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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 12/03/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 filed on 12/03/2024 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS)’s form PTO-1449, filed on 12/03/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/03/2024 have been reviewed by Examiner and they are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation “a array” in line 3 has typographical error. Examiner suggests amending the claim to “an array”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding similar independent claims 6 (method) of co-owned US Patent No. 10,420,616, similarly, independent claims 1 (system), 5 (system) of co-owned US Patent No. 11,529195, similarly, independent claims 1 (method), 5 (method) of co-owned US Patent No. 11,779408, similarly, independent claims 1 (system), 10 (system) of co-owned US Patent No. 12,186032 . The conflicting claims are not identical because the embodiments of co-owned claim omit steps not explicitly required by the embodiment of instant claims. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
· Instant claims and co-owned claim recite common subject matter;
· Instant claims, which recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the difference in steps recited by co-owned claim, and
· the elements of instant claims are obvious over co-owned claims, and completely anticipate the subject matter of instant claim, and “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Fracalossi, 681F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
Claim 1, 3-4, 6-8, 11, 13-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0100066), in view of Quaid et al. (US 2006/0142657), in view of Jensen (US 2008/0004523), further in view of Cohen et al. (US 2011/0160569).
As per claim 1, A robot-based navigation system for real-time, dynamic re-registration of a patient anatomy during a procedure, the system comprising:
“a robotic arm including an end effector having an instrument configured to be attached thereto;” (Kostrzewski ¶[0008] discloses a portable robot arm with end effector for precise positioning of a surgical tool)
“a position sensor;”( Kostrzewski ¶[0078] discloses The tracking detector may be a camera, a video camera, an infrared detector, field generator and sensors for electro-magnetic tracking or any other motion detecting apparatus, By continuously monitoring the patient and robotic arm positions, using tracking detector 108. ¶[0135] discloses using position sensors (i.e., piezoelectric transducers). Such sensors located at the tip of the surgical tool.)
“and a tracking system for dynamically tracking a position of the end effector based on tracking of the position sensor; a display; and a processor operationally coupled to the display, the robotic arm and the tracking system, the processor programmed to perform:”(Kostrzewski ¶[0075] discloses a tracking detector 108 that captures the position of the patient and different components of the surgical robot 102, and a display screen 110 that displays, for example, real time patient data and/or real time surgical robot trajectories. ¶[0078] discloses The tracking detector may be a camera, a video camera, an infrared detector, field generator and sensors for electro-magnetic tracking or any other motion detecting apparatus, By continuously monitoring the patient and robotic arm positions, using tracking detector 108. ¶[0131] disclose the tracking detector of surgical system 1500 continually monitors the position of the surgical tool guide 1508, end effector 1506 and patient 1504, and displays updates on display screen 1512, thereby guiding the surgeon to position the end effector in accordance with the desired trajectory (e.g., a computed trajectory or a trajectory identified by a surgeon).¶[0135] discloses using position sensors (i.e., piezoelectric transducers). Such sensors located at the tip of the surgical tool.)
However Kostrzewski does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Quaid from similar field of endeavor “continuously detect a contact of the instrument with tissue of the patient anatomy as a user manipulates the end effector and the attached instrument over the patient anatomy;”(Refer to Quaid ¶[0145-0146] discloses the mechanical tracking system 240 may be used to track the femur F and the tibia T so that the surgical system 10 can detect bone motion in real time during surgery. ¶[0148] discloses When the tracking system 40 includes the mechanical tracking system, the arm 241 may be used to register the patient's anatomy. For example, the user may use the arm 241 to register the tibia T while the second arm (i.e., the arm that is identical to the arm 241 but that is affixed to the tibia T) tracks motion of the tibia T. Registration may be accomplished, for example, by pointing a tip of the distal end of the arm 241 to anatomical landmarks on the tibia T and/or by touching points on (or "painting") a surface of the tibia T with the tip of the distal end of the arm 241. As the user touches landmarks on the tibia T and/or paints a surface of the tibia T, the surgical system 10 acquires data from the position sensors in the arm 241 and determines a pose of the tip of the arm 241. Simultaneously, the second arm provides data regarding motion of the tibia T so that the surgical system 10 can account for bone motion during registration. In a similar manner, the second arm may be used to register the femur F while the arm 241 (which is affixed to the femur F) tracks motion of the femur F.)
“thereby dynamically updating the registration of the patient anatomy.” (Refer to Quaid ¶[0145-0146] discloses the mechanical tracking system 240 may be used to track the femur F and the tibia T so that the surgical system 10 can detect bone motion in real time during surgery. ¶[0148] discloses When the tracking system 40 includes the mechanical tracking system, the arm 241 may be used to register the patient's anatomy. For example, the user may use the arm 241 to register the tibia T while the second arm (i.e., the arm that is identical to the arm 241 but that is affixed to the tibia T) tracks motion of the tibia T. Registration may be accomplished, for example, by pointing a tip of the distal end of the arm 241 to anatomical landmarks on the tibia T and/or by touching points on (or "painting") a surface of the tibia T with the tip of the distal end of the arm 241. As the user touches landmarks on the tibia T and/or paints a surface of the tibia T, the surgical system 10 acquires data from the position sensors in the arm 241 and determines a pose of the tip of the arm 241. Simultaneously, the second arm provides data regarding motion of the tibia T so that the surgical system 10 can account for bone motion during registration. Based on the bone motion data and knowledge of the position of the tip of the arm 241, the surgical system 10 is able to register the tibia T to the diagnostic images and/or the anatomical model of the patient's anatomy in the computing system 20. In a similar manner, the second arm may be used to register the femur F while the arm 241 (which is affixed to the femur F) tracks motion of the femur F.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quaid technique of surgical tool navigation and haptic system guidance into Kostrzewski technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Quaid technique over precise surgical tools guidance technique of Kostrzewski. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Quaid to Kostrzewski in order to produce operative results that are accurate and predictable. (Refer to Quaid paragraph [0010].)
However Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid is silent on the following which would have been obvious in view of Jensen from similar field of endeavor “upon detection of the contact, determine a position corresponding to a point on the surface of the patient anatomy in a robot coordinate system based on the position sensor tracked by the tracking system;” (Refer to Jensen ¶[0022] discloses A sensing subsystem 108 may be able to detect a position of the surgical tool 102 with respect to the patient in one, two, and/or three dimensions, for example. ¶[0032] discloses The drill bit's coordinates are determined with respect to the patient's bone, substantially in real-time, through a surgical navigation subsystem, such as an electromagnetic navigation subsystem. ¶[0036] discloses The tracked position may include location information (e.g. Cartesian coordinates) in one or more dimensions, for example. The tracked position may also include orientation information of the surgical tool with respect to the patient, or other references such as fiducials, for example.)
“determine a corresponding point in a medical image data in an imaging coordinate system;” (Refer to Jensen ¶[0022] discloses a sensing subsystem 108 may be able to detect a position of the surgical tool 102 with respect to the patient in one, two, and/or three dimensions, for example. The sensing subsystem 108 may image the surgical tool 102, or otherwise gather information about the location (e.g. in Cartesian coordinates), and/or the orientation of the surgical tool 102, for example. ¶[0032].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Jensen technique of surgical tool navigation into Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Jensen technique over precise surgical tools guidance technique of Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Jensen to Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid in order to reduce risks associated with surgical procedures and reducing surgical tools cost (Refer to Jensen paragraph [0006].)
However Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Cohen from similar field of endeavor “generate a coordinate mapping between the robot coordinate system and the imaging coordinate system based on the correspondence between the determined position in the robot coordinate system and the determined position in the imaging coordinate system,” (Refer to Cohen ¶[0069-0071] disclose three-dimensionally mapping or modeling a volume within a ROI located within a body. In an exemplary embodiment, a first step 52 includes tracking the position of the medical device 16 within the ROI 21 in real-time. A second step 58 includes determining a real-time spatial volume 42 based on the three-dimensional positions calculated/determined in the first step 52, including at least one virtual three-dimensional position. In an exemplary embodiment, the spatial volume 42 is determined based on one or more of the translated three-dimensional positions. In an exemplary embodiment, the tracking step 52 may further include the substep of recording the three-dimensional positions as spatial positions or data points 32; and the determining step 58 may include determining the spatial volume 42 using the recorded data points 32. A third step 62 includes rendering a real-time three-dimensional graphical representation 44 of the spatial volume 42 that was determined in the second step 58. Further ¶[0074] discloses generating a three-dimensional graphical representation of the computed contour 30 of the medical device 16, and superimposing the same onto the three-dimensional graphical representation 44 of the spatial volume 42. Further ¶[0077] discloses once the three-dimensional graphical representation 44 of the determined spatial volume 42 within the ROI 21 is rendered, it may be used, for example, to map a surface of anatomical structure to which the three-dimensional representation 44 corresponds (i.e., located within the ROI 21))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cohen technique of real-time anatomical surface and volume mapping into Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Cohen technique over precise surgical tools guidance technique of Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Cohen to Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen in order to provide better navigation within the anatomical structure or region of interest. (Refer to Cohen paragraph [0006].)
Claim 11 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kostrzewski , Quaid, Jensen, and Cohen references, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
As per claim 3, in view of claim 1, further comprising “a tracking marker having at least one indent and adapted to be attached to the patient anatomy, the indent sized to be contacted by the instrument attached to the end effector.”( Kostrzewski ¶[0093] discloses tracking detector 352 can track, in real time, the position of markers embedded on the patient and surgical robot 304 to track both patient position and robot position using image detection and tracking algorithms. Tracking detector 352 may detect the position of the surgical robot and the patient in free space or with relation to each other. Further ¶[0128] discloses 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.)
Claim 13 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 3 above.
As per claim 4, in view of claim 3, “wherein the processor generates the coordinate mapping based on a spatial relationship between the tracking marker and the patient anatomy.” (Quaid ¶[0104] discloses a coordinate transform process for mapping (or transforming) coordinates in one space to those in another to achieve spatial alignment or correspondence. For example, the surgical system 10 may use the coordinate transform process to map positions of tracked objects (e.g., surgical tools, patient anatomy, etc.) into a coordinate system used by a process running on the computer 31 and/or the computer 21. ¶[0128] and ¶[0152].)
Claim 14 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 4 above.
As per claim 6, in view of claim 1, further comprising “a force sensor attached directly or indirectly to the robotic arm and configured to sense a haptic force applied to the instrument attached to the end effector.” (Kostrzewski, Figures 6 ¶[0114-0115] and ¶[0135] discloses the drill bit is electrically coupled to the surgical system 1600 such that force sensors at the tip of the drill bit 1606 provide haptic feedback, through the tool guide, to the user. The surgical system processor determines the magnitude of haptic feedback to be returned to the operator/surgeon upon determining how far the operator/surgeon has drilled into a no-go zone using drill bit 1606. These sensor signals from the tip of the drill bit allow the processor to calculate a haptic feedback magnitude based on how well aligned the drill bit is with respect to the target surgical site 1612. A higher magnitude haptic feedback force is returned to the operator/surgeon, through the tool guide based on the degree of misalignment of the drill bit tip with respect to the surgical site 1612.)
Claim 16 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 6 above.
As per claim 7, The system of claim 1, wherein: “the tracking system includes an optical tracking system; and the position sensor includes a array of optical markers for tracking by the optical tracking system.” (Quaid ¶[0130] discloses the non-mechanical tracking system may include an optical (or visual), magnetic, radio, or acoustic tracking system. Such systems typically include a detection device adapted to locate in predefined coordinate space specially recognizable trackable elements (or trackers) that are detectable by the detection device and that are either configured to be attached to the object to be tracked or are an inherent part of the object to be tracked. For example, the a trackable element may include an array of markers having a unique geometric arrangement and a known geometric relationship to the tracked object when the trackable element is attached to the tracked object.)
Claim 17 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim7 above.
As per claim 8, in view of claim 1, “wherein the instrument includes a force sensor for detecting contact of the instrument with the tissue of the patient anatomy.” ( Kostrzewski, Figures 6 ¶[0114-0115] and, ¶[0133] discloses the processor may determine that the tool guide 1608 has been positioned adequately close to the target site 1612 of the surgery by receiving an input signal, from force sensors located at the tip of tool guide 1608, indicating that the tip of the tool guide has touched the target site 1612. ¶[0135] discloses the drill bit is electrically coupled to the surgical system 1600 such that force sensors at the tip of the drill bit 1606 provide haptic feedback, through the tool guide, to the user. The surgical system processor determines the magnitude of haptic feedback to be returned to the operator/surgeon upon determining how far the operator/surgeon has drilled into a no-go zone using drill bit 1606. These sensor signals from the tip of the drill bit allow the processor to calculate a haptic feedback magnitude based on how well aligned the drill bit is with respect to the target surgical site 1612. A higher magnitude haptic feedback force is returned to the operator/surgeon, through the tool guide based on the degree of misalignment of the drill bit tip with respect to the surgical site 1612.)
Claim 18 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 8 above.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0100066), in view of Quaid et al. (US 2006/0142657), in view of Jensen (US 2008/0004523), in view of Cohen et al. (US 2011/0160569), further in view of Hogan et al. (US 2018/0199996).
As per claim 5, in view of claim 4, However Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Hogan from similar field of endeavor “wherein the at least one indent of the tracking marker includes a plurality of spaced apart indents at different orientations sized to be contacted by the instrument.” (Hogan, figure 8A, ¶[0140], discloses the marker 71 may be constructed with material that can be detected by the sensor system 9. The marker 71 may include distinctive features that can assist detection. In the example illustrated in FIG. 8(a) a distinctive feature is the crucifix shape 73 of an end of the marker. In one alternative, the marker may include distinct features such as shapes or patterns, for example shape 75, 77 positioned at extremities of the crucifix 73.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hogan technique of using robotic surgical tools into Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Hogan technique over precise surgical tools guidance technique of Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Hogan to Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen in order to accurately position surgical tools during surgery to allow the most effective treatment. (Refer to Hogan ¶[0003].)
Claim 15 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 5 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kostrzewski , Quaid, Jensen, Cohen, and Hogan references, presented in rejection of claim 5, apply to this claim.
Claim 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostrzewski et al. (US 2015/0100066), in view of Quaid et al. (US 2006/0142657), in view of Jensen (US 2008/0004523), in view of Cohen et al. (US 2011/0160569), further in view of Bluemenkrantz et al. (US 8,621939).
As per claim 9, in view of claim 8, However Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Bluemenkrantz from similar field of endeavor “wherein the instrument includes a strain gauge as the force sensor for detecting contact.” (Bluemenkrantz Col. 2, line 25-30 discloses a force sensor includes a tube portion that includes a plurality of radial ribs and a strain gauge positioned over each of the plurality of radial ribs. Further line 35-40 discloses Groups of strain gauges are positioned on or near a distal end of an instrument shaft proximal to (i.e., inboard of) a moveable wrist of a robotic surgical instrument via an apparatus that senses forces and torques at the distal tip of the instrument.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bluemenkrantz technique of sensing forces applied to a surgical instrument into Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Bluemenkrantz technique over precise surgical tools guidance technique of Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bluemenkrantz to Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen in order to provide accurate feedback of forces and torques to the surgeon to improve user awareness and control of the instruments.. (Refer to Bluemenkrantz Col. 2, lines 15-20.)
Claim 19 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 9 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kostrzewski , Quaid, Jensen, Cohen, and Bluemenkrantz references, presented in rejection of claim 9, apply to this claim.
As per claim 10, in view of claim 8, However Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Bluemenkrantz from similar field of endeavor “wherein the force sensor is integrated into the shaft of the instrument attached to the end effector.”(Bluemenkrantz, Col. 2, line 25-30 discloses a force sensor includes a tube portion that includes a plurality of radial ribs and a strain gauge positioned over each of the plurality of radial ribs. A proximal part of the tube portion is coupled to a shaft of a surgical instrument that may be operably coupled to a manipulator arm of a robotic surgical system. A distal part of the tube portion is coupled to a wrist joint coupled to an end effector.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bluemenkrantz technique of sensing forces applied to a surgical instrument into Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Bluemenkrantz technique over precise surgical tools guidance technique of Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bluemenkrantz to Kostrzewski as modified by Quaid as modified by Jensen as modified by Cohen in order to provide accurate feedback of forces and torques to the surgeon to improve user awareness and control of the instruments.. (Refer to Bluemenkrantz Col. 2, lines 15-20.)
Claim 20 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 10 above. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kostrzewski , Quaid, Jensen, Cohen, and Bluemenkrantz references, presented in rejection of claim 10, apply to this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and on the pending conditions of the rejected and objected matter set forth in this action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the limitations set forth by each of claims 2 and 12.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights