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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07 January 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 7-10, and 13-20 have been amended. Claims 1-23 currently stand pending in the application.
The amendments to the specification and drawings are sufficient to overcome the drawing objections listed in the previous action, which are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the specification objections listed in the previous action, which are accordingly withdrawn. Further specification objections as necessitated by the specification amendments are presented below.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim objections listed in the previous action, which are accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 January 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As to Narayan (US 5,176,688), Applicant contends that Narayan discloses a single angled tooth 36 and a single angled tooth 34, and therefore does not disclose a plurality of first projections and a plurality of second projections. Examiner respectfully submits that it appears that Narayan implies a second one of each of the first and second projections, located on a far side of the tool in the view of FIG. 2 opposite to the projections shown, since the facing surfaces of the cams adjacent to the projections angle upward/toward the other cam, which would terminate in the peaks of the second first and second projections, and the facing surfaces along the tops of the projections shown in FIG. 2 angle downward/away from the other cam, which would terminate in the base/root adjacent to the second first and second projections. However, in the interest of advancing prosecution, Narayan has been modified to meet the claimed limitations in the 102/103 rejections below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The following amendment is suggested, in par. [0052], line 6, of the amended specification filed 07 January 2026: “the first angled surfaces 170”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,176,688 to Narayan et al. (hereinafter, “Narayan”), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan.
As to claim 1, Narayan discloses an adaptor configured to receive a rotational force from a surgical drill (motor 46) to impart an axial impaction force to a surgical impactor connectable to a robotic arm (interpreted as language of intended use), the adaptor comprising: a proximal portion (29 and 28) defining a longitudinal axis and including a first end portion (proximal, larger diameter portion of 29) and a second end portion (distal end portion of 29 and 28, including body of 36), FIG. 2, the proximal portion defining a body bore (37) extending between the first end portion and the second end portion along the longitudinal axis (col. 3 / lines 9-11), the second end portion including a plurality of first projections (angled teeth of 36) extending proximally therefrom into the body bore (col. 3 / lines 24-32), FIG. 2; a distal portion (smaller diameter distal portion of 11) connected to the proximal portion and insertable into the surgical impactor (interpreted as language of intended use; fully capable of being insertable into a surgical impactor of a complementary size, e.g. 18, which is fully capable of applying an impact as an impactor) to locate the distal portion with respect to the surgical impactor, FIG. 2; a shaft (54) extending into the body bore, the shaft engageable (via 47) with the surgical drill (motor 46) to receive the rotational force; a driving body (56 and 34) translatable within the body bore along the longitudinal axis and connected to the shaft (at slip joint 48) (col. 3 / lines 46-52), the driving body including a plurality of second projections (angled teeth of 34) extending distally therefrom (col. 3 / lines 24-32), the plurality of second projections engageable with the plurality of first projections to translate the driving body distally relative to the shaft in response to rotation of the shaft (continuous rotation of the shaft and driving body past the point when the steps/teeth of 36 and 34 are aligned, i.e. slightly beyond the position shown in FIG. 2, causes the driving body 56/34 to translate distally relative to the shaft 54 under the force of biasing element 33; col. 3 / lines 46-52 and col. 3 / line 66 – col. 4 / line 9); and a biasing element (33) located within the body bore engaged with the proximal portion and the driving body to bias the driving body distally (col. 3 / lines 4-14).
As to claim 2, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 1, wherein the proximal portion defines an outer surface having a diameter greater than a diameter of an outer surface of the distal portion, FIG. 2.
As to claim 3, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 1, wherein the second end portion of the proximal portion is engageable with the surgical impactor (interpreted as language of intended use) to limit distal translation of the adaptor within the surgical impactor (due to the larger diameter of the proximal portion, it can abut against the surgical impactor and limit further distal translation).
As to claim 4, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 1, wherein the first end portion defines a proximal bearing (smaller diameter bore that receives proximal end of shaft 54, which is a bearing because it is a part that supports another part by surrounding and guiding the shaft) for the shaft.
As to claim 8, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 1, wherein the first end portion of the proximal portion includes a taper (tapering distal end of the first end portion) extending distally into the body bore (an interior of the tapering portion extends distally, in the direction of the taper, into the body bore to create the smaller diameter proximal portion of the body bore) to support the biasing element (with the shelf created by the smaller diameter portion of the body bore), FIG. 2.
As to claim 9, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of first projections includes an angled surface rotatably engageable with an angled surface of one of the plurality of second projections to cause proximal translation of the driving body (away from 36) within the body bore (col. 3 / line 66 – col. 4 / line 6), FIG. 2, and wherein each of the angled surfaces of the plurality of second projections is complementary to each of the angled surfaces of the plurality of first projections, FIG. 2.
Assuming arguendo, Narayan discloses the second end portion including a first projection (angled tooth of 36 shown in FIG. 2) and the driving body including a second projection (angled tooth of 34), but is silent as to a plurality of first projections and a plurality of second projections.
It appears that Narayan implies a second one of each of the first and second projections, located on a far side of the tool in the view of FIG. 2 opposite to the projections shown, since the facing surfaces of the cams adjacent to the projections angle upward/toward the other cam, which would terminate in the peaks of the second first and second projections, and the facing surfaces along the tops of the projections shown in FIG. 2 angle downward/away from the other cam, which would terminate in the base/root adjacent to the second first and second projections. Assuming arguendo, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of first projections and a plurality of second projections, e.g. two first projections and two second projections, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and two projections on each complementary face of the cams 34/36 would allow the angled teeth to interact with each other to achieve the relative longitudinal movement of the driving body as required by Narayan. The mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The second ones of the first and second projections would be located on a far side of the tool in the view of FIG. 2 opposite to the projections shown, and would be formed by the meeting of the angled surfaces shown in Narayan. This would also balance the tool since without a second interacting pair of projections, when the driving body is translated proximally so that the cams 34/36 are separated, on the far side of the tool the cams would be separated without any interacting surfaces, which would leave that side of the cams hovering apart from each other which would result in excessive strain and torqueing on the tool.
As to claim 10, Narayan discloses an adaptor configured to receive a rotational force from a surgical drill (motor 46) to impart an axial impaction force to a surgical impactor connectable to a robotic arm (interpreted as language of intended use), the adaptor comprising: a proximal portion (29 and 28) defining a longitudinal axis and including a first end portion (proximal, larger diameter portion of 29) and a second end portion (distal end portion of 29 and 28, including body of 36), FIG. 2, the proximal portion defining a body bore (37) extending longitudinally between the first end portion and the second end portion (col. 3 / lines 9-11), the second end portion including a plurality of first projections (angled teeth of 36) extending proximally therefrom into the body bore (col. 3 / lines 24-32), FIG. 2, and a distal portion (smaller diameter distal portion of 11) connected to the proximal portion and insertable in the surgical impactor (interpreted as language of intended use; fully capable of being insertable into a surgical impactor of a complementary size, e.g. 18, which is fully capable of applying an impact as an impactor) to locate the distal portion with respect to the surgical impactor, FIG. 2; a shaft (54) extending into the body bore and engageable (via 47) with the surgical drill (motor 46) to receive the rotational force; a driving body (56 and 34) translatable within the body bore along the longitudinal axis and connected to the shaft (at slip joint 48) (col. 3 / lines 46-52), the driving body including a plurality of second projections (angled teeth of 34) extending distally therefrom (col. 3 / lines 24-32), the second projections rotatably engageable with the first projections to translate the driving body distally relative to the shaft in response to rotation of the shaft to deliver the axial impaction force to the surgical impactor in response to the rotation of the shaft (continuous rotation of the shaft and driving body past the point when the steps/teeth of 36 and 34 are aligned, i.e. slightly beyond the position shown in FIG. 2, causes the driving body 56/34 to abruptly translate distally relative to the shaft 54 under the force of biasing element 33, delivering the impaction force; col. 3 / lines 46-52 and col. 3 / line 66 – col. 4 / line 9), and wherein the driving body defines a shaft bore (hollow in 56 that receives 54) extending longitudinally between a proximal surface and a distal surface thereof (the shaft bore extends into the proximal surface of the driving body at 56 and into the driving body between the proximal and distal surfaces), the shaft bore configured to translatably receive a portion of the shaft to allow proximal and distal translation of the driving body relative to the shaft (col. 3 / lines 46-52); and a biasing element (33) located within the body bore engaged with the proximal portion and the driving body to bias the driving body distally (col. 3 / lines 4-14).
Assuming arguendo, Narayan discloses the second end portion including a first projection (angled tooth of 36 shown in FIG. 2) and the driving body including a second projection (angled tooth of 34), but is silent as to a plurality of first projections and a plurality of second projections.
It appears that Narayan implies a second one of each of the first and second projections, located on a far side of the tool in the view of FIG. 2 opposite to the projections shown, since the facing surfaces of the cams adjacent to the projections angle upward/toward the other cam, which would terminate in the peaks of the second first and second projections, and the facing surfaces along the tops of the projections shown in FIG. 2 angle downward/away from the other cam, which would terminate in the base/root adjacent to the second first and second projections. Assuming arguendo, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of first projections and a plurality of second projections, e.g. two first projections and two second projections, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and two projections on each complementary face of the cams 34/36 would allow the angled teeth to interact with each other to achieve the relative longitudinal movement of the driving body as required by Narayan. The mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The second ones of the first and second projections would be located on a far side of the tool in the view of FIG. 2 opposite to the projections shown, and would be formed by the meeting of the angled surfaces shown in Narayan. This would also balance the tool since without a second interacting pair of projections, when the driving body is translated proximally so that the cams 34/36 are separated, on the far side of the tool the cams would be separated without any interacting surfaces, which would leave that side of the cams hovering apart from each other which would result in excessive strain and torqueing on the tool.
As to claim 19, Narayan discloses an impaction adaptor connectable to a surgical drill (motor 46) and a surgical impactor (interpreted as language of intended use), the impaction adaptor comprising: a body comprising: a proximal portion (29 and 28) defining a body bore (37) and including a first plurality of projections (angled teeth of 36); and a distal portion (smaller diameter distal portion of 11) connected to the proximal portion and insertable into the surgical impactor (interpreted as language of intended use; fully capable of being insertable into a surgical impactor of a complementary size, e.g. 18, which is fully capable of applying an impact as an impactor); a shaft (54) located at least partially within the body bore and engageable (via 47) with the surgical drill (motor 46) to be driven to rotate within the body bore; a biasing element (33) located within the body bore and engaged with the proximal portion of the body, FIG. 2; and a driving body (56 and 34) located at least partially within the body bore, FIG. 2, the driving body secured to the shaft (at slip joint 48) (col. 3 / lines 46-52) and engaged with the biasing element (the biasing element abuts against 34, col. 3 / lines 11-14), the driving body including a plurality of second projections (angled teeth of 34) rotatably engageable with the first plurality of projections to cause translation of the driving body relative to the body to deliver an impaction force to the surgical impactor in response to rotation of the shaft (col. 3 / lines 46-52 and col. 3 / line 66 – col. 4 / line 9).
As to claim 20, Narayan discloses the impaction adaptor of claim 19, wherein the body defines a longitudinal axis, and the body bore extends longitudinally between a first end portion (proximal, larger diameter portion of 29) and a second end portion (distal end portion of 29 and 28, including body of 36), FIG. 2, of the proximal portion.
As to claim 21, Narayan discloses the impaction adaptor of claim 20, wherein the second end portion of the proximal portion is engageable with the surgical impactor (interpreted as language of intended use) to limit distal translation of the impaction adaptor with respect to the surgical impactor (due to the larger diameter of the proximal portion, it can abut against the surgical impactor and limit further distal translation).
As to claim 22, Narayan discloses the impaction adaptor of claim 20, wherein the first end portion of the proximal portion defines an aperture (smaller diameter bore that receives proximal end of shaft 54) extending through the first end portion of the proximal portion, the shaft extending through the aperture into the body bore, FIG. 2.
Assuming arguendo, Narayan discloses a first projection (angled tooth of 36 shown in FIG. 2) and a second projection (angled tooth of 34), but is silent as to a plurality of first projections and a plurality of second projections.
It appears that Narayan may imply a second one of each of the first and second projections, located on a far side of the tool in the view of FIG. 2 opposite to the projections shown, since the facing surfaces of the cams adjacent to the projections angle upward/toward the other cam, which would terminate in the peaks of the second first and second projections, and the facing surfaces along the tops of the projections shown in FIG. 2 angle downward/away from the other cam, which would terminate in the base/root adjacent to the second first and second projections. Assuming arguendo, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of first projections and a plurality of second projections, e.g. two first projections and two second projections, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and two projections on each complementary face of the cams 34/36 would allow the angled teeth to interact with each other to achieve the relative longitudinal movement of the driving body as required by Narayan. The mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The second ones of the first and second projections would be located on a far side of the tool in the view of FIG. 2 opposite to the projections shown, and would be formed by the meeting of the angled surfaces shown in Narayan. This would also balance the tool since without a second interacting pair of projections, when the driving body is translated proximally so that the cams 34/36 are separated, on the far side of the tool the cams would be separated without any interacting surfaces, which would leave that side of the cams hovering apart from each other which would result in excessive strain and torqueing on the tool.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan.
As to claim 5, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 1, further comprising: a pair of opposing protrusions (prongs on either side of slot 58 in shaft 54) of the shaft (54).
As to claim 6, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 5, wherein the driving body (56 and 34) includes a proximal surface and a distal surface, the driving body defining a shaft bore (hollow in 56 that receives 54) extending longitudinally therebetween (the shaft bore extends into the proximal surface of the driving body at 56 and into the driving body between the proximal and distal surfaces) and configured to receive a portion of the shaft (col. 3 / lines 46-52).
As to claim 7, Narayan discloses the adaptor of claim 6, wherein the shaft defines a slot (58) configured to translatably receive the driving body (at pin 57) to transfer torque from the shaft to the driving body (col. 3 / lines 46-52).
Narayan is silent as to a pair of opposing protrusions extending radially outward from a body surface of the shaft (claim 5); wherein the driving body defines a slot extending longitudinally through the proximal surface of the driving body and intersecting the shaft bore, the slot configured to translatably receive the pair of opposing protrusions to transfer torque from the shaft to the driving body (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Narayan’s shaft (54) with a pin at its distal end, providing a pair of opposing protrusions (opposing ends of the pin) extending radially outward from a body surface of the shaft, and to provide Narayan’s driving body (at 56) with a slot extending longitudinally through the proximal surface of the driving body and intersecting the shaft bore, the slot configured to translatably receive the pair of protrusions to transfer torque from the shaft to the driving body, since a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device (reversing which component has the pin and which component has the slot) involves only routine skill in the art. The pin on the distal end of the shaft (providing the pair of opposing protrusions) engaging with (sliding in and out of) the slot extending into a proximal surface of the driving body would allow axial movement between the shaft and driving body while also allowing conjoint rotation (torque transfer), as both required by Narayan. The cylindrical body of the shaft would still be received in the shaft bore of the driving body, with the slot for receiving the pin (now on the shaft) intersecting the shaft bore (the slot extends on either side of the shaft bore to receive opposing ends of the pin).
As to claim 16, Narayan discloses wherein the shaft includes a protrusion (prongs on either side of slot 58 in shaft 54), wherein the shaft defines a slot (58) configured to translatably receive the driving body (at pin 57) to allow the proximal and distal translation of the driving body relative to the shaft (col. 3 / lines 46-52).
Narayan is silent as to the protrusion extending radially outward beyond an outer surface of the shaft, and wherein the driving body defines a slot extending longitudinally through the proximal surface of the driving body and intersecting the shaft bore, the slot configured to translatably receive the protrusion to allow the proximal and distal translation of the driving body relative to the shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Narayan’s shaft (54) with a pin at its distal end, providing a pair of opposing protrusions (opposing ends of the pin) extending radially outward beyond an outer surface of the shaft, and to provide Narayan’s driving body (at 56) with a slot extending longitudinally through the proximal surface of the driving body and intersecting the shaft bore, the slot configured to translatably receive the protrusion to allow proximal and distal translation of the driving body relative to the shaft, since a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device (reversing which component has the pin and which component has the slot) involves only routine skill in the art. The pin on the distal end of the shaft (providing the pair of opposing protrusions) engaging with (sliding in and out of) the slot extending into a proximal surface of the driving body would allow axial movement between the shaft and driving body while also allowing conjoint rotation (torque transfer), as both required by Narayan. The cylindrical body of the shaft would still be received in the shaft bore of the driving body, with the slot for receiving the pin (now on the shaft) intersecting the shaft bore (the slot extends on either side of the shaft bore to receive opposing ends of the pin).
As to claim 17, Narayan is silent as to how many projections are included in each of the first and second projections.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide four first projections and four second projections (wherein each of the first projections and the second projections would include three projections out of the four projections) since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and four projections on each complementary face of the cams 34/36 would allow the angled teeth to interact with each other to achieve the relative longitudinal movement of the driving body as required by Narayan. The mere multiplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Dividing each cam face into four projections would provide each projection with a sufficient size or circumferential length for adequate strength, and providing a plurality of projections about each cam face would balance the tool to prevent excessive strain and torqueing on the tool. A contacting surface (a tip of the angled surface facing the other projection) of each of the three projections would be spaced apart from a contacting surface (tip) of each adjacent projection of the three projections by about 97 degrees (each tip would be spaced from an adjacent tip by 90 degrees, which is about 97 degrees +/- 10%).
As to claim 18, Narayan is silent as to how many projections are included in each of the first and second projections.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide five first projections and five second projections (wherein each of the first projections and the second projections would include four projections out of the five projections) since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and five projections on each complementary face of the cams 34/36 would allow the angled teeth to interact with each other to achieve the relative longitudinal movement of the driving body as required by Narayan. The mere multiplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Dividing each cam face into five projections would provide each projection with a sufficient size or circumferential length for adequate strength, and providing a plurality of projections about each cam face would balance the tool to prevent excessive strain and torqueing on the tool. A contacting surface (a tip of the angled surface facing the other projection) of each of the four projections would be spaced apart from a contacting surface (tip) of each adjacent projection of the four projections by about 67 degrees (each tip would be spaced from adjacent radial surfaces by 72 degrees, which is about 67 degrees +/- 10%).
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,883,130 to Dixon.
As to claim 11, Narayan is silent as to wherein a first portion of the shaft includes a facet engageable with the surgical drill to prevent relative rotation between the shaft and the surgical drill.
Dixon teaches that a shaft includes a facet (flat face of hexagonal shaft 52) engageable with a drill (motor 15) (col. 4 / lines 59-61), FIG. 2, to prevent relative rotation between the shaft and the drill and allow the drill to rotate the shaft.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a proximal first portion of the shaft, such as the portion extending into the drill (motor 46) (where the shaft includes gear train 47 including 54, the portion would be the shaft of 51 that extends into the drill), with a facet engageable with the surgical drill to prevent relative rotation between the shaft and the surgical drill, as taught by Dixon, so that the drill can impart rotation to the shaft and driving body.
As to claim 23, Narayan is silent as to wherein the first end portion of the proximal portion comprises a removable cap defining a plurality of apertures and the proximal portion defines a plurality of threaded bores, and wherein the plurality of threaded bores and the plurality of apertures are configured to concurrently receive a plurality of fasteners to secure the removable cap to the proximal portion.
Dixon teaches a modular device comprising a proximal portion (14) comprising a removable cap on its first proximal end portion, the removable cap defining a plurality of apertures and the proximal portion defines a plurality of threaded bores, FIG. 2, and wherein the plurality of threaded bores and the plurality of apertures are configured to concurrently receive a plurality of fasteners to secure the removable cap to the proximal portion.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Narayan’s device modular to allow for assembly of the device and for ease of cleaning and/or disposal after use, by providing the proximal end of the first end portion of the proximal portion as a removable cap, secured to the rest of the first end portion of the proximal portion by threaded fasteners as taught by Dixon. Although Narayan is silent as to the construction of the proximal end of the device, it would appear likely or at least would be beneficial that the proximal end is removable in order to allow insertion of the drill (motor 46) and other components into the proximal portion which are too large to fit through the distal end. As taught by Dixon, the removable cap would have apertures aligned with threaded bores in the proximal portion against which the removable cap abuts, and threaded fasteners would be received through the aligned apertures and bores to secure the removable cap to the proximal portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY L KAMIKAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-7276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:30 PM.
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, Kevin Truong, can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/TRACY L KAMIKAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3775