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 Amendment
In the amendment filed 08/27/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 14, and 16 have been amended, claims 2-3 have been canceled, and claims 21-23 have been added. Now, claims 1 and 4-23 are pending.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicates of one another. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, both claims are exact duplicates, including the claim numbering. One instance of claim 22 should be canceled in the next reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1 recites obtaining at least one post-surgery image and/or at least one intraoperative image of a plurality of instruments used in a surgical procedure and obtaining a list of the plurality of instruments; processing the at least one post-surgery image and/or the at least one intraoperative image to identify the instruments of the plurality; comparing the identified instruments from the plurality to the list of instruments of the surgical workflow; and outputting data relating to any discrepancy between the list and the plurality of instruments.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing personal behavior or interactions between people, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claim encompasses assisting a user with post-surgical handling of surgical instruments by obtaining an image of the instruments used in surgery along with a list of the instruments, identifying the instruments in the image, compare the instruments from the image to the list, and providing a user with any discrepancies between the list and the instruments in the image, such as listed instruments that are missing. Such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 4-23 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claims 4-5 further encompass providing data to assist the user in positioning the instruments in a storage device and discrepancies. Claims 6-7 additionally recite outputting data related to instrument position and an instruction for robotic storage. Simply outputting an instruction does not require operation by the robot and is, therefore, part of the abstract idea. Claims 8-9 further recite obtaining and processing video at a time related to the post-surgery image. This encompasses a user observing and evaluating video. Claims 10-13 further expand on the storage device to be a sterilization tray. Claims 14-15 further expand on obtaining the image. Claim16 further expands on identifying the surgical instrument. Claim 17 further expands on comparing images to identify an instrument. Claim 18 further identifies the timing of obtaining the image of instruments. Claims 19-20 further expand on outputting instrument information. Claims 21-23 further expand on the discrepancies, including missing instruments and adjusting inventory. As explained above, these manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with adding elements similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity.
Claims 1 and 4-23, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality and merely utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea:
Claims 1:
a processing unit; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory communicatively coupled to the processing unit and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by the processing unit.
Claims 4-23:
the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit.
Claim 15
imaging the plurality of instruments with a non-radiographic digital camera.
The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “CAS controller 50 may be part of any suitable processor unit(s), such as a personal computer or computers including laptops and desktops, tablets, server, cloud, etc” (see page 3, lines 9-11). As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 4-23, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality, involving no more that extra-solution data gathering and transmitting activity:
Claim 1:
obtaining a list…from a computer-assisted surgery system operating a surgical workflow (i.e. obtaining data from a computer).
Claim 16:
recognizing an optical code…and retrieving the identify of the instrument from the optical code (i.e. obtaining data from a barcode or QR code).
Claim 23:
the robot receives instructions based on the discrepancy.
These additional elements are recited at a high degree of generality and are merely involved in insignificant extra solution data gathering using generic computer components. Additionally, the recitation of “the robot receives instructions” is simply a recitation of instructions being received from a computer. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant, extra-solution activity, such as insignificant acquisition and data transmission, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 6-7 and 23, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment:
Claims 6:
a robot configured to store the at least one instrument in the storage device.
Claim 7:
driving the robot to store the at least one instrument in the storage device.
Claim 23:
driving a robot to manipulate instruments.
The robot is broadly recited and is only recited as a destination of output instructions for “driving” the robot to perform a function. There is no indication that the combination of the robot and the other recited limitations provides any type of technical improvement or an improvement to another technical field. The robot simply links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity (e.g. obtaining data using generic computer components) has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. a robot) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, the aforementioned additional elements, considered in combination, do not provide an improvement to a technical field or provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. These additional elements merely carry out the abstract idea through data collection, data processing, data communication, and data storage. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caprara, US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0074814 in view of Hanajima, US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0206560.
As per claim 1, Caprara teaches a system for managing surgical hardware in computer-assisted surgery, comprising: a processing unit (see paragraph 0068; processor comprising a processing device); and a non-transitory computer-readable memory communicatively coupled to the processing unit and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by the processing unit (see paragraph 0068; storage device with a management and tracking program installed) for: obtaining at least one post-surgery image and/or at least one intraoperative image of a plurality of instruments used in a surgical procedure (see paragraphs 0024 and 0026; recognition of surgical instruments to detect the images) and obtaining a list of the plurality of instruments from a computer-assisted surgery system operating a surgical workflow during the surgical procedure (see paragraph 0049; detect and obtain images and identification codes of surgical instruments); processing the at least one post-surgery image and/or the at least one intraoperative image to identify the instruments of the plurality (see paragraph 0050; perform image and data processing relating to the surgical instruments and generate visual content from the images and data); and outputting data relating to at least one of the instruments (see paragraph 0052; outputs data related to surgical instrument positioning and placement within a kit
Caprara does not explicitly teach the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for comparing the identified instruments from the plurality to the list of instruments used during the surgical procedure and outputting data relating to any discrepancy between the list and the plurality of instruments. Hanajima teaches comparing identified instruments from a plurality to a list of instruments used during a surgical procedure (see paragraphs 0301-0302; count logs of surgical instruments from before and after a medical surgery are compared to identify any lost instruments) and outputting data relating to any discrepancy between the list and the plurality of instruments (see paragraphs 0301-0302; count logs of surgical instruments from before and after a medical surgery are compared to identify any lost instruments). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to compare instruments in the system of Capara as described in Hanajima with the motivation of improving the accuracy of managing medical instruments before and after procedures (see paragraph 0189 of Hanajima).
As per claim 4, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for outputting data relating to a position of at least one of the instruments in a storage device to assist a user in storing the at least one instrument (see paragraph 0052; outputs data related to surgical instrument positioning and placement within a kit for post surgery sterilization).
As per claim 5, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 4 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for obtaining the at least one post- surgery image of the plurality of instruments used in the surgical procedure in the storage device (see paragraph 0050; perform image and data processing relating to the surgical instruments and generate visual content from the images and data; paragraph 0052; data related to surgical instrument positioning and placement within a kit for post surgery sterilization; Figure 2 shows surgical kit in the form of a storage tray). Caprara does not explicitly teach outputting data relating to any discrepancy between a current position and a set position of at least one of the plurality of instruments. Hanajima further teaches outputting data relating to any discrepancy between a current position and a set position of at least one of the plurality of instruments (see paragraphs 0301-0302; count logs of surgical instruments from before and after a medical surgery are compared to identify any lost instruments). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate this feature in the system of Caprara for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 8, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for obtaining a video feed when obtaining the at least one post-surgery image and/or the at least one intraoperative images of the plurality of instruments (see paragraphs 0054 and 0079; acquired data may be from video camerates and may be used to produce video content).
As per claim 9, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for processing the video feed when processing the at least one post-surgery image and/or the at least one intraoperative image (see paragraphs 0054 and 0079; acquired data may be from video camerates and may be used to produce video content).
As per claim 10, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for obtaining the at least one post- surgery image of the plurality of instruments in a sterilization tray (see paragraph 0052; images include surgical instruments and surgical kits of the sterilization unit).
As per claim 11, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for obtaining the at least one post- surgery image of the plurality of instruments in the sterilization tray prior to sterilization (see paragraph 0052; images include surgical instruments and surgical kits of the sterilization unit; data relating to surgical instrument includes history of sterilization procedures for the surgical instrument, which indicates an images being before or after a sterilization).
As per claim 12, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for obtaining the at least one post- surgery image of the plurality of instruments in the sterilization tray after sterilization(see paragraph 0052; images include surgical instruments and surgical kits of the sterilization unit; data relating to surgical instrument includes history of sterilization procedures for the surgical instrument, which indicates an images being before or after a sterilization).
As per claim 13, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for obtaining the at least one post- surgery image of the plurality of instruments in the sterilization tray, the sterilization tray being the storage device (see paragraph 0052; images include surgical instruments and surgical kits of the sterilization unit).
As per claim 14, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for imaging the plurality of instruments to obtain the at least one post-surgery image and/or the at least one intraoperative image (see paragraphs 0024 and 0026; recognition of surgical instruments to detect the images).
As per claim 15, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for imaging the plurality of instruments with a non-radiographic digital camera (see paragraphs 0048 and; image acquisition means 0079 include video cameras and thermal imaging cameras).
As per claim 16, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for recognizing an optical code on at least one of the instruments when processing the at least one post-surgery image and/or the at least one intraoperative image to identify the instruments of the plurality, and for retrieving the identity of the instrument from the optical code (see paragraph 0113; optical identification code uniquely associated with a surgical instrument).
As per claim 17, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara does not explicitly teach the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for comparing images of the instruments to images of instruments in a database of instrument images when processing the at least one post-surgery image to identify the instruments of the plurality. Hanajima teaches comparing images of instruments to images of instruments in a database of instrument images when processing at least one post-surgery image to identify the instruments of the plurality (see paragraphs 0301-0302; count logs of surgical instruments from before and after a medical surgery are compared to identify any lost instruments). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to compare instruments in the system of Capara as described in Hanajima with the motivation of improving the accuracy of managing medical instruments before and after procedures (see paragraph 0189 of Hanajima).
As per claim 18, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for obtaining at least one post-surgery image of a plurality of instruments used in the surgical procedure after the surgical procedure is completed and before the plurality of instruments are stored in a storage device (see paragraph 0052; images include surgical instruments; data relating to surgical instrument includes history of sterilization procedures for the surgical instrument, which indicates an images being before or after being in a surgical kit).
As per claim 19, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for outputting an image of the at least one instrument when outputting said data (see paragraph 0052; outputs data related to surgical instrument positioning and placement within a kit for post surgery sterilization).
As per claim 20, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara further teaches the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for outputting an image of the storage device with a visual marker on said position when outputting said data (see paragraph 0062; outputs surgical kit with arrow-shaped indications related to surgical instruments that have been placed wrongly or the container in which the surgical instrument is to be placed).
As per claim 21, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara does not explicitly teach the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for outputting data relating to any discrepancy as an identification of at least one missing instrument. Hanajima further teaches outputting data relating to any discrepancy as an identification of at least one missing instrument (see paragraph 0309; if the comparator determines one or more instruments are missing, displays names or images of the missing instruments and their numbers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to compare instruments in the system of Capara for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 22 (each instance of claim 22), Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Caprara does not explicitly teach the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for outputting data relating to any discrepancy and adjusting an inventory of tools using the data relating to any discrepancy. Hanajima further teaches outputting data relating to any discrepancy and adjusting an inventory of tools using the data relating to any discrepancy (see paragraph 0311; count log of instruments is an inventory that accounts for missing instruments after a procedure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to compare instruments in the system of Capara for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caprara, US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0074814 in view of Hanajima, US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0206560 and further in view of Gerstner, US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0331945.
As per claim 6, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 4 as described above. Caprara does not explicitly teach the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for outputting said data relating to the position of at least one of the instruments in the storage device as instructions for driving a robot configured to store the at least one instrument in the storage device. Gerstner teaches outputting data relating to the position of at least one instrument in a storage device as instructions for driving a robot configured to store the at least one instrument in the storage device (see paragraphs 0209 and 0212; describes outputting instructions for a robotic device to move a surgical instrument to a tray). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include robotic operation for surgical device moving in the system of Caprara with the motivation of improving organization of surgical instruments (see paragraph 0029 of Gerstner).
As per claim 7, Caprara, Hanajima, and Gerstner teaches the system of claim 6 as described above. Caprara does not explicitly teach the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for driving the robot to store the at least one instrument in the storage device. Gerstner further teaches driving the robot to store the at least one instrument in the storage device. (see paragraphs 0209 and 0212; describes outputting instructions for a robotic device to move a surgical instrument to a tray). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate this feature in the system of Caprara for the reasons given above with respect to claim 6.
As per claim 23, Caprara and Hanajima teaches the system of claim 6 as described above. Caprara does not explicitly teach the computer-readable program instructions are executable by the processing unit for driving a robot to manipulate instruments, and wherein the robot receives instructions based on the discrepancy. Gerstner teaches driving a robot to manipulate instruments, and wherein the robot receives instructions based on a preferred location (see paragraphs 0209 and 0212-0213; describes outputting instructions for a robotic device to move a surgical instrument to a tray). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include robotic operation for surgical device moving in the system of Caprara and Hanajima based on the discrepancy detected in Hanajima with the motivation of improving organization of surgical instruments (see paragraph 0029 of Gerstner).
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed 08/27/2026, Applicant argues (1) the amendments to claim 5 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); (2) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they require computer image processing that includes pixel-level analysis, feature extraction, and pattern matching against known instrument profiles that has no analog to human activities; (3) the combination of the CAS system, image processing, and discrepancy data output integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; (4) the claims require a specific technical architecture for managing surgical hardware that is not an abstract organizational concept; (5) the ordered combination of limitations provides an unconventional arrangement of technical elements; (6) Caprara does not teach obtaining a list of instruments from a computer-assisted surgery system that operates a surgical workflow during the surgical procedure itself; (7) Hanajima does not teach any functions related to a CAS system operating a surgical workflow; (8) neither Caprara nor Hanajima teaches outputting data relating to a position of an instrument in a storage device; (9), the outputting of discrepancy data of Hanajima is not related to a CAS system; (10) Hanajima does not teach comparing images of instruments to images in a database.
In response to argument (1), the examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejection under 112(b).
In response to argument (2), the examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not recite limitations that are commensurate in scope with such argued features. For example, the processing step of claim 1 recites “processing the at least one post-surgery image and/or the at least one intraoperative image to identify the instruments of the plurality.” Clearly the claim does not include any pixel-level analysis, feature extraction, or pattern matching against known instrument profiles. As explained in the rejections an individual could look at a picture of instruments to identifying the instruments of the plurality. Although the steps of claim 1 are carried out by a “processing unit,” simply implementing an abstract idea with a generic computing component does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea.
In response to argument (3), as noted in the rejections the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer-assisted surgery system operating a surgical workflow” is a generic computer operating software. Additoinaly, this component is only recited as a source of data in the form of a “list of the plurality of instruments.” Therefore, this CAS system is only involved in insignificant data gathering. As explained above, the “processing” of the image is part of the abstract idea because it encompasses a user identifying instruments in an image. Finally, providing data relating to any discrepancy between the list and the instruments is also part of the abstract idea. The combination of these recitations do not provide any technical improvements to the computer operations, the CAS system, or to any other technical field. Considered in combination, the claim recites an abstract idea implemented with generic computer components. Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to argument (4), the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite a technical architecture beyond generic computer components. As explained above, the claims only recite generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea. The CAS system is broadly recited in a manner that encompasses a generic computer element. Even if the CAS system were to be considered something other than a generic computer element, it is only involved in the step of obtaining a list of information. Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application.
In response to argument (5), as explained above, the claims only recite generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea along with a CAS system that, at most, is used to obtain a list of information. The examiner respectfully disagrees that such components recited in combination with the steps of the abstract idea provides an unconventional arrangement of elements.
In response to argument (6), the broad recitations of “a computer-assisted surgery system” and “surgical workflow” encompass a computer that executes software related to surgical procedures. Caprara identifies “computer vision techniques” to recognize “surgical instruments” (see paragraph 0024). In the context of Caprara, the sterilization process is part of the overall surgical procedure as the instruments are received from the operating theaters for washing, sterilization, packaging and recomposition of the surgical kits (see paragraphs 0005-0008). Additionally, the recitation of “during the surgical procedure” only limits the “operating a surgical workflow,” but not the obtaining a list of instruments. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner respectfully maintains that this limitation encompasses the teachings of Capara.
In response to argument (7), the examiner has not relied on the Hanajima for the obtaining a list of instruments from a CAS operating a surgical workflow. Therefore, this argument is moot.
In response to argument (8), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Caprara teaches outputting data related to surgical instrument positioning and placement within a kit for post surgery sterilization (see paragraph 0052). Applicant argues that this is only in a post-surgery context. However, the recited outputting is not limited to a context that does not include a post-surgery context. This is also consistent with processing images of post-surgery images. The amended claims add “at least one intraoperative image” language, however it is only added with “and/or” language, which includes only a post-surgery image. Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains that this limitation encompasses the teachings of Caprara.
In response to argument (9), the examiner has not relied on the Hanajima for the obtaining a list of instruments from a CAS operating a surgical workflow. Therefore, this argument is moot.
In response to argument (10), the comparison of instruments to identify missing instruments is further explained to including checking matches and mismatches of images (see paragraph 0308). Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains that this comparison encompasses the teachings of Hanajima.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Leiderman, US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0301727, discloses using images of surgical tools to identify misplaced tools.
Laster, International Publication No. WO 2017/011646, discloses capturing images of surgical instruments, comparing the images to a list to identify discrepancies in surgical instruments.
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 C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
