DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. According to ¶37 of Applicant’s Specification as filed, the sole figure illustrates a framework. No figure illustrates a method. Therefore, the methods set forth in Claims 1-15 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of proper language and format for an abstract (see MPEP § 608.01(b)):
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “The invention relates to” is a phrase which can be implied and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims, as drafted, are not within one of the statutory classes.
As per Claim 1, the claim is directed to “a method” as per line 1, but the claim does not recite any method steps. Specifically, the claim recites “A method for performing tasks using a robot” in line 1 and further describes the robot in line 2-6. No method steps are recited in the description of the robot as per line 2-6. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to “using” the robot as per line 2-6 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claim does not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected.
As per Claims 2-13, the claims further characterize the robot as per Claim 1 without identifying any method steps. Accordingly, the claims as drafted are directed to “using” the robot as per Claim 1 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claims do not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claims 2-13 are rejected.
As per Claim 14, the claim recites “A robot for performing tasks … for carrying out a method according to claim 1”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to “using” the robot of Claim 1 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claim does not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected.
As per Claim 15, the claim recites “A computer program … with which a method according to claim 1 can be carried out”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to “using” the robot of Claim 1 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claim does not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected.
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 1-15 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.
As per Claim 1, the claim is directed to “A method for performing tasks using a robot” in line 1 and describes the robot in line 2-6. The claim does not link “using” in line 1 with method steps in line 2-6 in that no method steps are recited in line 2-6. Accordingly, the scope of the “method” cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-15 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, “these same action representations” in line 4-5 lacks proper antecedent basis. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Clarification is required. Claims 2-15 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claims 2-13, the claims further characterize the robot as per Claim 1 without identifying any method steps. No claim language links “using” in line 1 of Claim 1 with method steps. Accordingly, the scope of the “method” as per Claims 2-13 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claims 2-13 are rejected.
As per Claim 14, the claim recites “A robot for performing tasks … for carrying out a method according to claim 1”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of the “method” as per Claim 14 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected.
As per Claim 15, the claim recites “A computer program … with which a method according to claim 1 can be carried out”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of the “method” as per Claim 15 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowling (US Pub. No. 2021/0298795).
As per Claim 1, Bowling discloses a method for performing tasks (via tool 30) using a robot (20) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶82-91, 172-188, 244-257), wherein the robot (20) is controlled in a first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and in at least one other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) (Figs. 11A, 15A-C; ¶133-134, 172-188, 244-259), characterized in that an action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) directed towards an action target (TP) is generated (as per “desired trajectory” in ¶100; as per “target point” in ¶100) and executed (as per “controllers 33 may control the actuator … to emulate a present interaction between the screw and the target site” in ¶129) (Figs. 3-5, 11A, 12A, 15A-C; ¶92-93, 98-100, 172-188, 244-259) and these same action representations (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188) are used for controlling the robot (20) in the first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and in the at least one other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) (Figs. 4-5, 11A, 12A, 15A-C; ¶92-93, 172-188, 244-259).
As per Claim 2, Bowling further discloses characterized in that the first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and the at least one other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) are executed sequentially (Fig. 15A; ¶244-250, 257) or {weighted in parallel}.
As per Claim 3, Bowling further discloses characterized in that the first execution mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) is a first support mode (¶180-188) and the at least one other execution mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) is a second support mode (¶172-179), wherein the robot (20) is under shared control (as per “In response to control input from the haptic device 51, the one or more controllers 33 control he surgical tool” in ¶181) in the first support mode (as per “Manual Control Mode”) and is controlled autonomously under user supervision (as per “the robotic surgical system 10 provides haptic feedback to the operator to emulate a present interaction between pedicle screws PS and a target site pursuant to autonomous insertion” in ¶173) in the second support mode (as per “Autonomous Check Mode”) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶82-91, 172-188, 244-257).
As per Claim 4, Bowling further discloses characterized in that the action target (TP) is determined taking into account a user command (as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) (Figs. 3-5; ¶81-93, 98-100).
As per Claim 5, Bowling further discloses characterized in that the user command (as per “instructions, the correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the operator’s plan” in ¶99; as per “Once the operator is satisfied with the trajectory, the operator can provide input (e.g., touchscreen, button, foot pedal, etc.) to the control system to set this trajectory as the desired trajectory” in ¶100) is based on an input (as per “the operator can provide input” in ¶100) (Figs. 3-5; ¶81-93, 98-100) and/or {on a selection by a user}.
As per Claim 7, Bowling further discloses characterized in that action definitions (as per “controllers 33 autonomous control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS along the planned trajectory LH … the pedicle screw PS is inserted to depth A along the planned trajectory LH” in ¶175; as per “resistive feedback to rotational interface 53 can be changed to reflect near-real time present interaction between pedicle screw PS and the vertebra” in ¶176) and/or object definitions (as per “3-D model of the pedicle screw PS with respect to the 3-D model of the patient’s anatomy” in ¶97) are used when/for generating the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188).
As per Claim 8, Bowling further discloses characterized in that suitable action definitions (as per “The robotic controller 32 is configured to autonomously control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS so that the rotational rate and the rate of advancement along the trajectory LH are proportional to the thread geometry of the pedicle screw PS … exemplary pedicle screws PS may have 8, 10, 14, 16 or other number of threads per inch” in ¶113) are selected from a multitude of action definitions (as per “the robotic controller is configured to ensure a proper rotational rate and advancement speed for inserting a pedicle screw PS having a particular thread pitch” in ¶113) when/for generating the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188).
As per Claim 9, Bowling further discloses characterized in that declarative (as per “The relationship between the pedicle screw thread pitch, the angular, or rotational, position and the depth of insertion, or advancement along the trajectory, is governed by the equation θ=D*(Pitch/2π)” in ¶115) and/or procedural knowledge (as per “The additional data may comprise calibration data, such as geometric data relating positions and/or orientations of the trackers 16 or markers M thereof to the working end of the surgical tool 30” in ¶87; as per “The robotic controller 32 is configured to autonomously control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS so that the rotational rate and the rate of advancement along the trajectory LH are proportional to the thread geometry of the pedicle screw PS” in ¶113) is used when/for generating the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188).
As per Claim 11, Bowling further discloses characterized in that in a planning phase (as per “it is contemplated to utilize the haptic device 51 to perform simulations in order to provide training or greater confidence to the operator in using the robotic system prior to executing the actual surgical procedure” in ¶233), a preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234) is generated and the preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234) is simulated (as per “During execution of the Simulated Modes, the one or more controllers provide haptic feedback to the haptic device 51 … to emulate a simulated present interaction between the pedicle screw PS and the target site” in ¶238) and tested (as per “the surgeon may set, confirm, or modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236).
As per Claim 12, Bowling further discloses characterized in that in the case of a negative test result (as per “the surgeon may … modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236), further preliminary action sequences (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234) are repeatedly generated and simulated (as per “During execution of the Simulated Modes, the one or more controllers provide haptic feedback to the haptic device 51 … to emulate a simulated present interaction between the pedicle screw PS and the target site” in ¶238) and tested (as per “the surgeon may set, confirm, or modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) in the planning phase (as per “it is contemplated to utilize the haptic device 51 to perform simulations in order to provide training or greater confidence to the operator in using the robotic system prior to executing the actual surgical procedure” in ¶233) until a further preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234; as per “the surgeon may … modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) is tested with a positive result (as per “the surgeon may … confirm … any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236).
As per Claim 13, Bowling further discloses characterized in that in the case of a positive test result (as per “the surgeon may … confirm … any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236), the preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234) tested with a positive result (as per “the surgeon may … confirm … any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) or the further preliminary action sequence (as per “the surgical plan including target trajectory and depths of insertion can be provided in the simulation for reference” in ¶234; as per “the surgeon may … modify any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) tested with a positive result (as per “the surgeon may … confirm … any operational parameters of the system 10 that are experienced during the simulation” in ¶236) is actually executed in an execution phase (as per “executing the actual surgical procedure” in ¶233) as the action sequence (as per “planned trajectory LH” in ¶175, 181; as per “target site” in ¶173, 175, 188).
As per Claim 14, Bowling further discloses a robot (20) for performing tasks (via tool 30) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶82-91, 172-188, 244-257), characterized in that the robot (20) is designed for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
As per Claim 15, Bowling further discloses a computer program (as per “The robotic controller 32 and the navigation controllers 36 may each … comprise one or more personal computers or laptop computers, memory suitable for storage of data and computer-readable instructions” in ¶79), characterized in that the computer program (as per “The robotic controller 32 and the navigation controllers 36 may each … comprise one or more personal computers or laptop computers, memory suitable for storage of data and computer-readable instructions” in ¶79) comprises program code sections with which a method according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1) can be carried out, if the computer program (as per “The robotic controller 32 and the navigation controllers 36 may each … comprise one or more personal computers or laptop computers, memory suitable for storage of data and computer-readable instructions” in ¶79) is executed on a control unit (32, 36) of a robot (20) (Figs. 3, 11A, 15A; ¶79-91, 172-188, 244-257).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (US Pub. No. 2021/0298795) in view of Stricko (US Pub. No. 2020/0345438).
As per Claim 6, Bowling discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Bowling does not expressly disclose characterized in that possible action targets are determined for a selection by the user, a number of the determined possible action targets is restricted taking into account at least one precondition and the restricted number of action targets is offered to the user for selection.
Stricko discloses a control unit (130) coupled to a robotic arm (120) having an end effector (125) and further coupled to an operator workstation (170) having a display system (180) (Fig. 1; ¶26-30). The control unit (130) includes a processor (140) coupled to memory (150), the memory (150) having a port placement module (160) that supports identification and selection of ports for operating the end effector (125) within a workspace (Fig. 1; ¶27, 29). In operation, the processor (140) performs operations (300) including receiving a patient model (310), identifying possible port locations (320), evaluating by iterating through possible port locations (350-356), displaying in the display system (180) to the operator the potential port locations (370), and receiving (380) a selection of port location from the operator (Fig. 3; ¶41-53, 62, 64). In one embodiment, the possible port locations are limited to those that are reachable (¶43). As such, Stricko discloses a system characterized in that possible action targets (as per potential port locations) are determined for a selection by the user (as per 370, 380), a number of the determined possible action targets is restricted taking into account at least one precondition (as per possible port locations limited to those that are reachable) and the restricted number of action targets is offered to the user for selection (as per 370, 380). In this way, the system aids the operator in selection and placement of ports (¶5). Like Bowling, Stricko is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Bowling and Stricko, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stricko to the system of Bowling since doing so would enhance the system by aiding the operator in placement of ports.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling (US Pub. No. 2021/0298795) in view of Quere (“Shared Control Templates for Assistive Robotics”; 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); pages 1956-1962; 2020).
As per Claim 10, Bowling discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Bowling does not expressly disclose characterized in that finite state machines in the form of shared control templates are created when/for generating the action sequence.
Quere discloses a robotic system (EDAN in Fig. 1, part a) with which a user conveys commands to an end-effector (as per “allow the user to intuitively control the end-effector” on 1956, right column). The robotic system is adapted to solve tasks using skills including: pour liquid (Fig. 1, part b); tilt towards goal (page 1957, left column); and open drawer (Fig. 6). The skills are defined as finite state machines which in turn are defined by a shared control template (page 1956, right column; page 1959, left column). As such, Quere discloses a system (EDAN in Fig. 1, part a) characterized in that finite state machines in the form of shared control templates (page 1956, right column; page 1959, left column) are created when/for generating the action sequence (Fig. 1, part b; page 1957, left column; Fig. 6). In this way, the system provides an intuitive way of reducing the workload of the user (page 1961, right column). Like Bowling, Quere is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Bowling and Quere, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Quere to the system of Bowling since doing so would enhance the system by providing an intuitive way of reducing the workload of the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Payton (US Pub. No. 2015/0336268) discloses rapid robotic imitation learning of force-torque tasks. Strauss (US Patent No. 11,154,985) discloses null space jog control for robotic arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656