DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding each of claims 21 and 28, from which claims 22, 26, 29, 33, 34, 41, and 44 depend, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification of the present application does not provide support for “one or more pairs of holes aligned on opposing sides of the wall as the only way of the first cage section being able to be fixated to the intramedullary rod”. There are numerous other ways the intramedullary rod could be fixated to the first cage section, such as via an adhesive, or via one or more set screws inserted through one or more single openings, e.g. Additionally, the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion” (see MPEP 2173.05(i)), thus the absence in the specification of a positive recitation of other fixation mechanisms is not basis for excluding those mechanisms in the claim. Additionally, “silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation”. See Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that applicant to have possession of an intramedullary nail only via one or more pairs of holes aligned on opposite sides of the wall merely from the absence in the specification of other possible fixation techniques.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 41 and 44, it is unclear what structural characteristics the cage must have that it is structured in a way that when implanted in a bone defect if one or more of a femur, fibular, tibia, humerus, ulna, or radius, the femur, tibia, humerus, ulna, or radius are repaired. For the purpose of examination, these claims are being treated as an intended use recitation.
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.
Claims 21, 26, 28, 33, 41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0358046 (Ehmke) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0129302 (Wong) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0358144 (Kuiken)
Regarding claim 21, Ehmke discloses an implantable cage (92) for use in orthopedic surgery to repair a segmental bone defect in a patient (see paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0009]), the implantable cage comprising: at least a first cage section (134 or 136) having opposed first (104 or 142) and second (138 or 106) ends and a wall extending between the first and second ends (see walls between the ends in each section 134/136, see Figs. 5-12), wherein a) the first cage section has therewithin an interior space (130) that comprises substantially all of the interior of the first cage section that is between the implantable cage’s first and second ends (see Fig. 12), b) the interior space is capable of receiving bone graft or other fill material throughout the interior space (see paragraph [0048]; bone graft may be associated with spacer 92 inside the spacer) and c) the implantable cage is implantable within the segmental bone defect so as to repair the segment bone defect (device is structurally and functionally capable of being implanted fill a gap between bones, see paragraph [0006], [0008], [0037]; thus, the device is structurally and functionally capable of being implanted within a segmental bone defect so as to repair the segment bone defect), wherein the first cage section is adapted to receive an intramedullary rod (84) extending through at least the first cage section (see paragraphs [0007] and [0047] and Figs. 5 and 6). Additionally, it is noted that Ehmke discloses instead that the second cage section (136) may include a first end that is shaft 138, and the first cage section (134) may have a second end that is internal thread 142 (see paragraph [0049]).
Ehmke fails to disclose wherein the first cage section has one or more holes on the wall as the only way of the first cage section being able to be fixated to the intramedullary rod. However, Ehmke does suggest using screws extending through the first and second cage sections to facilitate fixing of the cage (see Figs. 24-26 and paragraph [0068]). Additionally, Wong discloses a bone fixation system (180) comprising an intramedullary rod (150) and a cage (110), wherein the cage has one or more holes (105/106) as the only way the cage is able to be to be fixated to the intramedullary rod (via bone screws, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0034] and [0042]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ehmke to have the first cage section be adapted to be fixated to the intramedullary rod via bone screws inserted in the holes in order to help secure the rod and cage together to stabilize the rod and prevent it from loosening or moving (see Wong, paragraph [0034]).
Wong fails to suggest the one or more holes being a pair of holes aligned on opposing sides of the wall. However, Kuiken discloses that an intramedullary implant (108) may be fixated via a pair of holes (openings for receiving screws 104, see Figs. 1 and 2) aligned on opposing sides of a wall of a segment (100) in which the intramedullary implant is inserted. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize bone screws that extend through a pair of holes aligned on opposing sides of the wall as such a configuration ensures no movement of the intramedullary implant once implanted (see paragraphs [0021] and [0025]), and because such a modification merely involves substituting one type of intramedullary implant screw fixation configuration for another type of intramedullary implant screw fixation configuration without any unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 26, Ehmke discloses wherein the first end (142) of the first cage section (136) is directly connectable to an end (138) of a second cage section (134) so as to form a longer implantable cage (92).
Regarding claim 28, Ehmke discloses an implantable medical apparatus (90) for use in orthopedic surgery to repair a segmental bone defect in a patient (see paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0009]), the implantable medical apparatus comprising: at least first and second cage sections (134 and 136) each having opposed first (104 and 142) and second (138 and 106) ends connected or connectable to one another in such a way as to form an implantable cage (92) that has opposed first (104) and second (106) ends which are the first and second ends of the first and second cage sections, respectively, and that has a wall extending between the first and second ends of the implantable cage (walls of cage 92 between ends 104/106), wherein the first and second cage sections are configured in such a way that a) the implantable cage has therewithin an interior space (130) that comprises substantially all of the interior of the first and second cage sections between the first and second ends (see Fig. 12), b) the interior space is capable of receiving bone graft or other fill material throughout the interior space (see paragraph [0048]; bone graft may be associated with spacer 92 inside the spacer) and c) the implantable cage is implantable within the segmental bone defect so as to repair the segmental bone defect (device is structurally and functionally capable of being implanted fill a gap between bones, see paragraph [0006], [0008], [0037]; thus, the device is structurally and functionally capable of being implanted within a segmental bone defect so as to repair the segment bone defect), wherein at least one of the first and second cage sections is adapted to receive an intramedullary rod (84) extending through the implantable cage (see paragraphs [0007] and [0047] and Figs. 5 and 6). Additionally, it is noted that Ehmke discloses instead that the second cage section (136) may include a first end that is shaft 138, and the first cage section (134) may have a second end that is internal thread 142 (see paragraph [0049]).
Ehmke fails to disclose wherein at least one of the cage sections has one or more holes on the wall as the only way of the implantable cage being able to be fixated to the intramedullary rod. However, Ehmke does suggest using screws extending through the first and second cage sections to facilitate fixing of the cage (see Figs. 24-26 and paragraph [0068]). Additionally, Wong discloses a bone fixation system (180) comprising an intramedullary rod (150) and a cage (110), wherein the cage has one or more holes (105/106) as the only way the cage is able to be to be fixated to the intramedullary rod (via bone screws, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0034] and [0042]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ehmke to have at least one of the cage sections be adapted to be fixated to the intramedullary rod via bone screws inserted in the holes in order to help secure the rod and cage together to stabilize the rod and prevent it from loosening or moving (see Wong, paragraph [0034]).
Wong fails to suggest the one or more holes being a pair of holes aligned on opposing sides of the wall. However, Kuiken discloses that an intramedullary implant (108) may be fixated via a pair of holes (openings for receiving screws 104, see Figs. 1 and 2) aligned on opposing sides of a wall of a segment (100) in which the intramedullary implant is inserted. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize bone screws that extend through a pair of holes aligned on opposing sides of the wall as such a configuration ensures no movement of the intramedullary implant once implanted (see paragraphs [0021] and [0025]), and because such a modification merely involves substituting one type of intramedullary implant screw fixation configuration for another type of intramedullary implant screw fixation configuration without any unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 33, Wong discloses a bone fixation system (180) comprising an intramedullary rod (150) and a cage (110), wherein the intramedullary rod is configured to be fixed to the cage with at least one fixator (bone screws, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0034] and [0042]) inserted transversely through the rod and the cage, wherein the at least one fixator includes at least one transfixion screw (bone screws, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0034] and [0042]), the cage having holes (105/106) dimensioned to receive the at least one transfixion screw therethrough (see paragraph [0034]), and the intramedullary rod having at least one hole (151/152/155) dimensioned to receive the at least one transfixion screw therethrough (see paragraph [0042]), wherein the at least one transfixion screw is configured to securely engage the hole of the intramedullary rod and the hole of the cage to form an interconnected intramedullary rod/cage assembly (see paragraph [0042] and Figs. 2-7). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ehmke to have the first and second cage sections be adapted to be fixated to the intramedullary rod via transfixion fixators in order to help secure the rod and cage together to stabilize the rod and prevent it from loosening or moving (see Wong, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claims 41 and 44, “wherein the implantable cage is structured in such a way that when implanted in a segmental bone defect in one or more of a femur, fibula, tibia, humerus, ulna or radius, the femur, fibula, tibia, humerus, ulna, or radius are repaired” is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The apparatus of Ehmke is capable of being implanted so as to repair a segment bone defect in one or more of a femur, fibula, tibia, humerus, ulna, or radius, as the apparatus is intended to fill a gap between first and second bones (see paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0009], and [0037]) and is not limited to specific bones or only joints between whole bones.
Claims 22, 29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehmke in view of Wong and Kuiken, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0138142 (Castro).
Regarding claim 22, Ehmke fails to disclose wherein the first cage section is substantially uniformly cylindrical along its entire length. However, Castro discloses an implantable medical apparatus (10) for implantation between opposed bone structures to facilitate fusion thereof (see Abstract), wherein the apparatus comprises cage sections (13a-13d, e.g.) directly connectable to each other (via mechanical interfaces, see Abstract and Fig. 2), and the cage sections are substantially uniformly cylindrical along their lengths so that the implantable cage is uniformly cylindrical along its entire length (see Fig. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cage sections to be uniformly cylindrical along their entire lengths, as Castro suggests a variety of different shapes including cylindrical shapes may be used for forming a fusion implant between opposing bone structures (see Castro, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0021]), and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the apparatus to be uniformly cylindrical since Applicant has not provided evidence that a uniformly cylindrical shape is critical to the functioning of the invention. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, Ehmke suggests that the apparatus may have first and second flat ends for engagement with opposed bone structures (see paragraph [0056]), which a uniformly cylindrical apparatus would provide.
Regarding claim 29, Ehmke discloses wherein the first and second cage sections are substantially cylindrical (see Figs. 27-30; sections 100 and 102 are substantially cylindrical), but fails to disclose the cages having the same diameter along their entire lengths. However, Castro discloses an implantable medical apparatus (10) for implantation between opposed bone structures to facilitate fusion thereof (see Abstract), wherein the apparatus comprises cage sections (13a-13d, e.g.) directly connectable to each other (via mechanical interfaces, see Abstract and Fig. 2), and the cage sections are substantially uniformly in their diameters along their lengths so that the implantable cage is uniformly cylindrical along its entire length (see Fig. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cage sections to be substantially uniform in diameter along their entire lengths such that cage is uniformly cylindrical along its entire length, as Castro suggests a variety of different shapes including cylindrical shapes may be used for forming a fusion implant between opposing bone structures (see Castro, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0021]), and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the apparatus to be uniformly cylindrical since Applicant has not provided evidence that a uniformly cylindrical shape is critical to the functioning of the invention. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, Ehmke suggests that the apparatus may have first and second flat ends for engagement with opposed bone structures (see paragraph [0056]), which a uniformly cylindrical apparatus would provide.
Regarding claim 34, Ehmke fails to disclose further comprising at least a third cage section and wherein at least a particular one of the first and second cage sections is connected or connectable to the third cage section in addition to being connected to the other one of the first second cage sections, whereby an end of the third cage section becomes of the first and second ends of the implantable cage. However, Castro discloses an implantable medical apparatus (10) for implantation between opposed bone structures to facilitate fusion thereof (see Abstract), wherein the apparatus comprises three cage sections (three sections among 13a-13d and an end cap such as 340, e.g.) directly connectable to each other (via mechanical interfaces, see Abstract and Fig. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cage to have three connectable cage sections in order to allow the apparatus to be sized to fill a desired height gap (see paragraphs[ 0024] and [0042]) or to provide an end cap that facilitates attachment of the apparatus to adjacent bone (see paragraph [0037]).
Claims 37, 45, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehmke in view of Wong, Kuike, and U.S. Patent No. 6,454,810 (Lob).
Regarding claim 37, Ehmke a method for use in orthopedic surgery to fill in a segmental bone defect in a patient (see paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0009], and [0037]), the method comprising: implanting an implantable cage (92) and an intramedullary rod (84) within a segmental bone defect (fills a gap between first and second bones, see paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0009], and [0037]), the implantable cage having opposed first and seconds (104/106) and a wall extending between the first and second ends (walls of cage 92 between ends 104/106), the implanting being such that the implantable cage and intramedullary rod are implanted with the intramedullary rod extending through the first and seconds of the implantable cage (see paragraphs [0007] and [0047] and Figs. 5 and 6), and either before or after the implanting, at least partially filling the implantable cage with graft material that will fill and repair the segmental bone defect in the patient (see paragraph [0048]; bone graft may be associated around and inside the cage 92).
Claim 37 does not appear to require the cage to be implanted within a single bone. Alternatively regarding claim 37 and regarding claim 45, Ehmke discloses the implantable cage implanted within a segmental bone defect (fills a gap between first and second bones, see paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0009], and [0037]), but fails to disclose the defect being in a femur, fibula, tibia, humerus, ulna, or radius. However, Lob discloses a method that includes implanting an implantable cage (2) within a segmental bone defect in a femur (6) (see Fig. 1 and col. 4, line 66 – col. 5, line 3). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the method of Ehmke of filling a bone defect/gap with an implantable cage to a defect/gap in a femur as Lob suggests a femur bone can have defects/gaps from accidents or illness that require an implantable cage for repair (see Lob, Fig. 1 and col. 4, line 66 – col. 5, line 3).
Further regarding claim 37, Ehmke fails to disclose wherein the intramedullary rod has at least one hole formed therein and wherein the implantable cage has formed therein one or more holes on the wall, the method includes the further step of inserting a transfixion fixator through the holes in the implantable cage and the intramedullary rod in such a way as to form an interconnected intramedullary rod/cage assembly. However, Ehmke does suggest using screws extending through the first and second cage sections to facilitate fixing of the cage (see Figs. 24-26 and paragraph [0068]). Additionally, Wong discloses a bone fixation system (180) comprising an intramedullary rod (150) and a cage (110), wherein the intramedullary rod is configured to be fixed to the cage with at least one fixator (bone screws, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0034] and [0042]) inserted transversely through the rod and the cage, wherein the at least one fixator includes at least one transfixion screw (bone screws, see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0034] and [0042]), the cage having holes (105/106) dimensioned to receive the at least one transfixion screw therethrough (see paragraph [0034]), and the intramedullary rod having at least one hole (151/152/155) dimensioned to receive the at least one transfixion screw therethrough (see paragraph [0042]), wherein the at least one transfixion screw is configured to securely engage the hole of the intramedullary rod and the hole of the cage to form an interconnected intramedullary rod/cage assembly (see paragraph [0042] and Figs. 2-7). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ehmke to have cage be adapted to be fixated to the intramedullary rod via transfixion fixators in holes through the cage and intramedullary rod in order to help secure the rod and cage together to stabilize the rod and prevent it from loosening or moving (see Wong, paragraph [0034]).
Further regarding claim 37, Wong fails to suggest the one or more holes being a pair of holes aligned on opposing sides of the wall. However, Kuiken discloses that an intramedullary implant (108) may be fixated via a pair of holes (openings for receiving screws 104, see Figs. 1 and 2) aligned on opposing sides of a wall of a segment (100) in which the intramedullary implant is inserted. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize bone screws that extend through a pair of holes aligned on opposing sides of the wall as such a configuration ensures no movement of the intramedullary implant once implanted (see paragraphs [0021] and [0025]), and because such a modification merely involves substituting one type of intramedullary implant screw fixation configuration for another type of intramedullary implant screw fixation configuration without any unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 50, Ehmke discloses comprising the further step of: connecting at least first (100) and second (102) cage sections in direct contact with one another (see paragraph [0049]) so as to form the implantable cage (92), wherein the first and second cage sections each have opposing first (104 and 142) and second (138 and 106) ends so that when the first and second cage sections are connected to one another to form the implantable cage, the implantable cage has opposed first and second ends which are the first (104) and second (106) ends of the first and second cage sections, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that Wong’s intramedullary rod is fastened to an artificial bone prosthesis, which requires the use of fasteners “so that everything will hang together”, while rod-and-cage constructions not require such fastening. This is not persuasive. Wong discloses in paragraph [0034] that fastening the intramedullary nail with screws to the prosthesis within which the intramedullary nail is positioned stabilizes the nail and prevents it from loosening or moving. To ensure that an IM nail located in a cage is stabilized and prevented from loosening or moving, it would be obvious to similarly fasten the nail to the cage with screws. This is true even if the nail is elsewhere secured, as for example shown in Wong via apertures 153 and 154 that allow the nail to be secured outside of the prosthesis.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the Remarks that claim 34 that there’s no reason to think an Ehmke-like device would need to have the capability of adding a third piece, as opposed to the implant of Castro. The examiner disagrees. First, Ehmke itself discloses that the cage 92 may be made of two, three, or more discrete components (see paragraph [0049]). Second, Ehmke discloses that the implant is concerned with adjusting the size of the implant to fill the needed gap (see paragraphs [0008], [0037], and [0046]), and Castro suggests modular pieces are a solution to this problem. Third, the examiner also relies on the motivation to provide an end cap that facilitates attachment of the apparatus to adjacent bone (see paragraph [0037]).
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that claims 41 and 44 “recite a particular way in which the recited apparatus must be structured”. However, the claims are silent as to what particular way the apparatus must be structured in order to achieve the claimed repair, and Applicant provides no evidence that the apparatus of Ehmke is not capable of repairing a bone defect in any one of the types of bones listed.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks regarding method claim 37 that Ehmke does not show or suggest how the device can be used to repair a segmental defect in a single bone. First, claim 37 does not require the segmental defect to be in a single bone. Second, Lob is relied on in the alternative regarding claim 37 and regarding claim 45 to show how the device of Ehmke could be applied to a bone defect in a single femur bone, and Applicant does not address the teachings of Lob. Third, Ehmke discloses that the bone contacting surface of the implant can be other shapes as needed (see paragraph [0043]), and is not required to be a specific shape only effective for attaching to native anatomical structures, e.g.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J PLIONIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. EST. 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, Eduardo Robert, can be reached on 571-272-4719. 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.
/NICHOLAS J PLIONIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights