; and the surgical hub is configured to infer information about the surgical procedure from received data and then control the modular devices paired to the surgical hub based upon the inferred context of the surgical procedure. The control program updating module 7026 could be configured to implement various surgical instrument 7012 recommendations when corresponding control programs are updated), wherein the degree of control is one of partial control or full control ([0510], the display corresponds to a surgical instrument controlled by the individua).
Regarding claim 17, Shelton discloses the support and control information indicates a plurality of operating configurations associated ([0293], operational configurations of various healthcare facilities to determine whether resource usage could be improved) with the first surgical system that the second surgical system (surgical stapling instruments 7012) is enabled to change ([0290], [0293], the surgical instruments 7012 may be digital surgical devices configured to interact with the cloud 7004 for implementing techniques to improve the performance of surgical operations. Various surgical instruments 7012 and/or surgical hubs 7006 may comprise touch-controlled user interfaces such that clinicians may control aspects of interaction (enabled) between the surgical instruments 7012 and the cloud 7004. Other suitable user interfaces for control such as auditory controlled user interfaces can also be used), wherein the support and control information ([0292], aggregated data to determine an optimal usage of resources) indicates a degree of control ([0305], control adjustment or set of control adjustments for one or more modular devices 5102) associated with the second surgical system changing an operating configuration associated with the first surgical system ([0295], [0302]-[0303], [0311], proactively and automatically controlling the paired modular devices 5102 according to the particular step of the surgical procedure that is being performed to reduce the number of times that medical personnel are required to interact with or control the surgical system 5100 during the course of a surgical procedure; and the surgical hub is configured to infer information about the surgical procedure from received data and then control the modular devices paired to the surgical hub based upon the inferred context of the surgical procedure. The control program updating module 7026 could be configured to implement various surgical instrument 7012 recommendations when corresponding control programs are updated), wherein the degree of control is one of partial control or full control ([0510], the display corresponds to a surgical instrument controlled by the individua).
2.2 Claim(s) 2, 6, 9, 11, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. (US 2019/0206564 A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US 20210249125 A1) further in view of Kim et al. (US20150131562A1).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 9, 11, 16 and 19, the combination of Shelton and Morgan discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, In addition Shelton discloses claims 2, 6, 9, 11, 16 and 19.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Shelton discloses requesting a control setting change associated with the first operating configuration used by the first surgical system ([0295], [0288], monitoring requests by client surgical hubs 7006 and managing the processing capacity of the cloud 7004 for executing the requests. The control program updating module 7026 could be configured to implement various surgical instrument 7012 recommendations when corresponding control programs are updated), wherein the request indicates to use a second operating configuration ([0293], [0288], regarding parameters or configurations of various surgical instruments can also be provided); and determining that the first surgical system is using a second operating configuration based on a received acknowledgement ([0295], correlations may be addressed (acknowledgement) when updated control programs are transmitted to surgical instruments via the control program updating module, and recommendations module could identify improved methods of using instruments based on aggregated performance data).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Shelton discloses requesting a control setting change ([0584], receive an input signal) associated with the first operating configuration used by the first surgical system ([0293], [0584], in response to the input signal, switch between a first operational mode and a second operational mode, in the first operational mode, actuate the surgical function), wherein the request indicates to use a second operating configuration ([0584], [0293], [0290], actuate the surgical function; upgraded to an improved version based on a higher than expected error rate, for example. Additionally, the recommendations module 7030 and/or resource optimization module 7020 could recommend better supply chain parameters such as product reorder points and provide suggestions of different surgical instrument 7012); receiving a negative acknowledgement based on the requested control setting change ([0295], The control program updating module 7026 could be configured to implement various surgical instrument 7012 recommendations when corresponding control programs are updated. For example, the patient outcome analysis module 7028 could identify correlations linking specific control parameters with successful (or unsuccessful) results), wherein the negative acknowledgement indicates a reason for refusing the control setting change request ([0337], [0338], [0429], the surgical hub 206 is programmed to determine the recommendation based on the surgical context and the given procedural variables and then access the inventory database of the medical facility to determine whether the recommended alternative is available to the medical facility. If the recommended alternative is not available, the surgical hub can be programmed to not make the recommendation intraoperatively or otherwise record that the alternative surgical device would have been recommended had it been available. The data updates or new data flow from the first database to the second database, but not vice versal); and updating control settings associated with remotely operating the first surgical system based on the received the negative acknowledgement ([0293], [0429], If the recommended alternative is not available, the surgical hub 206 can be programmed to provide the intraoperative recommendation ([0430], recommended placement locations and trocar types can be selected to maximize accessibility to target tissue for the given surgical procedure), and the recommendation can be provided as an icon or graphical overlay on the displayed live video feed).
Regarding claim 9, Shelton discloses based on a determination to change the operating configuration being used by the first surgical system, changing an operating parameter associated with the second configuration ([0295],[0288], monitoring requests by client surgical hubs 7006 and managing the processing capacity of the cloud 7004 for executing the requests. The control program updating module 7026 could be configured to implement various surgical instruments 7012 recommendations when corresponding control programs are updated); and sending a control setting-change response to the second surgical system, wherein the control setting change response comprises an acknowledgement ([0295], correlations may be addressed (acknowledgement) when updated control programs are transmitted to surgical instruments 7012 via the control program updating module 7026, and recommendations module 7030 could identify improved methods of using instruments 7012 based on aggregated performance data).
Regarding claim 11, Shelton discloses based on a determination to refrain from changing the operating configuration being used by the first surgical system ([0293], The resource optimization module 7020 can be configured to analyze this aggregated data to determine an optimal usage of resources for a particular or group of healthcare facilities,) sending a control setting change response to the second surgical system ([0295], The control program updating module 7026 could be configured to implement various surgical instrument 7012), wherein the control setting change response comprises a negative acknowledgement (0293], [0429], if the recommended alternative is not available (negative acknowledgement) and an indication that indicates a reason for refusing the control setting change request ([0293], [0429], if the recommended alternative is not available (negative acknowledgement) the surgical hub 206 can be programmed to provide the intraoperative recommendation ([0430], recommended placement locations and trocar types can be selected to maximize accessibility to target tissue for the given surgical procedure), and the recommendation can be provided as an icon or graphical overlay on the displayed live video feed).
However, the combination of Shelton and Morgan specifically fails to disclose a transmit and receive positive and negative acknowledgement.
Kim discloses in Abstract, Par. [0015], transmits and receives a positive-acknowledgement (ACK)/negative-acknowledgement (NACK) in a wireless communication system and a wireless device using the same.
Kim, Shelton and Morgan are analogous art. They relate to communication between robotic surgical devices. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify transmitting hybrid automatic repeat request, taught by Kim, incorporated with teaching of Morgan and Shelton, as state above, in order to providing a reliability communication by ensures the sender knows if a packet was received correctly. If NACK arrives within a timeout, the sender retransmits the packet.
2.3 Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. (US20190206564A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US20210249125A1) further in view of Savall et al. (US20220323168A1).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, the combination of Shelton and Morgan discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, but fails to disclose the limitations of claims 7, 14 and 20. However, Savall discloses the limitations of claims 7, 14 and 20 as follows:
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Savall discloses receiving an indication that indicates the first surgical system is taking control and terminating remote control of the first surgical system via the second surgical system (Abstract, Fig. 3, [0007], Interlock mechanisms to disengage and engage a teleoperation mode a surgical workspace of the surgical robotic system); and based on receiving the indication, updating control settings associated remotely operating the first surgical system ([0007], [0024]-[0025], the surgical robotic system, (2) at least one or more user interface devices of the surgical robotic system are configured in a usable manner, and (3) a surgical workspace of the surgical robotic system is configured in a usable manner; in response to determining each of the interlock requirements are satisfied, transition the surgical robotic system into a teleoperation mode in which the surgical instrument is controlled by at least one or more of the user interface devices).
Regarding claim 14, Savall discloses determined to terminate remote control operation of the first surgical system using the second surgical system (Abstract, Fig. 3, [0007], Interlock mechanisms to disengage and engage a teleoperation mode a surgical workspace of the surgical robotic system) based on the determination to terminate remote control operation of the first surgical system via the second surgical system, send a suspension indication (Fig. 3, non-usable, do not engage teleoperation mode) that indicates the first surgical system is taking control and terminating remote control of the first surgical system via the second surgical system ([0007], [0024]-[0025], the surgical robotic system, (2) at least one or more user interface devices of the surgical robotic system are configured in a usable manner, and (3) a surgical workspace of the surgical robotic system is configured in a usable manner; in response to determining each of the interlock requirements are satisfied, transition the surgical robotic system into a teleoperation mode in which the surgical instrument is controlled by at least one or more of the user interface devices).
Savall, Shelton and Morgan are analogous art. They relate to communication between robotic surgical devices. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify disengage and engage a teleoperation mode of surgical workspace, taught by Savall, incorporated with teaching of Morgan and Shelton, as state above, in order to avoid the risk of unintentionally move the tools while not focusing on the screen by provide system detects a number of interlock parameters, conditions, inputs or the like, and then determines based on the detection of the interlock parameters, whether the system should disengage or engage teleoperation.
Citation Pertinent prior art
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giordano (US20180000545A1) discloses the control unit may communicate with the transponder in the end effector without a direct wired connection through complex mechanical joints like the rotating joint where it may be difficult to maintain such a wired connection.
Piron (US20210153943A1) discloses correlating a preoperative surgical plan with archival surgical plan data from one or more prior medical procedures is provided, the method comprising: obtaining preoperative surgical plan data associated with a medical procedure to be performed on a subject.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Worku, whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad, can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217 - 9197. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights