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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered. The previous objection to claim 19 has been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended claim(s) 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. See rejection below.
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 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0287407 A1 to Patrick et al. (Patrick), in view of US Patent No. 6,436,146 B1 to Hassler et al. (Hassler), and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0269908 A1 to Warburton et al. (Warburton).
Regarding at least claim 1
Patrick teaches implants suitable for use in a carpometacarpal joint includes an upper surface, a lower surface, and sidewalls extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (abstract).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
300
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Patrick meets the limitations of a device (100), comprising: a body (fig. 1A-B, for example, shows the implant body) being monolithic (the body is shown to be monolithic; fig. 1B), the body being substantially saddle-shaped (paragraph 0065 discloses that the upper surface 102 is saddle shaped) and having a protrusion (peak; 118a) formed integrally along a perimeter of the body and projecting from the body (fig. 1A shows that the protrusion/peak; 118a is formed integrally with and projects from the periphery of the body), the body and the protrusion configured to be disposed in a cavity configured to receive the body (the implant is disposed within the synovial cavity of the joint), the protrusion being configured to prevent expulsion of the body from the cavity when the cavity is manipulated (paragraph 0076 discloses that the implant lacks features configured to fix the implant in place and that the implant is maintained in position by being slightly oversized with respect to a cavity in which the implant is positioned, presumably via peaks 118a and 118b, thereby preventing expulsion when the cavity is manipulated, in the same way as applicant’s), and the protrusion being configured to contain and to retain the body floating within the cavity (paragraph 0076 discloses that the implant lacks features configured to fix the implant in place and that the implant is maintained in position by being slightly oversized with respect to a cavity in which the implant is positioned, presumably via peaks 118a and 118b in the same way as applicant’s and paragraph 0066 discloses that the upper and lower surfaces may be contoured to abut particular anatomy (e.g., planar, non-planar) and/or modified anatomy (e.g., a recess formed in a bone) – abutment of the particular anatomy with a lack of fixation features is construed to meet the limitation that the body floats within the cavity as claimed) being interposed between a first toroidal shape of a first bone and a second toroidal shape of a second bone (paragraph 0064 discloses that the implant is implanted in joint between the trapezium and a first metacarpal bone, both of which have a toroidal shape), the cavity being interposed between the first and second bone (paragraph 0049 discloses that the implant is configured for placement in a carpometacarpal joint and more preferably between a first metacarpal bone and a trapezium and is therefore interposed between two or more bones, as claimed, particularly since the term “interposed” is defined as being placed between), the protrusion having non-invasive (though Patrick teaches insertion of the implant into one of the bones, for example into a cavity formed in the first metacarpal bone as disclosed in paragraph 0068, Patrick also teaches that the implant has non-invasive intermittent contact with the shape of the other bone, for example articulation with the trapezium bone as disclosed in paragraph 0064) intermittent contact with the first bone or the second bone (paragraph 0076 discloses that the implant is slightly oversized with respect to the joint cavity in which the implant is positioned – therefore, in the same way as applicant’s, the protrusion 118a would have intermittent contact with the first bone since it would only come into contact with the bone surface depending on the positioning of the joint at a given time to maintain the implant with respect to the cavity), the protrusion being an integral and built up structure that rises from a corner of the body (it can be seen from fig. 1A of Patrick that the protrusion/peak 118a projects above surface 120 and is a structure that is built up from the body as claimed; further, Patrick teaches that the body is rectangular, as disclosed in paragraph 0066, and therefore includes corners –the protrusion/peak is shown to rise along the entire periphery, which would include the corners as claimed), the protrusion being configured to prevent expulsion of the device from the cavity between the first toroidal shape and the second toroidal shape, without pre-configuring the body to the first toroidal shape or the second toroidal shape (paragraph 0076 discloses that the implant lacks features configured to fix the implant in place and that the implant is maintained in position by being slightly oversized with respect to a cavity in which the implant is positioned, presumably via peaks 118a and 118b in the same way as applicant’s and paragraph 0066 discloses that the upper and lower surfaces may be contoured to abut particular anatomy (e.g., planar, non-planar) and/or modified anatomy (e.g., a recess formed in a bone) – the particular anatomy is construed to meet a shape that is not pre-configured); the body being configured to have a first saddle surface aligned on a first axis (upper surface 102 is disclosed as being saddle shaped in paragraph 0065 aligned on what appears to be an x-axis), the first saddle surface being disposed on a side of the body (the first saddle surface is disposed on the upper surface side of the body); and a channel (defined by troughs 120a and/or 120b) formed on the body comprising a portion of the first saddle surface (fig. 1a, for example shows that the troughs are located on a portion of the upper/first surface 102).
Patrick also teaches that the lower surface (104) may be contoured to abut particular anatomy (e.g., non-planar (e.g., curved, concave, convex, undulated, fluted)). Further, Patrick teaches that the contours of the implant may be modified to match a specific anatomy (e.g., a surface of a trapezium), and that in some embodiments, a surface of a bone (e.g., first metacarpal bone) and/or an opposing bone (e.g., trapezium) may be scanned and used to make a mold to match specific anatomical features of a specific patient, or subject (paragraph 0064). Therefore, it appears to at least be suggested by Patrick to include a contoured lower surface (104) that abuts the trapezium, particularly one that matches the specific anatomical features of the trapezium and is free of any features that fix the implant in place.
In order to match the anatomical features of the trapezium, it is construed that the lower surface (second surface; 104) is a second saddle surface aligned along a second axis, for example a y-axis, for the purpose of corresponding to contours of an upper surface of a trapezium (facing the first metacarpal bone), which has a surface that resembles a saddle. The lower surface (second saddle surface; 104) of Patrick is clearly shown to be located substantially underneath the first saddle surface (upper surface; 102) and disposed on a separate and opposite side of the body (fig. 1A), the first axis being substantially orthogonal to the second axis (the x-axis is substantially orthogonal to the y-axis), and includes a channel formed on the body comprising another portion of the second saddle surface (defined by troughs, similar to the first saddle surface), in order to correspond to the contours of an upper surface of a trapezium when the implant acts as an interposition between the two bones, as evidenced by Hassler (col. 3, lines 45-61 and col. 11, lines 34-38 of Hassler disclose that it is well known in the art to provide trapezio-metacarpal joint implants having one articulating surface, when intended to replace part of a bone, or two articulating surfaces opposite one another, when the implant acts as an interposition between the two bones, for the purpose of restoring functionality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the lower surface of the implant of Patrick, which is intended to cooperate with the trapezium, is a second saddle surface aligned on a second axis, the second saddle surface being substantially underneath the first saddle surface and disposed on a separate and opposite side of the body, the first axis being substantially orthogonal to the second axis, and includes a channel formed on the body comprising another portion of the second saddle surface, in order to correspond to contours of an upper surface of a trapezium, which has a surface that resembles a saddle, thereby allowing the implant to act as an interposition between the metacarpal bone and the trapezium while restoring functionality, as evidenced by Hassler.
However, Patrick does not teach having a radius of curvature that is at least one standard deviation from a measured radius of curvature of the first toroidal shape or the second toroidal shape.
The examiner first notes that the term “standard deviation” is defined as: the amount by which measurements in a set vary from the average for the set. Since no amount or average has been specified and since the first and second toroidal shapes are not defined by any specific radius of curvature, this limitation is broad. Hassler also teaches that the prosthesis dimensions are determined based on x-rays of the wrist that are taken (col. 7, lines 51-53) and that the chosen dimensions can include a portion having a small radius of curvature and a portion having a large radius of curvature, each selected to correspond to the bone with which they face when disposed, for the purpose of allowing the prosthesis to be positioned without being fixed (col. 8, lines 13-25). Determining the appropriate dimensions to ensure that the implant stays in place without being fixed is construed to include that the device has a radius of curvature that is at least one standard deviation from a measured radius of curvature of the first toroidal shape or the second toroidal shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Patrick to include a radius of curvature that is at least one standard deviation from a measured radius of curvature of the first toroidal shape or the second toroidal shape, in order to ensure that the implant stays in place without being fixed, as intended by Patrick and Hassler, particularly in view of the broad interpretation of this limitation.
Patrick also teaches that the cavity includes modified anatomy to which the surfaces of the implant may be contoured to abut, and thereby conform to the body of the implant (paragraph 0066). However, Patrick does not explicitly teach that the cavity is configured using a rasping instrument to modify the cavity.
Warburton teaches a CMC joint implant that includes saddle surfaces for cooperating with the bones of the joint (paragraphs 0005 and 0068). Warburton also teaches using a broach (93), for the purpose of rasping an intramedullary space for the implant (40) (paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the modified anatomy of the cavity is configured using a rasping instrument to modify the cavity, in order to rasp an intramedullary space for the implant, as taught by Warburton.
The examiner further notes the use of functional language throughout the claim and reminds application that recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding at least claim 3
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body comprises a plurality of protrusions (peaks; 118a and 118b).
Regarding at least claim 4
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body comprises a plurality of protrusions, each of the plurality of protrusions being disposed at a corner of the body (peaks 118a and 118b which are construed as being disposed at a corner of the body at least when the body is rectangular in shape as disclosed in paragraph 0066 in order to maintain position of the implant within the cavity as intended by Patrick).
Regarding at least claim 5
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the cavity is a joint between the first bone and the second bone (the cavity in which the implant of Patrick is deployed is a joint between the trapezium and a first metacarpal as disclosed in paragraph 0064).
Regarding at least claim 6
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the cavity is a joint formed between two or more bones within an anatomical region (the cavity in which the implant of Patrick is deployed is a joint between the trapezium and a first metacarpal as disclosed in paragraph 0064, which are two bones within an anatomical region).
Regarding at least claim 7
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body is substantially curved and is configured to positionally align the body within the cavity formed between the first toroidal shape of the first bone and the second toroidal shape of the second bone (the body of the implant is curved as shown in fig. 1A, for example, and configured to maintain position of/align the body within the cavity formed between the metacarpal and trapezium as disclosed in paragraph 0067).
Regarding at least claim 8
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the first saddle surface is axially aligned to a first toroidal surface of the first toroidal shape of the first bone and the second saddle surface is axially aligned to a second toroidal surface of the second toroidal shape of the second bone (the maintained position achieved by the implant of Patrick as disclosed in paragraph 0067 includes that the first/upper surface is axially aligned to the toroidal surface of the metacarpal bone and the second/lower surface is axially aligned to the toroidal surface of the trapezium).
Regarding at least claim 9
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the first saddle surface is axially aligned to a first toroidal surface of the first toroidal shape of the first bone and the second saddle surface is axially aligned to a second toroidal surface of the second toroidal shape of the second bone when the device is inserted into the cavity (the maintained position with respect to the cavity that is achieved by the implant of Patrick as disclosed in paragraph 0067 includes that the first/upper surface is axially aligned to the toroidal surface of the metacarpal bone and the second/lower surface is axially aligned to the toroidal surface of the trapezium).
Regarding at least claim 10
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the first saddle surface and the second saddle surface are configured to axially align the body with a first axis associated with a first toroidal surface of the first toroidal shape of the first bone (the upper/first and lower/second surfaces of the implant of Patrick maintain position with respect to the cavity in which the implant is positioned as disclosed in paragraph 0067, and is therefore construed to achieve axial alignment, at least intermittently, with a y-axis associated with the toroidal surface of the metacarpal bone).
Regarding at least claim 11
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body comprises one or more protrusions (118a and 118b) configured to prevent the first toroidal shape of the first bone from contacting the second toroidal shape of the second bone (the toroidal shapes of the metacarpal bone and trapezium between which the implant is disposed are prevented from contacting one another due to the peaks/protrusions which maintain the implant in position within the joint cavity).
Regarding at least claim 12
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body comprises one or more protrusions (118a and 118b) configured to prevent the device from displacing from the cavity (the peaks/protrusions which maintain the implant in position within the joint cavity also act to prevent the device from displacing from the cavity as claimed).
Regarding at least claim 13
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body comprises one or more structures configured to prevent the first toroidal shape of the first bone from contacting the second toroidal shape of the second bone (the toroidal shapes of the metacarpal bone and trapezium between which the implant is disposed are prevented from contacting one another due to the peaks/structures which maintain the implant in position within the joint cavity).
Regarding at least claim 14
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body comprises one or more structures configured to prevent the body from displacing from the cavity (the peaks/structures which maintain the implant in position within the joint cavity also act to prevent the body from displacing from the cavity as claimed).
Regarding at least claim 15
Patrick as evidenced by Hassler in view of Warburton teaches the device of claim 1. Patrick also teaches wherein the body comprises one or more structures configured to maintain anatomical alignment of the body within the cavity (the peaks/protrusions which maintain the implant in position within the joint cavity also act to maintain anatomical alignment of the body within the cavity as claimed).
Regarding at least claim 16
Patrick teaches implants suitable for use in a carpometacarpal joint includes an upper surface, a lower surface, and sidewalls extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (abstract). Patrick meets the limitations of a device, comprising: a body (100) being monolithic (fig. 1B, for example, shows that the body is monolithic), the body having a first toroidal receiving surface (102), a second toroidal receiving surface (104; though the surface is depicted as being planar, it is meant to receive the trapezium, which naturally has a toroidal surface, and therefore meets this limitation as claimed), and a protrusion (118a, for example), the protrusion being an integral and built up structure that rises from a corner of the body (it can be seen from fig. 1A of Patrick that the protrusion/peak 118a projects above surface 120 and is therefore construed as being a structure that is built up from the body as claimed; further, Patrick teaches that the body is rectangular, as disclosed in paragraph 0066, which includes corners and since the protrusion/peak rises along the entire periphery, including a corner of the body as claimed) and the protrusion being formed integrally at a perimeter of the body and projecting from the body (fig. 1A shows that the protrusion/peak is integral and projects from the body), the body and the protrusion being configured to be disposed in a cavity, the protrusion being configured to prevent expulsion of the body from the cavity when the cavity is manipulated (paragraph 0076 discloses that the implant lacks features configured to fix the implant in place and that the implant is maintained in position by being slightly oversized with respect to a cavity in which the implant is positioned, presumably via peaks 118a and 118b, thereby preventing expulsion when the cavity is manipulated, in the same way as applicant’s), the body and the protrusion being disposed between a first toroidal shape of a first bone and a second toroidal shape of a second bone (the implant is deployed in a carpometacarpal joint between a first metacarpal bone and the trapezium, each of which have a toroidal shape), and the cavity being interposed between the first bone and the second bone (paragraph 0049 discloses that the implant is configured for placement in a carpometacarpal joint and more preferably between a first metacarpal bone and a trapezium and is therefore interposed between two or more bones, as claimed, particularly since the term “interposed” is defined as being placed between), and the protrusion having non-invasive (though Patrick teaches insertion of the implant into one of the bones, for example into a cavity formed in the first metacarpal bone as disclosed in paragraph 0068, Patrick also teaches that the implant has non-invasive contact with the shape of the other bone, for example articulation with the trapezium bone as disclosed in paragraph 0064) intermittent contact with the first toroidal shape of the first bone and the second toroidal shape of the second bone (paragraph 0076 discloses that the implant is slightly oversized with respect to the cavity in which the implant is positioned – therefore, in the same way as applicant’s, the protrusion 118a would have intermittent contact with the first or second toroidal shape since it would only come into contact with the bone surface depending on the positioning of the joint at a given time to maintain the implant with respect to the cavity), the protrusion being configured to contain and to retain the body floating within the cavity and to prevent expulsion of the device from a cavity between the first toroidal shape and the second toroidal shape of the two or more bones, without pre-configuring with the first toroidal shape or second toroidal shape (paragraph 0076 discloses that the implant lacks features configured to fix the implant in place and that the implant is maintained, and therefore retained and contained, in position by being slightly oversized with respect to a cavity in which the implant is positioned, presumably via peaks 118a and 118b in the same way as applicant’s and paragraph 0066 discloses that the upper and lower surfaces may be contoured to abut particular anatomy (e.g., planar, non-planar) and/or modified anatomy (e.g., a recess formed in a bone) – abutment of the particular anatomy with a lack of fixation features is construed to meet the limitation that the body floats within the cavity as claimed), the first toroidal receiving surface being disposed on a side of the body (the first toroidal receiving surface is disposed on an upper side of the body) and the second toroidal receiving surface being substantially underneath the first toroidal receiving surface and disposed on a separate and opposite side of the body (the second toroidal receiving surface is disposed on a lower side of the body which is separate and opposite from the upper side as shown in fig. 1A, for example), the first toroidal receiving surface being substantially orthogonal to the second toroidal receiving surface (each of the first/upper and second/lower receiving surfaces have an x-dimension and a y-dimension; therefore, the first toroidal receiving surface that is defined along the x-dimension is substantially orthogonal to the second toroidal receiving surface that is defined along the y-dimension and meets the limitations as claimed), the body having a cross section that is substantially rectangular (paragraph 0066 discloses a rectangular shaped implant which would have a substantially rectangular cross section) and is orthogonal to an axis of the body (the rectangular cross section is orthogonal to an x-axis of the body) and having another cross section having a curvature attribute that is greater than another curvature attribute associated with the first bone and the second bone adjacent to a joint formed between the first bone and the second bone in which the body is inserted, the another cross section being orthogonal to another axis that is orthogonal to the axis (paragraph 0067 discloses that the implant is slightly oversized with respect to a cavity into which a portion of the implant is positioned – the oversized implant includes a curvature attribute, at least on its upper surface, that is construed to be in another cross section orthogonal to another axis, for example the z-axis, that is orthogonal to the x-axis, and that is greater than the curvature attribute of the first metacarpal bone, which is adjacent to the joint in which the body is inserted, so that the implant is maintained as intended by Patrick).
However, Patrick does not teach having a radius of curvature that is at least one standard deviation from a measured radius of curvature of the first toroidal shape or the second toroidal shape.
The examiner first notes that the term “standard deviation” is defined as: the amount by which measurements in a set vary from the average for the set. Since no amount or average has been specified and since the first and second toroidal shapes are not defined by any specific radius of curvature, this limitation is broad. Hassler also teaches that the prosthesis dimensions are determined based on x-rays of the wrist that are taken (col. 7, lines 51-53) and that the chosen dimensions can include a portion having a small radius of curvature and a portion having a large radius of curvature, each selected to correspond to the bone with which they face when disposed, for the purpose of allowing the prosthesis to be positioned without being fixed (col. 8, lines 13-25). Determining the appropriate dimensions to ensure that the implant stays in place without being fixed is construed to include that the device has a radius of curvature that is at least one standard deviation from a measured radius of curvature of the first toroidal shape or the second toroidal shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Patrick to include a radius of curvature that is at least one standard deviation from a measured radius of curvature of the first toroidal shape or the second toroidal shape, in order to ensure that the implant stays in place without being fixed, as intended by Patrick and Hassler, particularly in view of the broad interpretation of this limitation.
Patrick also teaches that the cavity includes modified anatomy to which the surfaces of the implant may be contoured to abut, and thereby conform to the body of the implant (paragraph 0066). However, Patrick does not explicitly teach that the cavity is configured to receive the body using a rasping instrument to modify the cavity.
Warburton teaches a CMC joint implant that includes saddle surfaces for cooperating with the bones of the joint (paragraphs 0005 and 0068). Warburton also teaches using a broach (93), for the purpose of rasping an intramedullary space for the implant (40) (paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the modified anatomy of the cavity is configured to receive the body using a rasping instrument to modify the cavity, in order to rasp an intramedullary space for the implant, as taught by Warburton.
The examiner further notes the use of functional language throughout the claim and reminds application that recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding at least claim 17
Patrick in view of Hassler and Warburton teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the curvature attribute is associated with a distal or proximal end of the first bone, the distal or the proximal end being substantially adjacent to the joint (the curvature attribute is associated with the lower/distal surface of the metacarpal bone that is substantially adjacent to the joint).
Regarding at least claim 18
Patrick in view of Hassler and Warburton teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the another curvature attribute is associated with another distal or another proximal end of the second bone, the another distal or the another proximal end being substantially adjacent to the joint (the curvature attribute is associated with another lower/distal surface of the another/metacarpal bone that is substantially adjacent to the joint).
Regarding at least claim 19
Patrick in view of Hassler and Warburton teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the body is configured to substantially maintain a position and an anatomical alignment of the body within the cavity associated with the joint, the joint being formed between the first bone and the second bone (paragraph 0067 discloses that the implant is maintained in position and anatomical alignment with respect to a cavity in which a portion of the implant is positioned, which is located within a joint formed between the trapezium and a first metacarpal as disclosed in paragraph 0064).
Regarding at least claim 20
Patrick in view of Hassler and Warburton teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the body comprises a periphery configured to prevent the first bone and the second bone from physical contact (positioning of the implant within the cavity would necessarily prevent the trapezium and first metacarpal from physical contact as claimed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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.
/M.A.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
