Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined pursuant to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicants’ Response, filed 21 November 2025. Claims 73, 80, and 82 are amended therein, and claims 74, 75, 83, 84, and 89 - 92 are cancelled. Claims 76 – 78, 85, 86, and 101 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 73, 79 – 82, and 93 – 100 are available for active consideration to the extent that the scaffold framework is stacked layers of hydroxyapatite and stacked layers of tricalcium phosphate, and the coating polymer is gelatin.
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
Rejections Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103
The obviousness rejection set forth in the Action of 21 May 2025 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants’ amendment of the claims, and in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Elected Invention
The claims as filed, and as examined prior to Applicants’ most recent submission, are directed to a composition of matter (a ceramic scaffold). Applicants’ Response has added new claim 101 directed to a method of manufacturing a ceramic scaffold. However, because Applicants have received an Action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 101 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR § 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Newly submitted claim 101, reciting a method of manufacturing a ceramic scaffold, is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed because the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process such as a method that does not use three-dimensional printing methods.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 101 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Potential Claim Objections
Claim 82 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 81. 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). Because claim 81 has not yet been found to be allowable, this is a potential objection of which Applicants should be aware.
Rejections Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 80 is rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and/or (d), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for failing to further limit the claim from which it depends.
Claim 80, dependent from claim 73, recites a limitation directed to “the coating cover[ing] the entire outer surface of the framework.” Claim 73 recites that “the coating is formed on the outer surfaces of the framework.” The claim is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain as to how much of the surface of the framework would be to be coated. In addition, or alternatively, if the coating of claim 73 is read to cover all “of the outer surfaces” of the framework, then claim 80 would not further limit claim 73 in violation of § 112(d).
Rejections Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 that 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation pursuant to 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 73, 79 – 82, and 94 – 100 are rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious over US 2008/0281431 A1 to Missos, N., published 13 November 2008, identified on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 29 April 2024, cite no. 2 (USPAT) (“Missos ‘431), in view of Guo, X., et al., Royal Society of Chemistry Advances 7: 34508 – 34516 (2017) (“Guo (2017)”).
The Invention As Claimed
Applicants claim a ceramic scaffold comprising a three-dimensional (3D) printed framework comprising hydroxyapatite (HA), tricalcium phosphate (TCP), or a mixture thereof, the framework comprising microscale porous structures that extend from an outer surface of the framework to inside the framework, and a coating comprising a coating polymer, wherein the coating is formed on the outer surfaces of the framework, has a thickness in a range of from 10 to 1,000 µm, and the coating polymer comprises a surgical glue, poly(ethyleneglycol) dimethacrylate (PEGDMA), a gelatin, or a mixture thereof, and wherein the flexural strength of the coated ceramic scaffold is in a range of 10 to 50 MPa as measured by a standard three-point bending test, wherein the coating polymer comprises a gelatin, wherein the coating covers the entire outer surface of the framework, wherein the framework comprises stacked layers of hydroxyapatite (HA), tricalcium phosphate (TCP), or a mixture thereof, each layer having a thickness in a range of 10 to 200 µm, wherein the mechanical strength of the ceramic scaffold is in a range of 15 to 33 N when measured as a maximum load of the stress vs. strain curve, wherein the flexural strength of the coated ceramic scaffold is in a range of 10 to 50 MPa when as measured by a standard three-point bending test, and wherein an expansion ratio of the scaffold in an axial direction is larger than an expansion ratio in a radial direction.
The Teachings of the Cited Art
Missos ‘431 discloses ceramic materials for repairing a bone defect comprising a porous ceramic scaffold having a bioresorbable coating, the scaffold comprising hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, calcium phosphates, calcium carbonates, calcium sulfates, and combinations thereof, wherein the bioresorbable coating comprises demineralized bone matrix, gelatin, collagen, hyaluronic acid, chitosan, polyglycolic acid, poly(lactic acid), polypropylene fumarate, polyethylene glycol, or mixtures thereof (see Abstract), wherein the scaffold is porous, having an internal void volume with pores that partially transverse the ceramic scaffold or are distributed through an entire region of the ceramic scaffold including a surface thereof (see ¶[0022]), wherein the bioresorable material is coated on a portion of the surface of the scaffold, or on substantially the entire surface of the scaffold (see ¶[0026]), wherein a bone repair composition comprising the scaffold can also include other optional materials such as isolated tissue materials, bioactive agents, and combinations thereof (see ¶[0039]), and wherein, depending on the desired thickness of the bioresorbable material coating layer, a single technique or a combination of techniques can be employed, such as when applying an ultra-thin layer (from about 10 nm to about 5 mm) of bioresorbable coating, a spray type application utilizing a fine mist can provide the needed control (see ¶[0049]). The reference does not disclose scaffolds prepared by 3-D printing, or ceramic scaffolds with a mechanical strength of 15 – 33 N and/or a flexural strength of 10 – 50 MPa, or scaffolds with “stacked” layers of the HA and TCP. These deficiencies are addressed by the teachings of Guo (2017).
Guo (2017) discloses the preparation of porous, Li-containing biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds (Li-BCP) with expected structure fabricated by 3D plotting techniques, the scaffolds exhibiting excellent mechanical strength (see Abstract), wherein bioactive ceramics, such as β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) and hydroxyapatite (HA), have been proven to be ideal candidates for bone repair due to their homologous chemical constitution with natural bone, wherein regulation of the HA/TCP ratios of synthesized biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) can impact the scaffold degradation rate, allowing the rate between material degradation and new bone growth to eventually reach a balance, while still effectively promoting bone ingrowth and vascularization in vivo (see p. 34508, 2nd col., 3rd para.), wherein a ceramic paste [printing “ink”] with appropriate fluidity and suitable viscosity is a necessary condition for 3D plotting, which factors directly determine the printability of scaffolds and the controllability of geometry (see p. 34509, 1st col., last para.), wherein the pastes comprised either HA and β-TCP, or HA and Li-β-TCP, in weight ratios of 6 : 4 (see p. 34509, 2nd col., 1st para.), wherein prepared pastes were used to fabricate 3D plotted Li-BCP and BCP scaffolds that were plotted in a layer-by-layer manner, with the spacing between two deposited fibers at 200 mm, and the thickness of neighboring layers was 160 mm, followed by sintering at 1150° C for 2 hours at a heating rate of 2° C/min to densify the scaffold material (see p. 34509, 2nd col., 2nd para.; see also Fig. 2, p. 34512), wherein, given that mechanical strength is an important parameter of scaffolds that defines a scaffold’s performances and potential applications for bone repair, compressive strength and Young's modulus of the scaffolds were detected using universal material testing machines and the results indicated that the mean compressive strength of Li-BCP and BCP scaffolds were 27.09 ± 3.33 MPa and 29.21 ± 3.63 MPa, respectively, and the mean Young's modulus was 724.88 ± 23.99 MPa and 803.75 ± 65.55 MPa, respectively, compared to the compressive modulus values of human trabecular bone in range from 1 to 5000 MPa, and strength values ranging from 0.10 to 27.3 MPa, resulting in the Li-containing BCP scaffolds matching the mechanical criterion of human trabecular bone (see p. 34512, 2nd col., 1st para.; see also Fig. 3, p. 34513), and wherein the Li-BCP scaffolds constructed by the 3D plotting technique possessed well designed pore structure, pore sizes, and excellent mechanical strength (see p. 34515, 2nd col., 1st para.).
Application of the Cited Art to the Claims
It would have been prima facie obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to prepare ceramic materials for repairing a bone defect comprising a porous ceramic scaffold having a bioresorbable coating, the scaffold comprising hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate, wherein the bioresorbable coating comprises gelatin, wherein the scaffold is porous, wherein the gelatin is coated either on a portion of the surface of the scaffold, or on substantially the entire surface of the scaffold, and wherein, depending on the desired thickness of the bioresorbable material coating layer, a single technique or a combination of techniques can be employed, to achieve a layer with a thickness from about 10 nm to about 5 mm of bioresorbable coating, taught by Missos ‘431, wherein porous, Li-containing biphasic [HA/β-TCP] calcium phosphate scaffolds (Li-BCP) were fabricated by 3D plotting techniques, Li-BCP and BCP scaffolds were 3D printed in a layer-by-layer manner, with the thickness of neighboring layers at 160 mm, followed by sintering to densify the scaffold material, wherein compressive strength and Young's modulus of the scaffolds were measured, yielding results of a mean compressive strength of Li-BCP and BCP scaffolds of 27.09 ± 3.33 MPa and 29.21 ± 3.63 MPa, respectively, with a mean Young's modulus of 724.88 ± 23.99 MPa and 803.75 ± 65.55 MPa, respectively (cf. the compressive modulus values of human trabecular bone in range from 1 to 5000 MPa, and strength values ranging from 0.10 to 27.3 MPa), resulting in the Li-containing BCP scaffolds matching the mechanical criterion of human trabecular bone, as disclosed by Guo (2017). One of skill in the art would be motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success in so doing, by the express teachings of Guo (2017) to the effect that 3D plotting with HA/TCP paste “inks,” followed by sintering, resulted in scaffolds with the desired porous structures and excellent mechanical strength matching that of cancellous bone.
With respect to the limitations recited in claim 73, 81, and 82, directed to the thickness of the gelatin coating on the scaffolds of the invention, the Examiner notes that the cited references do not expressly disclose thicknesses that are exactly congruent with the claimed thickness ranges. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the cited art teaches a range of thicknesses of the coating layer that significantly overlaps with the claimed ranges and, as such, would render the claimed invention obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).” In addition, the Examiner further notes that Missos ‘431 discloses a thickness range of about 10 nm to about 5 mm and that, furthermore, the reference discloses that, depending on the desired thickness of the gelatin coating layer, a single technique, or a combination of techniques, can be employed, including a spray type application utilizing a fine mist, that can provide the needed control of coating thickness (see ¶[0049]). Further, Guo (2017) explicitly discloses that the layer thickness was 160 µm (see p. 34509, 2nd col., 2nd para.), which thickness is within the claimed range, rendering that range obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to the limitations newly added to amended claim 73, the limitations are directed to the flexural strength, the mechanical strength, and the maximum load of the coated scaffold. For limitations directed to mechanical strength and mechanical load, the Examiner notes that these limitations are presented as comparison to uncoated scaffolds and not to specific quantitative ranges of mechanical strength and mechanical load. As such, they are directed to solely to general properties of the scaffolds. It is the Examiner’s position that porous scaffolds according to the teachings of the recited art, prepared by 3D printing processes, the scaffolds comprising hydroxyapatite and/or tricalcium phosphate and having a coating of gelatin with a thickness range of about 10 nm to about 5 mm, and a mean compressive strength of Li-BCP and BCP scaffolds of 27.09 ± 3.33 MPa and 29.21 ± 3.63 MPa, respectively, with a mean Young's modulus of 724.88 ± 23.99 MPa and 803.75 ± 65.55 MPa, respectively, would necessarily display general properties of flexural and mechanical strengths that would read on the limitations at issue.
The same logic would also apply to limitations recited in new claims 93 and 94, the limitations directed to mechanical strength and maximum loads, and fracture toughness expressed as comparisons to uncoated scaffolds, rather than to quantitative measures of those properties. Consequently, the cited art need not specifically address or disclose such comparisons between coated and uncoated scaffolds.
New claim 95 also recites limitations specifically directed to the process for preparation of the scaffolds (“the microscale porous structures are formed by debinding”), which process steps do not serve to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art.
Also, claim 100 recites limitations directed to the process for preparing the scaffolds, wherein dimensions for the scaffolds are chosen based on a “shape-changing rate.” The dimensions of the scaffolds are the dimensions of the scaffolds, regardless of how those dimensions are chosen.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by claims 73, 79 – 82, and 94 – 100 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC § 103.
Claim 93 is rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious over Missos ‘431, in view of Guo (2017), as applied in the rejection of claims 73, 79 – 82, and 94 – 100 and further in view of Estes ‘490.
The Invention As Claimed
Applicants also claim a ceramic scaffold, comprising a three-dimensional (3D) printed framework comprising hydroxyapatite (HA), tricalcium phosphate (TCP), or a mixture thereof; the framework comprising microscale porous structures that extend from an outer surface of the framework to inside the framework, and a coating comprising a coating polymer, wherein the coating is formed on the outer surfaces of the framework, wherein the coating polymer extends to a depth of 50 µm – 5 mm from the outer surfaces of the framework to within the microscale porous structures, the coating having a thickness in a range of from 10 to 1,000 micrometers, and the coating polymer comprises a surgical glue, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (PEGDMA), a gelatin, or a mixture thereof, and wherein the flexural strength of the ceramic scaffold with coating is in a range of 10 to 50 MPa as measured by a standard three-point bending test.
The Teachings of the Cited Art
The teachings of Missos ‘431 and Guo (2017) are relied upon as set forth above in the rejection of claims 73, 79 – 82, and 94 – 101. The references do not disclose a ceramic scaffold coated with a coating of gelatin that extends to a depth of 50 µm – 5 mm from the outer surfaces of the framework. The teachings of Estes ‘490 remedy that deficiency.
Estes ‘490 discloses implants comprising a three-dimensional porous substrate that is fixedly coupled to a three-dimensional scaffold such that the substrate supports the scaffold that comprises at least three layers of woven fibers for repair of biological tissue, wherein the substrate and scaffold promote growth and integration of new bone tissue into the implant (see Abstract), wherein the implants comprise a three-dimensionally woven scaffold system with engineered, bio-mimicking mechanical properties for functional tissue regeneration (see ¶[0021]), wherein immediately upon implantation, the implant provides tensile, compressive, and shear properties similar to those of native cartilage tissue, prior to the influx of cells and development of tissue on the implant, while also being solidly anchored in the underlying bone (see ¶[0023]), wherein the textile is engineered to mimic many of the loadbearing mechanical properties of cartilage, and the substrate anchors the three-dimensional woven scaffold to rigidly define the shape needed for a successful, functioning clinical outcome, so that the substrate defines or assists the maintenance of anatomic shape of the textile while tissue is being regenerated and/or repaired (see ¶[0025]), wherein the three-dimensional microweave of fibers has been optimized to mimic the functional properties of native tissue and has demonstrated the ability to sustain functional properties over extended in vitro culture, resulting in three-dimensional microweaves that show strong tension-compression nonlinearity, with a difference of 2 - 3 orders of magnitude in tensile and compressive moduli, similar to native tissue (see ¶[0074]), wherein the rigid substrate enables effective securing of the implant to a site of pathology, and, because the anchoring rigid substrate can be manufactured in any shape and size, while still maintaining its porous architecture, the anchoring rigid substrate assists in maintaining appropriate anatomical geometry so that the mechanically functioning implant can perform as native, anatomic tissues (see ¶[0075]), wherein the substrate of the implant and/or part of the three-dimensional woven scaffold may be at least partially coated with inorganic matrix coatings known to promote bone formation, such as hydroxyapatite and/or calcium phosphate, and wherein one or both of the textile scaffold and the substrate may also be at least
partially coated with extracellular-derived biomaterials such as gelatin, the implant being partially or completely filled with the gelatin (see ¶[0081]), wherein the substrate of the implant is three-dimensional printed such that it can be easily manufactured to match the geometry/anatomy in question and to completely support the upper three-dimensional woven, textile scaffold of the implant, with the substrate comprising multiple layers between 200 and 500 µm thick, the successive layers being printed 90° to the previous layer, resulting in an implant that is configured to match the compressive moduli of cartilage to enable immediate functionality while de novo tissue develops in, through, and on, the surface of the cartilage repair implant, the scaffold demonstrating a compressive modulus between 200 kPa and 5 MPa (see ¶[0101]).
Application of the Cited Art to the Claims
It would have been prima facie obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to
prepare ceramic materials for repairing a bone defect comprising a porous ceramic scaffold having a bioresorbable coating, the scaffold comprising hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate, wherein the bioresorbable coating comprises gelatin, as disclosed by Missos ‘431 and Guo (2017), wherein one or both of the textile scaffold and the substrate may also be at least partially coated with extracellular-derived biomaterials such as gelatin, the implant being partially or completely filled with the gelatin, and wherein the substrate of the implant is three-dimensionally printed such that it can be easily manufactured to match the geometry/anatomy in question and to completely support the upper three-dimensional woven, textile scaffold of the implant, as taught by Estes ‘490. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success in so doing, by the express teachings of Estes ‘490 to the effect that the disclosed implants are optimized to mimic the functional properties of native tissue and have demonstrated the ability to sustain functional properties over extended in vitro culture (see ¶[0074]).
With respect to the limitation recited in claim 93 directed to the coating of gelatin extending to a depth of 50 µm – 5 mm from the outer surfaces of the framework, the Examiner notes that the reference does not disclose the gelatin coating extending to an explicit depth. However, the Examiner notes that the reference specifically teaches that the gelatin coating can partially or completely fill the porous implants. It is the Examiner’s position that this teaching effectively discloses a fill depth that encompasses the claimed depth, thus rendering it prima facie obvious.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by claim 93 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC § 103.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
The Examiner has reviewed the arguments submitted by Applicants with their Response, but does not find them persuasive, to the extent still relevant in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above. With respect to the newly added limitations and the new claims, Applicants argue that the cited references do not disclose all of the limitations. However, the new grounds of reference presented above address these characteristics. Applicants also attempt to distinguish over the teachings of Guo (2017) on the basis that its disclosure does not address a coated scaffold. However, this argument is unpersuasive in that the reference is cited for its teachings directed to the structure of the scaffolds, and not for a coating on those scaffolds.
Consequently, Applicants’ arguments are unpersuasive and claims 73, 79 – 82, and 93 – 100 stand rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
NO CLAIM IS ALLOWED.
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.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or any other communications from the Examiner should be directed to Daniel F. Coughlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3748. The Examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard, can be reached on (571)272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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.
/DANIEL F COUGHLIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619