DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-8 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “…wherein the processor is further configured to an optimal surgical approach”, which creates confusion regarding the scope of the claim. The examiner notes that there are multiple interpretations of this claim language. One interpretation is that the processor is configured to determine an optimal surgical approach. Another interpretation is the processor is configured to recommend an optimal surgical approach. Further, one possible interpretation is the processor is configured to display an optimal surgical approach. Finally, another interpretation is the processor is, in a sense, specifically designed to an optimal surgical approach, which would be considered an intended use recitation of the processor, in which the processor as taught by Bartol (see 35 USC 103 rejections below) would certainly be capable of performing the intended function. As currently written, the scope of the claim cannot be determined as there are multiple reasonable interpretations possible when looking at the preceding claims and the specification. The examiner recommends amending the claim language to clarify the relationship between the processor and an optimal surgical approach. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring the processor to “determine” an optimal surgical approach.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartol (US 20140073986 A1) in view of Stopek (US 20140228858 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bartol teaches a surgical planning system comprising:
an electrode for engaging a patient [0028 “The contact detection device may, for example, include a pair of electrodes that are configured to contact the skin of the subject 14…”];
a sensor [Fig. 1 Item 22] disposed on the patient [see Fig. 1, see also 0028 “…the sensor 22 may include a contact detection device, that may provide an indication if the sensor 22 is in physical contact with the skin of the subject 14”], the sensor producing a mechanomyography output signal associated with a response by a nerve stimulated by the electrode [0034 “…each mechanical sensor 22 may generate a mechanomyography (MMG) output signal (schematically shown in FIG. 1 at 72) that corresponds to a sensed mechanical movement/response of the adjacent muscle”];
a processor [Fig. 1 Item 20] configured to:
provide a plurality of electrical stimuli with differing magnitudes to the electrode at different locations and/or positions on the patient [0035 “…the processor 20 may be in communication with the stimulator 30 and the mechanical sensor 22”, see also Fig. 2 showing the relationship between magnitude of the sensed response as a function of the distance between the stimulator and the nerve and the magnitude of the applied electrical current stimulus];
determine, via the mechanomyography output signals, the presence of a nerve [0039 “…the processor 20 may then compare the subsequent nerve function value with the baseline nerve function value in step 116 to determine a change in nerve function”].
Bartol teaches determining the presence of a nerve, but fails to teach using the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model.
Stopek teaches using the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model [0064 “These images may be registered to those of the CT image data and/or the 3D model to provide greater clarity with respect to the location of a target nerve”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Bartol and incorporate the teachings of Stopek to include using the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model. Doing so configures the system to provide a visual representation of the acquired data to a viewer, providing for a more accessible means to determine the location of the nerve.
Regarding claim 2, Bartol and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to update the nerve model iteratively [Stopek 0067 “In case when the clinician determines that the image 430 is too outdated for the pathway planning, new images should be taken as shown in FIGS. 2A-2F for generation of a new 3D model and the pathway planning”].
Regarding claim 4, Bartol and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to overlay a graphical representation of the nerve model over an anatomical representation of the patient [Stopek Fig. 3, see also Stopek 0061 “A target nerve may exist on any bronchial trees, the primary bronchus 342, the secondary bronchus 344, the tertiary bronchus 346, and the terminal bronchioles 348”].
Regarding claim 5, Bartol and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on three-dimensional CT [Stopek 0064 “These images may be registered to those of the CT image data and/or the 3D model to provide greater clarity with respect to the location of a target nerve”] or MRI images [Stopek 0064 “…other imaging modalities may be employed to enhance the first image data collected (e.g., the CT image data), these modalities includes (…), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)…”].
Regarding claim 6, Bartol and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on two-dimensional fluoroscope [Stopek 0064 “…other imaging modalities may be employed to enhance the first image data collected (e.g., the CT image data), these modalities includes (…), fluoroscopy…”] or ultrasound images [Stopek 0064 “…other imaging modalities may be employed to enhance the first image data collected (e.g., the CT image data), these modalities includes various forms of ultrasound both internal and external to the patient…”].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartol and Stopek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grenz (US 20160045732 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bartol and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein Bartol teaches a processor and Stopek teaches a 3D model including the nerve, but fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to create a nerve probability model.
Grenz teaches creating a nerve probability model [0021 “The segment model may be then overlaid on the 3D model and the probability of phrenic nerve stimulation may be displayed on the model”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Bartol and Stopek and incorporate the teachings of Grenz to include creating a nerve probability model. Doing so provides a model that is spatially precise, uncertainty-aware, and interpretable predictions of nerve structure and function, enabling more accurate, personalized, and safe applications.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartol and Stopek as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kostrzewski (US 20150100066 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bartol and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein Stopek teaches a graphical representation of the nerve model and Bartol teaches a processor, but fail to teach the processor is further configured to use the overlay to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient.
Kostrzewski teaches the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient [0128 “The surgical system processor may calculate such a path based on the determined patient position and surgical tool/end effector position, and may be guided by markers placed in select locations on the patient and/or robot. The path, itself, may be indicated on the display to help guide a surgeon who is maneuvering the end effector in force control mode”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Bartol and Stopek and incorporate the teachings of Kostrzewski to include the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient. Doing so configures the system to “…give feedback to the surgeon allowing him to determine the trajectory and/or make changes to a trajectory”, as recognized by Kostrzewski par. 0127.
Regarding claim 8, Bartol, Stopek, and Kostrzewski teach, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejection above, the surgical planning system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to an optimal surgical approach [Kostrzewski 0011 “…the instructions cause the processor to calculate a desired trajectory from the virtual representation of the patient situation”].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10321833 in view of Bartol and Stopek.
Regarding claim 1, US 10321833 teaches a surgical planning system comprising:
an electrode for engaging a patient [claim 1];
a sensor disposed on the patient, the sensor producing a mechanomyography output signal associated with a response by a nerve stimulated by the electrode [claim 1];
provide a plurality of electrical stimuli with differing magnitudes to the electrode at different locations and/or positions on the patient [claim 1];
determine, via the mechanomyography output signals, the presence of a nerve [claim 3].
The claims of US 10321833 teach the components of the system, but fail to explicitly teach a processor.
Bartol teaches a processor [Fig. 1 Item 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of US 10321833 and incorporate the teachings of Bartol to include a processor. Doing so configures the system to execute instructions, process data, control system operations, and enables rapid calculation and computations.
The claims of US 10321833 teach determining the presence of the nerve, but fail to teach the system is configured use the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model.
Stopek teaches the system is configured use the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model [0064 “These images may be registered to those of the CT image data and/or the 3D model to provide greater clarity with respect to the location of a target nerve”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Bartol and incorporate the teachings of Stopek to include using the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model. Doing so configures the system to provide a visual representation of the acquired data to a viewer, providing for a more accessible means to determine the location of the nerve.
Regarding claim 2, US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to update the nerve model iteratively [Stopek 0067 “In case when the clinician determines that the image 430 is too outdated for the pathway planning, new images should be taken as shown in FIGS. 2A-2F for generation of a new 3D model and the pathway planning”].
Regarding claim 4, US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to overlay a graphical representation of the nerve model over an anatomical representation of the patient [Stopek Fig. 3, see also Stopek 0061 “A target nerve may exist on any bronchial trees, the primary bronchus 342, the secondary bronchus 344, the tertiary bronchus 346, and the terminal bronchioles 348”].
Regarding claim 5, US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on three-dimensional CT [Stopek 0064 “These images may be registered to those of the CT image data and/or the 3D model to provide greater clarity with respect to the location of a target nerve”] or MRI images [Stopek 0064 “…other imaging modalities may be employed to enhance the first image data collected (e.g., the CT image data), these modalities includes (…), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)…”].
Regarding claim 6, US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on two-dimensional fluoroscope [Stopek 0064 “…other imaging modalities may be employed to enhance the first image data collected (e.g., the CT image data), these modalities includes (…), fluoroscopy…”] or ultrasound images [Stopek 0064 “…other imaging modalities may be employed to enhance the first image data collected (e.g., the CT image data), these modalities includes various forms of ultrasound both internal and external to the patient…”].
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10321833 in view of Bartol, Stopek, and Grenz.
Regarding claim 3, US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein Bartol teaches a processor and Stopek teaches a 3D model including the nerve, but fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to create a nerve probability model.
Grenz teaches creating a nerve probability model [0021 “The segment model may be then overlaid on the 3D model and the probability of phrenic nerve stimulation may be displayed on the model”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek and incorporate the teachings of Grenz to include creating a nerve probability model. Doing so provides a model that is spatially precise, uncertainty-aware, and interpretable predictions of nerve structure and function, enabling more accurate, personalized, and safe applications.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10321833 in view of Bartol, Stopek, and Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 7, US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to use the overlay to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient Stopek teaches a graphical representation of the nerve model and Bartol teaches a processor, but fail to teach the processor is further configured to use the overlay to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient.
Kostrzewski teaches the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient [0128 “The surgical system processor may calculate such a path based on the determined patient position and surgical tool/end effector position, and may be guided by markers placed in select locations on the patient and/or robot. The path, itself, may be indicated on the display to help guide a surgeon who is maneuvering the end effector in force control mode”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of US 10321833, Bartol, and Stopek and incorporate the teachings of Kostrzewski to include the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient. Doing so configures the system to “…give feedback to the surgeon allowing him to determine the trajectory and/or make changes to a trajectory”, as recognized by Kostrzewski par. 0127.
Regarding claim 8, US 10321833, Bartol, Stopek, and Kostrzewski teach the surgical planning system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to an optimal surgical approach [Kostrzewski 0011 “…the instructions cause the processor to calculate a desired trajectory from the virtual representation of the patient situation”].
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11311222. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, US 11311222 teaches a surgical planning system comprising:
an electrode for engaging a patient [claim 10];
a sensor disposed on the patient, the sensor producing a mechanomyography output signal associated with a response by a nerve stimulated by the electrode [claim 10];
a processor [claim 10] configured to:
provide a plurality of electrical stimuli with differing magnitudes to the electrode at different locations and/or positions on the patient [claim 10];
determine, via the mechanomyography output signals, the presence of a nerve [claim 15];
use the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model [claim 15].
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11311222 in view of Bartol and Stopek.
Regarding claim 2, US 11311222, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to update the nerve model iteratively [Stopek 0067 “In case when the clinician determines that the image 430 is too outdated for the pathway planning, new images should be taken as shown in FIGS. 2A-2F for generation of a new 3D model and the pathway planning”].
Regarding claim 4, US 11311222, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to overlay a graphical representation of the nerve model over an anatomical representation of the patient [Stopek Fig. 3, see also Stopek 0061 “A target nerve may exist on any bronchial trees, the primary bronchus 342, the secondary bronchus 344, the tertiary bronchus 346, and the terminal bronchioles 348”].
Regarding claim 5, US 11311222, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on three-dimensional CT or MRI images [US 11311222 claim 17].
Regarding claim 6, US 11311222, Bartol, and Stopek teac the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on two-dimensional fluoroscope or ultrasound images [US 11311222 claim 17].
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11311222 in view of Bartol, Stopek, and Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 7, US 11311222, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to use the overlay to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient Stopek teaches a graphical representation of the nerve model and Bartol teaches a processor, but fail to teach the processor is further configured to use the overlay to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient.
Kostrzewski teaches the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient [0128 “The surgical system processor may calculate such a path based on the determined patient position and surgical tool/end effector position, and may be guided by markers placed in select locations on the patient and/or robot. The path, itself, may be indicated on the display to help guide a surgeon who is maneuvering the end effector in force control mode”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of US 11311222, Bartol, and Stopek and incorporate the teachings of Kostrzewski to include the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient. Doing so configures the system to “…give feedback to the surgeon allowing him to determine the trajectory and/or make changes to a trajectory”, as recognized by Kostrzewski par. 0127.
Regarding claim 8, US 11311222, Bartol, Stopek, and Kostrzewski teach the surgical planning system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to an optimal surgical approach [Kostrzewski 0011 “…the instructions cause the processor to calculate a desired trajectory from the virtual representation of the patient situation”].
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12109042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, US 12109042 teaches a surgical planning system comprising:
an electrode for engaging a patient [claim 10];
a sensor disposed on the patient, the sensor producing a mechanomyography output signal associated with a response by a nerve stimulated by the electrode [claim 10];
a processor [claim 10] configured to:
provide a plurality of electrical stimuli with differing magnitudes to the electrode at different locations and/or positions on the patient [claim 10];
determine, via the mechanomyography output signals, the presence of a nerve [claim 15];
use the location of the determined nerve to create a nerve model [claim 15].
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12109042 in view of Bartol and Stopek.
Regarding claim 2, US 12109042, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to update the nerve model iteratively [Stopek 0067 “In case when the clinician determines that the image 430 is too outdated for the pathway planning, new images should be taken as shown in FIGS. 2A-2F for generation of a new 3D model and the pathway planning”].
Regarding claim 4, US 12109042, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to overlay a graphical representation of the nerve model over an anatomical representation of the patient [Stopek Fig. 3, see also Stopek 0061 “A target nerve may exist on any bronchial trees, the primary bronchus 342, the secondary bronchus 344, the tertiary bronchus 346, and the terminal bronchioles 348”].
Regarding claim 5, US 12109042, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on three-dimensional CT or MRI images [US 12109042 claim 17].
Regarding claim 6, US 12109042, Bartol, and Stopek teac the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the anatomical representation is based on two-dimensional fluoroscope or ultrasound images [US 12109042 claim 17].
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12109042 in view of Bartol, Stopek, and Kostrzewski.
Regarding claim 7, US 12109042, Bartol, and Stopek teach the surgical planning system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to use the overlay to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient Stopek teaches a graphical representation of the nerve model and Bartol teaches a processor, but fail to teach the processor is further configured to use the overlay to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient.
Kostrzewski teaches the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient [0128 “The surgical system processor may calculate such a path based on the determined patient position and surgical tool/end effector position, and may be guided by markers placed in select locations on the patient and/or robot. The path, itself, may be indicated on the display to help guide a surgeon who is maneuvering the end effector in force control mode”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of US 12109042, Bartol, and Stopek and incorporate the teachings of Kostrzewski to include the processor is configured to plan a surgical approach toward an anatomical target on the patient. Doing so configures the system to “…give feedback to the surgeon allowing him to determine the trajectory and/or make changes to a trajectory”, as recognized by Kostrzewski par. 0127.
Regarding claim 8, US 12109042, Bartol, Stopek, and Kostrzewski teach the surgical planning system of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to an optimal surgical approach [Kostrzewski 0011 “…the instructions cause the processor to calculate a desired trajectory from the virtual representation of the patient situation”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights