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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS)s submitted on 06/10/2026 have been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 06/10/2025 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 13, 15 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application with claims 1 and 15 being independent.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to recite: “generate a subject avatar by morphing standard avatar and received information regarding the subject without an image acquisition of the subject”. The above recited limitation is unclear and indefinite as it is not clear what part of the generation of the avatar is being performed without an image acquisition. Is the act of generating an avatar itself is done without an imaging step? Or the received information regarding the subject do not include any imaging information? Or the standard avatar has been generated without any imaging information or without any act of imaging? In general, the limitation is confusing and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. for the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used.,
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 depend upon indefinite claims 1 and 15 and are considered to be indefinite as well due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiot et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0087052) hereinafter “Amiot” in view of Upadrasta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0259776) hereinafter “Upadrasta”.
Regarding claim 1, Amiot discloses a system to assist a user in navigating an instrument relative to a subject [see abstract of Amiot], comprising:
a display device configured to be viewed by the user; [see FIG. 4 and [0041] of Amiot]
an instrument tracking device associated with the instrument; [tool tracking module 214 mounted on the tool to track the position and orientation of the tool 212; see FIG. 12 and [0070]]
a subject tracking device, wherein the subject tracking device is fixed relative to the subject; [anatomical part tracking module 215 installed on the anatomical part before the operation in order to track a position and orientation of the anatomical part in space; see FIG. 12 and [0070]]
a tracking system configured to track the instrument tracking device and the subject tracking device; and [tracking module 212 is configured to track the instrument and tracking module 215 is configured to track the anatomical part; see [0070]]
a processor [navigation processing device 216] configured to execute instructions to:
determine a pose of the instrument relative to a pose of the subject based on the tracking of the instrument tracking device and the subject tracking device; [navigation processing device 216; see FIG. 12 and [0070] and [0074] disclosing that the navigation processing device 216 receiving tracking data by the modules 214 and 215 and processes them to generate a representation of the device and anatomical part in both position and orientation]
recall a standard avatar; [see FIG. 5, step 2 and [0044]; a general model of the anatomical structure is provided]
generate output that causes the display device to display the avatar and a graphical representation of the instrument superimposed on the avatar based on the pose of the instrument relative to the pose of the subject. [see Fig. 5 and 9, step 84 and [0051]]
Amiot further discloses that the processor is configured to receive information regarding the subject; generate a subject specific avatar at least by morphing the recalled standard avatar based on the received information regarding the subject; and display subject specific avatar.
Upadrasta, directed towards tracking the relative position and orientation of devices with respect to patient [see abstract of Upadrasta] further disclose that the processor is configured to receive information regarding the subject; [see[0047]-[0048]; patient specific data 214 s received] generate a subject specific avatar at least by morphing the recalled standard avatar based on the received information regarding the subject [see[0049]; the system integrates the generic model and patient specific data to generate a hybrid model 210] without an image acquisition of the subject [the act of avatar generation is a process that is inherently entirely performed in the processor and does not involve any image acquisition]; and display the subject specific avatar [see [0067]-[0069]]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot further and receive information regarding the subject; generate a subject specific avatar at least by morphing the recalled standard avatar based on the received information regarding the subject; and display the instrument superimposed on the subject specific avatar based on the pose of the instrument relative to the pose of the subject according to the teachings of Upadrasta in order to improve the process of generating simulation model that are used to simulate the medical procedure [see [0004] of Upadrasta]
Regarding claim 2, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot further discloses that the system comprises the instrument, wherein the instrument comprises a medical device. [see Fig. 3D; system 300 includes the instrument 345]
Regarding claim 11, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Updadrasta further discloses that the processor is configured to execute further instructions to maintain a registration of the subject specific avatar with the subject based on the tracking of the subject tracking device. [see [0065]-[0066] of Updrasta]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Updadrasta further such that the processor is configured to execute further instructions to maintain a registration of the subject specific avatar with the subject based on the tracking of the subject tracking device according to the teachings of Updrasta in order to adjust the model dynamically as the patient’s organs might move during the surgery [see [0065] of Updrasta]
Regarding claim 15, Amiot discloses a method to assist a user in navigating an instrument relative to a subject by selecting and sizing an avatar of a subject [see abstract of Amiot], the method comprising:
tracking, by a tracking system, [tracking module 212 is configured to track the instrument and tracking module 215 is configured to track the anatomical part; see [0070]] an instrument tracking device associated with the instrument [tool tracking module 214 mounted on the tool to track the position and orientation of the tool 212; see FIG. 12 and [0070]] and a subject tracking device that is fixed relative to the subject; [anatomical part tracking module 215 installed on the anatomical part before the operation in order to track a position and orientation of the anatomical part in space; see FIG. 12 and [0070]]
determining, by a processor, [navigation processing device 216] a pose of the instrument relative to a pose of the subject based on the tracking of the instrument tracking device and the subject tracking device; receiving, by the processor, information regarding the subject; [navigation processing device 216; see FIG. 12 and [0070] and [0074] disclosing that the navigation processing device 216 receiving tracking data by the modules 214 and 215 and processes them to generate a representation of the device and anatomical part in both position and orientation]
recalling, by the processor, a standard avatar; [see FIG. 5, step 2 and [0044]; a general model of the anatomical structure is provided]
generating, by the processing, output that causes a display device to display avatar and a graphical representation of the instrument superimposed on the avatar based on the pose of the instrument relative to the pose of the subject. [see Fig. 5 and 9, step 84 and [0051]]
Amiot does not disclose generating, by the processor, a subject specific avatar at least by morphing the standard avatar based on the received information regarding the subject; and and displaying the instrument superimposed on the subject specific avatar based on the pose of the instrument relative to the pose of the subject.
Upadrasta, directed towards tracking the relative position and orientation of devices with respect to patient [see abstract of Upadrasta] further disclose generating, by the processor, a subject specific avatar at least by morphing the standard avatar[see[0049]; the system integrates the generic model and patient specific data to generate a hybrid model 210] based on the received [see[0047]-[0048]; patient specific data 214 is received] information regarding the subject; without an image acquisition of the subject [the act of avatar generation is a process that is inherently entirely performed in the processor and does not involve any image acquisition]; and and displaying the subject-specifc avatar [see [0067]-[0069]]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot further and include generating, by the processor, a subject specific avatar at least by morphing the standard avatar based on the received information regarding the subject; and displaying the instrument superimposed on the subject specific avatar based on the pose of the instrument relative to the pose of the subject according to the teachings of Upadrasta in order to in order to improve the process of generating simulation model that are used to simulate the medical procedure [see [0004] of Upadrasta]
Regarding claim 16, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15 above]
Upadrasta further discloses generating the subject specific avatar comprises generating the subject specific avatar to have subject portions based on relative positions of the subject portions in the subject. [see [0078] of Upadrasta]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further generating the subject specific avatar comprises generating the subject specific avatar to have subject portions based on relative positions of the subject portions in the subject according to the teachings of Upadrasta in order to aid a surgeon or clinician during the medical procedure by Realtime adjustment of the model [see [0078] of Upadrasta]
Regarding claim 17, Amiot as modified by State discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15 above]
Updrasta further discloses maintaining, by the processor, a registration of the subject specific avatar with the subject based on the tracking of the subject tracking device. [see [0065]-[0066] of Updrasta]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Updrasta further such that the processor is configured to execute further instructions to maintain a registration of the subject specific avatar with the subject based on the tracking of the subject tracking device according to the teachings of Updrasta in order to adjust the model dynamically as the patient’s organs might move during the surgery [see [0065] of Updrasta]
Claims 3, 5-9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiot et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0087052) hereinafter “Amiot” in view of in view of Upadrasta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0259776) hereinafter “Upadrasta” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of State et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0247130) hereinafter “State”.
Regarding claim 3, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises an elongate endovascular device.
State, directed towards overlaying the position of the instrument on the subject’s image [see abstract of State] further discloses that the instrument comprises an elongate endovascular device. [see [0119] disclosing that the device could be an endoscope]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the instrument comprises an elongate endovascular device according to the teachings of State in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Regarding claim 5, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises a guidewire
State further discloses that the instrument comprises a guidewire. [see [0121] disclosing that the device could comprising guiding of wires (i.e. a guidewire)]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the instrument comprises a guidewire according to the teachings of State in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Regarding claim 6, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises a catheter.
State further discloses that the instrument comprises a catheter [see [0121] disclosing that the device could be a catheter]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the instrument comprises a catheter according to the teachings of State in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Regarding claim 7, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises a delivery system for an implant.
State further discloses that the instrument comprises a delivery system for an implant. [see [0121] disclosing that the device could be a stent application device]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the instrument comprises a delivery system for an implant according to the teachings of State in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Regarding claim 8, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises a tunneling tool.
State further discloses that the instrument comprises a tunneling tool. [see [0121] disclosing that the device could including devices for guidance of wires and stents through blood vessels and ducts. The NIH defines a tunneling tool as a surgical instrument that is used to create a path or tract for insertion of catheters, or leads; therefore [0121] could be considered a tunneling tool as it guides instruments through ducts]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the instrument comprises a tunneling tool according to the teachings of State in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Regarding claim 9, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises an energy delivery device.
State further discloses that the instrument comprises an energy delivery device. [see [0121] disclosing that the device could be a laser ablation device]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that that the instrument comprises an energy delivery device according to the teachings of State in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Regarding claim 13, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the processor is configured to determine poses of at least two points of the subject.
State further discloses that the processor is configured to determine poses of at least two points of the subject. [see [0175]-[0176] of State; the pose of several points relative to the tracking system can be continuously measured]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the processor is configured to determine poses of at least two points of the subject according to the teachings of State in order for the surgeon to keep tracking of various positions such as ablation zones during the procedure [see [0173] of State]
Regarding claim 19, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that determining the pose of the instrument relative to the pose of the subject comprises determining poses of at least two points of the subject.
State further discloses that determining the pose of the subject comprises determining poses of at least two points of the subject [see [0175]-[0176] of State; the pose of several points relative to the tracking system can be continuously measured]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the processor is configured to determine poses of at least two points of the subject according to the teachings of State in order for the surgeon to keep tracking of various positions such as ablation zones during the procedure [see [0173] of State]
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiot et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0087052) hereinafter “Amiot” in view of State et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0247130) hereinafter “State” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markowitz et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0281813) hereinafter “Markowitz”.
Regarding claim 4, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises an intracardiac device.
Markowitz, directed towards modeling the heart for implantation of a stimulation device [see abstract of Markowitz] further discloses that the instrument comprises an intracardiac device. [see [0069] of Markowitz]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the instrument comprises an intracardiac device according to the teachings of Markowitz in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Regarding claim 10, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the instrument comprises an electrode configured to stimulate a heart of the subject.
the instrument comprises an electrode configured to stimulate a heart of the subject. [see [0069] of Markowitz]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the instrument comprises an electrode configured to stimulate a heart of the subject according to the teachings of Markowitz in order to include a variety of applicable devices since doing so would have been substituting one type of device with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and equivalent results (KSR Rationale B)
Claims 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiot et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0087052) hereinafter “Amiot” in view of State et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0247130) hereinafter “State” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Byrd et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0164870) hereinafter “Byrd”.
Regarding claim 12, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the subject tracking device is configured to be positioned at the suprasternal notch of the subject.
Byrd, directed towards tracking system for the instrument with reference to the body of the patient [see abstract of Byrd] further discloses that the subject tracking device is configured to be positioned at the suprasternal notch of the subject. [see [0041] of Byrd]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the subject tracking device is configured to be positioned at the suprasternal notch of the subject according to the teachings of Byrd in order to place the reference mark somewhere that it is a stable place and visible during the surgery [see [0041] of Byrd]
Regarding claim 14, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the tracking system includes a localizer, wherein the subject is positioned relative to the localizer at a predetermined position, and wherein the predetermined position is operable to allow registration of the subject to the subject specific avatar.
Byrd further discloses that the tracking system includes a localizer, [patient reference sensor 24] wherein the subject is positioned relative to the localizer at a predetermined position,[see [0041] of Byrd] and wherein the predetermined position is operable to allow registration of the subject to the subject specific avatar. [see [0042]; a registration of the virtual space with actual patient space is done using the reference sensor 24]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the tracking system includes a localizer, wherein the subject is positioned relative to the localizer at a predetermined position, and wherein the predetermined position is operable to allow registration of the subject to the subject specific avatar according to the teachings of Byrd in order to allow for alignment of the displayed virtual space with the actual patient space [see [0042] of Byrd]
Regarding claim 18, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the subject tracking device is positioned at the suprasternal notch of the subject.
Byrd further discloses that the subject tracking device is positioned at the suprasternal notch of the subject see [0041] of Byrd]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the subject tracking device is configured to be positioned at the suprasternal notch of the subject according to the teachings of Byrd in order to place the reference mark somewhere that it is a stable place and visible during the surgery [see [0041] of Byrd]
Regarding claim 20, Amiot as modified by Upadrasta discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15 above]
Amiot as modified by Upadrasta does not expressly disclose that the tracking system comprises a localizer positioned at a predetermined position relative to the subject, the method comprising registering, by the processor, the subject to the subject specific avatar based on the predetermined position relative to the subject of the localizer.
Byrd further discloses that the tracking system comprises a localizer positioned at a predetermined position relative to the subject, the method comprising registering, by the processor, the subject to the subject specific avatar based on the predetermined position relative to the subject of the localizer. [see [0042]; a registration of the virtual space with actual patient space is done using the reference sensor 24]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Amiot as modified by Upadrasta further such that the tracking system includes a localizer, wherein the subject is positioned relative to the localizer at a predetermined position, and wherein the predetermined position is operable to allow registration of the subject to the subject specific avatar according to the teachings of Byrd in order to allow for alignment of the displayed virtual space with the actual patient space [see [0042] of Byrd]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Interpretation of Claims under U.S.C. 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/10/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of claims under U.S.C. 114(f) of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims Under U.S.C. 103
With regards to the added amendment to the claims requiring that the generation of the subject specific avatar be done without an image acquisition of the subject, the applicant has argued that none of the references used as prior art disclose this feature as they use images of the subject as data input.
In response, the examiner notes that as it is described in detail in the 112(b) rejection section of the office action, the added limitation causes indefiniteness for the claim as it is not clear what action is being done without image acquisition? Since the act of avatar generation is a processor based act, it inherently doesn’t involve image acquisition, so the prior art of record read on the added amendment. The applicant is advised to clarify which step of the process is being done without image acquisition and whether the claim intends to recite that the information regarding the subject do not include any images (?)
For compact prosecution, the examiner further notes that the Upadrasta reference which is made of record below discloses such a case where the subject specific avatar is generated using patient specific data that do not include image data.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Upadrasta et a. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0259776) hereinafter “Upadrasta”: is directed towards generation of a patient specific avatar by modifying a generic avatar using patient specific information which do NOT include any imaging information of the patient (see [0072] of Upadrasta)
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights