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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 10 September 2025, with respect to 101 rejection for claims 1-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of amendment. The 101 rejection for claims 1-22 of 10 April 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to 102 rejections for claim 1, applicant argues that Gibby only disclose tracking instrument with respect to an image set or body of the patient in paragraph [0027], but does not teach tracking an instrument with respect to a virtual surgical annotation (pages 12-13).
Moreover, applicant argues that that Gibby does not teach changing the color of an indicator and specifically red indicators and green indicators can be displayed, and thus changes color of an entire annotation, but does not teach modifying the visual attributes of the at least one sub-area of a virtual surgical annotation as in claim 1, as sub-area is defined as one or more voxels, pixels or other picture elements that make up the virtual surgical annotation in 3D (page 13). In addition, applicant argues that Gibby fails to teach that visual attributes of a sub-area is modified based on tracked locations of the portion of the instrument or a tip of the instrument, rather teaches changing the color of an annotation in response to movement of an instrument, and does not modify the visual attributes of a sub-area when a portion or tip of an instrument has been at a location in the virtual surgical annotation, making claim 1 allowable (page 13).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gibby does disclose tracking instrument with respect a the virtual surgical annotation, since claim recites “virtual surgical annotation with visual attributes identifying the structure to be treated” which can refer to a target/ region of interest within the patient’s body. As indicated in previous office action, the examiner had stated that Gibby discloses graphical highlight of targeted anatomy, highlight an organ or mass in the body [0083], as “virtual surgical annotation with visual attributes identifying structure to be treated.” Gibby further teaches tracking medical implement by AR headset ([0027]-[0028]) and modifying the visual attributes of at least one sub-area of the virtual surgical annotation, based in part on tracked locations of the portion of the instrument, using an AR headset (AR headset display a virtual inserted portion of the medical implement projected into the image data set [0027]; annotations may be modified change color when a medical implement moves to defined positions, targets [0047]).
Thus, position and orientation of the medical implement can be tracked using AR headset with respect to the patient’s body which includes the target or ROI, and visual attributes of virtual surgical annotation can be modified, change color when the position is moved as claimed.
Specifically in paragraph [0047], Gibby clearly teaches when the medical professional has moved the medical instruments’ position and orientation to appropriate location, then graphical indicators, virtual tools or a virtual targeting system may be displayed to show that the proper position and orientation have been satisfied, and annotations may be modified or change color when an implement moves to defined positions, targets, near target objects.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites “Tracking locations of a portion of an instrument with respect to the virtual surgical annotation, based in part on tracked locations of the portion of the instrument.” However, claim limitation recites “modifying the visual attributes of the at least one sub-area of the virtual surgical annotation, based in part on tracked locations of the portion of the instrument, using the AR headset.”
With regards to argument of “at least one sub-area” and its interpretation, the examiner notes that pixel/voxel in 3D is not read into claim, since the limitation does not recite, rather “at least one sub-area” can encompass plurality or more than one sub-area, and plurality of sub-areas can make up the entire area. The claim does not limit the whole change of the area of the virtual annotation. The examiner has correctly used plain meaning of “at least one sub-area” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, and does not need to import claim limitation from the specification, as indicated in MPEP 2111.01.
With regards to 103 rejections for claims 18-22, applicant argues that Slagmolen’s teaching is not the same as the limitation of claim 1 for erasing a sub-area of the 3D virtual annotation because Slagmolen is only a pre-operative simulation of what bones will look like post cutting and erasing a sub-area of the annotation is different than claim 1 because Slagmolen makes the bone transparent prior to a treatment not during a procedure and does not teach erasing based on tracked locations of the portion of the medical instrument, as in claim 1 (page 14). Applicant further argues that Gibby changes entire annotation rather than a sub-area as in claim 1 (page 14).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth above, with regards to limitation of “at least one sub-area” encompass range from single voxel/pixel to entire annotation which comprises plurality of voxel/pixels. The claim does not limit that “a sub-area” rather it recites ranges of “at least one sub-area.”
Regardless, Slagmolen does disclose working and processing with part of the anatomy, for example, highlighting the pieces of the bone that will be resected based on the plan. Slagmolen teaches virtual overlay, transparency of parts of the anatomy may be modified to show the post-operative situation. Moreover, Slagmolen goes beyond pre-planning, since Slagmolen explicitly teaches that the bone-implant contact can be highlighted after the initial resection, to demonstrate the region and done based on the planned or intra-operatively captured implant position ([0103]).
The examiner further submits that claim does not limit whether the modification is taking place during a procedure, as none of the claim limitation recites pre, intra, or post operation.
Therefore, absent any evidence to the contrary, the examiner maintains that the combination of reference teaches and/or makes obvious the claimed limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 7 and 18, and new claim 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 recites “a sub-area” and it is not clear whether it is new and distinct from recited “sub-area” in claim 1 or same sub-area. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Amended limitation recites “medical imaging” which seems to recite “medical images.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following rejection has been modified in view of applicant's arguments and/or amendments (amended limitations are underlined).
Claims 1, and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Gibby et al.,” US 2020/0159313 (hereinafter Gibby).
Regarding to claim 1, Gibby teaches a method of surgical navigation, comprising:
aligning an image data set, which is 3D medical imaging, with a body of a person, using an AR headset (aligning image data set and a body portion of a person [0014] and [0020], 3D image data set, AR headset augment views of the patient with one or more 3D image data set [0025]),
wherein the image data set includes a virtual surgical annotation with visual attributes (virtual annotations, indicators [0019] and [0083]) identifying structure to be treated ( AR headset with a virtual view of muscles, organs [0025], graphical highlight of targeted anatomy, highlight an organ or mass in the body [0083]);
tracking locations of a portion of an instrument with respect to the virtual surgical annotation using the AR headset (medical implement tracked using optical codes affixed to the implement and detected by AR headset [0027]; medical implement - medical instruments and implants [0028]); and
modifying the visual attributes of at least one sub-area of the virtual surgical annotation, based in part on tracked locations of the portion of the instrument, using the AR headset (AR headset display a virtual inserted portion of the medical implement projected into the image data set [0027]; annotations may be modified change color when a medical implement moves to defined positions, targets [0047]).
Regarding to claims 3-6, Gibby teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gibby further discloses following limitations:
Of claim 3, wherein modifying the visual attributes further comprises modifying the visual attributes of the at least one sub-area of the virtual surgical annotation by changing at least one of: color, intensity, opacity or pattern (annotations modified, animated or change color [0047]).
Of claim 4, wherein the virtual surgical annotation is a 3D (three dimensional) volume (virtual indicators with attributes including 3D colorization [0083]).
Of claim 5, wherein the portion of the instrument is at least one of: a rotary die grinder bit, a drill bit, a burr, a scalpel, an electrocautery tip, a cryosurgical probe, or a saw (electrocautery blade [0018], scalpel, drill, probe [0027]).
Of claim 6, further comprising providing visual directional guidance or audible directional guidance for movement of the instrument by a user with respect to the virtual surgical annotation (AR display a guidance annotation along with an indication to move the medical implement to circle annotations of defined positions, targets [0047]).
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 7, 9-17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Gibby et al.,” US 2020/0159313 (hereinafter Gibby) and “Ryan et al.,” US 2020/0197107 (hereinafter Ryan).
Regarding to claim 7, Gibby teaches a method of surgical navigation for a medical procedure using an AR headset, comprising:
aligning an image data set with a body of a person using the AR headset (aligning image data set and a body portion of a person [0014] and [0020]; AR headset augment views of the patient with one or more 3D image data set [0025]);
applying a 3D virtual surgical annotation to at least one anatomic structure of the image data set (AR headset with a virtual view of muscles, organs [0025], graphical highlight of targeted anatomy, highlight an organ or mass in the body [0083]);
wherein the 3D virtual surgical annotation has visual attributes for at least one sub-area of the 3D virtual surgical annotation (virtual highlight or annotations include lines, boundaries or 3D shapes in or around an anatomical structure to highlight an organ in the body [0083]);
tracking a location of a portion of a medical instrument with respect to the 3D virtual surgical annotation, using the AR headset (medical implement tracked using optical codes affixed to the implement and detected by AR headset [0027]; medical implement - medical instruments and implants [0028]); and
modifying the visual attributes of sub-areas of the 3D virtual surgical annotation based in part on tracked locations of the portion of the medical instrument, using the AR headset (AR headset display a virtual inserted portion of the medical implement projected into the image data set [0027]; annotations may be modified change color when a medical implement moves to defined positions, targets [0047]).
Gibby does disclose “graphical indicator” as virtual annotation that can be modified, animated and/or change color with respect to tracked position of the medical implement, thus graphical element is picture element as claimed ([0047] and [0083]).
The examiner further submits “Ryan” to support that sub-area is one or more voxels, pixels, or picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation, since Ryan teaches AR guidance of medical procedure, and discloses that posterior/lateral quadrant of the shell portion of the virtual target may be displayed in a different color or otherwise visually differentiated from the rest of the shell to demarcate to the user a target for safe placement of screws into the acetabulum ([0190] Figure 24), thus reads on modifying sub-area, voxels, pixels or picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify visual attributes modification as taught by Gibby to incorporate teaching of Ryan, since sub-area being picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation and modifying sub-area was well known in the art as taught by Ryan. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Gibby with no change in their respective functions, changing color of the portion of the 3D virtual anatomy, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to demarcate to the user a target for safe placement of screws into the acetabulum ([0190]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 9-13, Gibby and Ryan together teach all limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Gibby further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 9, wherein modifying the visual attributes further comprises modifying the visual attributes of the at least one sub-area by changing at least one of: a color attribute, an intensity attribute, an opacity attribute or a pattern (annotations modified, animated or change color [0047]).
Of claim 10, wherein modifying the visual attributes further comprises changing a color or opacity of voxels of the 3D virtual surgical annotation (virtual indicators with attributes 3D colorization [0083]; annotations can be modified, changing color [0047]).
Of claim 11, wherein the 3D virtual surgical annotation is a 3D (three dimensional) volume (virtual indicators with attributes including 3D colorization [0083])
Of claim 12, wherein the portion of the medical instrument is at least one of: a rotary die grinder bit, a drill bit, a burr, a scalpel, an electrocautery tip, a cryosurgical probe, ultrasonic bone scalpel, or a saw blade (electrocautery blade [0018], scalpel, drill, probe [0027]).
Of claim 13, further comprising providing visual directional guidance or audible directional guidance for movement of the medical instrument by a user within the 3D virtual surgical annotation (AR display a guidance annotation along with an indication to move the medical implement to circle annotations of defined positions, targets [0047]).
Of claim 14, further comprising displaying a graphical virtual medical instrument aligned with the medical instrument that is visible (virtual implement or virtual tool displayed to allow alignment of a visible implement and virtual implement [0048]-[0049]).
Of claim 15, further comprising displaying the portion of a virtual instrument overlaid on an anatomical structure to allow visualizing a tip of the medical instrument hidden within a pattern or anatomical structure visible (Fig. 4 shows AR displaying a portion of the virtual instrument overlaid on an anatomical structure to allow visualizing a tip of the instrument hidden within anatomical structure visible [0047]).
Of claim 16, wherein the medical instrument is a rotary die grinder, a drill, a burr, a scalpel, an electrocautery tool, a cryosurgical tool, or a saw (electrocautery blade [0018], scalpel, drill, probe [0027]).
Of claim 17, further comprising providing a warning notification when the portion of the medical instrument passes outside of a boundary of the virtual surgical annotation (red indicators displayed when the medical instrument is not aligned with proper position to target [0047]).
Regarding to claim 23, Gibby teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gibby does disclose “graphical indicator” as virtual annotation that can be modified, animated and/or change color with respect to tracked position of the medical implement, thus graphical element is picture element as claimed ([0047] and [0083]).
The examiner further submits “Ryan” to support that sub-area is one or more voxels, pixels, or picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation, since Ryan teaches AR guidance of medical procedure, and discloses that posterior/lateral quadrant of the shell portion of the virtual target may be displayed in a different color or otherwise visually differentiated from the rest of the shell to demarcate to the user a target for safe placement of screws into the acetabulum ([0190] Figure 24), thus reads on modifying sub-area, voxels, pixels or picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify visual attributes modification as taught by Gibby to incorporate teaching of Ryan, since sub-area being picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation and modifying sub-area was well known in the art as taught by Ryan. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Gibby with no change in their respective functions, changing color of the portion of the 3D virtual anatomy, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to demarcate to the user a target for safe placement of screws into the acetabulum ([0190]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Gibby et al.,” US 2020/0159313 (hereinafter Gibby), “Ryan et al.,” US 2020/0197107 (hereinafter Ryan), and “Slagmolen et al.,” US 2022/0125519 (hereinafter Slagmolen).
Regarding to claim 18, Gibby teaches a method of surgical navigation for a medical procedure using an AR headset, comprising:
aligning an image data set with a body of a person (aligning image data set and a body portion of a person [0014] and [0020]);
applying a 3D virtual surgical annotation to at least one anatomical structure of the image data set (AR headset with a virtual view of muscles, organs [0025], graphical highlight of targeted anatomy, highlight an organ or mass in the body [0083]),
wherein the 3D virtual surgical annotation has visual attributes for at least one sub-area of the 3D virtual surgical annotation (virtual highlight or annotations include lines, boundaries or 3D shapes in or around an anatomical structure to highlight an organ in the body [0083]);
tracking a location of a tip of a medical instrument with respect to the 3D virtual surgical annotation, using the AR headset (medical implement tracked using optical codes affixed to the implement and detected by AR headset [0027]; medical implement - medical instruments and implants [0028]; medical professional can view the virtual end of the needle as tip moves in the body of the patient using the AR headset [0070]);
Gibby does disclose “graphical indicator” as virtual annotation that can be modified, animated and/or change color with respect to tracked position of the medical implement, thus graphical element is picture element as claimed ([0047] and [0083]).
The examiner further submits “Ryan” to support that sub-area is one or more voxels, pixels, or picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation, since Ryan teaches AR guidance of medical procedure, and discloses that posterior/lateral quadrant of the shell portion of the virtual target may be displayed in a different color or otherwise visually differentiated from the rest of the shell to demarcate to the user a target for safe placement of screws into the acetabulum ([0190] Figure 24), thus reads on modifying sub-area, voxels, pixels or picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify visual attributes modification as taught by Gibby to incorporate teaching of Ryan, since sub-area being picture elements that make up the 3D virtual surgical annotation and modifying sub-area was well known in the art as taught by Ryan. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Gibby with no change in their respective functions, changing color of the portion of the 3D virtual anatomy, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to demarcate to the user a target for safe placement of screws into the acetabulum ([0190]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Gibby teaches changing color but does not explicitly disclose erasing the at least one sub-area of the 3D virtual surgical annotation by setting the visual attributes of the at least one sub-area of the 3D virtual surgical annotation to transparent or another color based in part on tracked locations of the portion of the medical instrument.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in AR guided surgical procedure method, Slagmolen teaches AR guiding surgical procedure, a visualization module for augmented realty with virtual elements displayed on the patient, with an overlay on the anatomy, with transparency ([0060]) and specifically discloses removal of the bone and through visual overlay transparency of parts of the anatomy may be modified to show the post -operation situation, by virtually making the bone to be removed transparent ([0103]) and instrument position is tracked ([0148]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify visual attributes modification as taught by Gibby to incorporate teaching of Slagmolen, since erasing virtual surgical annotation was well known in the art as taught by Slagmolen. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Gibby with no change in their respective functions, implementing visual attribute to have transparency to erase the parts of the annotation, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide a post-operative situation of bone removal in AR display ([0103]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 19 and 22, Gibby, Ryan, and Slagmolen together teach all limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Slagmolen further teaches limitation of claim 19, wherein the visual attributes that were erased represent anatomical structure has been removed or modified by the medical instrument at the tracked locations of the portion of the medical instrument, using the AR headset (pieces of bone removed [0103]; AR head mounted display [0022]; tracked drill visualized [0114]; tracking positions of the instrument [0133]).
Slagmolen discloses limitations of claim 22, wherein setting sub-areas of the 3D virtual surgical annotation to transparent or another color further comprising setting the at least one sub-area to black, white or a background color of the image data set (objects may be visualized in any color, but preferably colors that contrast with the background [0109])
Regarding to claims 21, Gibby and Slagmolen together teach all limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Gibby further teaches displaying the portion of a virtual instrument overlaid on an anatomical structure to allow visualizing a tip of the medical instrument hidden within the anatomical structure visible (Fig. 4 shows AR displaying a portion of the virtual instrument overlaid on an anatomical structure to allow visualizing a tip of the instrument hidden within anatomical structure visible [0047]).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibby (and Ryan for claim 8) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of “Amanatullah et al.,” US 2017/0312031 (hereinafter Amanatullah).
Regarding to claim 2, Gibby teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gibby does not further disclose wherein the visual attributes that are modified represent anatomical structure that has been removed or modified by the portion of the instrument.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in AR headset guidance of surgical navigation method, Amanatullah teaches wherein the visual attributes that are modified represent anatomical structure that has been removed or modified by the portion of the instrument ([0141]; update or modify the virtual tissue model during bone removal, removal of femoral condyle [0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify visual attributes modification as taught by Gibby to incorporate teaching of Amanatullah, since modifying or updating the virtual model of bone removal was well known in the art as taught by Amanatullah. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Gibby with no change in their respective functions, implementing update on virtual image of target anatomy to be removed, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide virtual guidance of bone removal ([0145]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 8, Gibby and Ryan together teach all limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Gibby does not further disclose wherein the visual attributes that are modified represent anatomical structure that has been removed or modified by the portion of the instrument at the tracked locations, using the AR headset.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in AR headset guidance of surgical navigation method, Amanatullah teaches wherein the visual attributes that are modified represent anatomical structure that has been removed or modified by the portion of the instrument ([0141]; update or modify the virtual tissue model during bone removal, removal of femoral condyle [0145]), modified or removed by the portion of the instrument at the tracked locations, using the AR headset ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify visual attributes modification as taught by Gibby to incorporate teaching of Amanatullah, since modifying or updating the virtual model of bone removal was well known in the art as taught by Amanatullah. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Gibby with no change in their respective functions, implementing update on virtual image of target anatomy to be removed, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide virtual guidance of bone removal ([0145]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 pm.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798