Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to claim 5, the applicant claims that the band has “at least one protrusion”, however, in the independent claim, the applicant has claimed that the band has “only a single kink”. It is noted that the applicant has disclosed the kink being a protrusion. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 7, that applicant has claimed “the band comprises a ring”, however in the independent claim, the applicant has claimed the band as being “a hollow band” and it is “discontinuous”. The limitation of the claimed hollow discontinuous band being a ring does not further limit the claimed limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to claim 4, the applicant claims that the band comprises “a circumferential gap”, however, in the independent claim, the applicant has claimed that the band is “discontinuous” which would have a circumferential gap, therefore, the limitation does not appear to be further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Memmolo et al. (2007/0072148) in view of Schatz et al. (2007/0087305) in view of Hayashi et al. (2007/0105067).
Memmolo teaches a dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end (towards 12) and a proximal end (towards 2), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 13, the functional element comprising an annular resilient retention member 13 (see figs. 2, 2a, 4, 4a, pars. 25-26) configured to axially retain a cooperating component (such that the cooperating element is implant 14) by forming a snap/press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (par. 28, “the implant undercut 18 designed for subsequent insertion of the dental implant 14 is also dimensioned suitably for clampingly receiving the clamp ring 13”), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band (see figs 2-2a, 4-4a, such that it extends around the shaft). Memmolo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is formed from a titanium alloy and wherein the hollow band has a central axis the hollow band is discontinuous and comprises only a single kink formed at one end of the hollow band.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schatz teaches with respect to claim 1, a dental tool comprising a shaft 4 extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end, and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 12, the functional element comprising an annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (see pars. 34-35, the cooperating element being the head housing 1), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band having a central axis and is formed from a metal including nonferrous metals (pars. 7-9), the hollow band is discontinuous (see fig. 7) and comprises only a single kink 13 formed at one end of the hollow band (see fig. 7, such that the band has a open end and a closed end opposite the open end and it is formed at the closed end of the band), and the single kink is formed by a section of the hollow band that is bent around an axis remote from the central axis at a smaller radius of curvature than a remainder of the hollow band (see fig. 7, par. 35, such that the kink 13 is a portion that has a first radius which is about the remote axis and the other curvatures 31 have a second radius which is about the central axis). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the annular resilient retention member taught by Memmolo with the shape taught by Schatz in order to guarantee a secure and complete engagement (see par. 35 of Schatz). It is also noted that Schatz teaches the annular resilient retention member can be circular (par. 35) as taught by Memmolo and therefore, Schatz discloses that the two shape are equivalents. It is further noted that the claimed single kink of the current invention is disclosed as acting as a lever arm for increasing the retention, which is the same as the kink taught by Schatz. Such it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the band taught by Memmolo/Schatz to include only a single kink at any location on the band to provide for the increase retention as it would have involved the mere rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C) and duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the material of the resilient member to be a metal including a nonferrous metal or alloy thereof as taught by Schatz in order to reduce wear (par 9) and further as an obvious matter of design choice since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that Schatz teaches the material of the band can be a variety of materials including peek (see par. 8) as taught by Memmolo. Memmolo/Schatz teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the annular retention member is formed of a nonferrous metal alloy, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is formed of a titanium alloy.
Hayashi teaches with respect to claim 1, a dental element comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see figures 8-9B, such that the dental tool is the implant), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element (portion of implant with groove 8), the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member 10 configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or a press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (such that the dental crown 12 is the cooperating member, see pars. 41, 43-44), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band, and is formed from a titanium alloy (see par. 42) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Memmolo/Schatz with the annular retention member of titanium as taught by Hayashi as an obvious matter of design choice since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that Hayashi teaches the material of the band can be a variety of materials including polymers and steel (see par. 15).
It is further noted that the applicant does not disclose that the claimed material of the retention member provides an advantage or any unexpected results, just that a metal including titanium or stainless steel is preferred but can be formed of any biocompatible metal material capable of elastic deformation.
With respect to claim 5, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the band has at least one protrusion on its outer surface (see annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
239
331
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches the band comprises a ring (see figs. 4-4a, such that it is a discontinuous ring).
With respect to claim 8, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the proximal end region of the tool comprises a connection means 3a for connection to a manipulating device (see par. 22, such that rotational tool or adaptor is the manipulating device), the connection means comprising a further annular resilient retention member (see par. 22, such that it is an O-ring). Memmolo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, is silent regarding the annular resilient retention member being metal.
Schatz teaches the annular resilient retention member is formed from a metal including nonferrous metals to reduce wear (pars. 7-9) and Hayashi teaches a metal annular resilient retention member (par. 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the further annular resilient retention member of Memmolo with the teaching of both Schatz and Hayashi to have the annular retention member of metal in order to reduce wear and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that the annular retention member of Memmolo, Schatz and Hayashi are performing the same function of attaching two elements together. Also as discussed above in detail, the applicant does not disclose that the claimed material provides an advantage or any unexpected result.
With respect to claim 9, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the connection means further compress a torque receiving section 2 for receiving torque from a manipulating device (see fig. 1, par. 22).
With respect to claim 10, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the shaft comprise an annular groove 11 dimensioned to accommodate the annular resilient retention member (see fig. 2a).
With respect to claim 11, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein a depth of the annular groove is less than a cross-sectional diameter of the band such that the band protrudes beyond the annular groove (see annaoted figures below, such that it protrudes beyond both the upper and lower diameter of the groove).
PNG
media_image3.png
420
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the annular resilient retention member 13 is connected to an external surface of the shaft (see figs. 2-2a).
With respect to claim 13, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the functional element further comprising a torque applying means 10 suitable for transmitting torque to a dental implant, and the annular resilient retention member is configured to axially connected the dental implant to the tool (see abstract, par. 27).
With respect to claim 14, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches wherein the band comprises a circumferential gap (see figs. 4-4a, such that the gap is between the ends of the band).
With respect to claim 15, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches a shoulder on a proximal end side of the annular resilient retention member along the longitudinal axis of the tool (see annaoted figure above).
With respect to claim 16, Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Memmolo further teaches a break zone 30 located between the distal end and the proximal end, the break zone being adapted to break above a predetermined amount of torque, wherein the annular resilient retention member is positioned distally of the brake zone (see fig. 1 such that retention member is retained in groove 11 which his distal of the zone 30, par. 23, such that it is adapted to break as claimed).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Memmolo et al. (2007/0072148) in view of Schatz et al. (2007/0087305) in view of Hayashi et al. (2007/0105067) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutter (4,553,942).
Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, is silent with respect to the material of shaft of the dental tool, therefore does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is formed of the same material as the shaft of the dental tool at a location at which the annular resilient retention member is connected.
Sutter teaches a dental tool 13, a dental implant 9, the dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end 13d/13e/13f/13g and a proximal end 13a, a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 15, the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain the dental implant by forming a snap fit connection with the dental implant (col. 5, ll. 19-68, col. 6, ll. 1-28), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a band and is formed from a metal including stainless steel (col. 3, ll. 25-29, such that the rust resistant steel is known to be a stainless steel).
With respect to claim 4, Sutter further teaches the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material at a location at which the annular resilient retention member is connected (col. 4, ll. 30-34, col. 3, ll. 25-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the material of the shaft as taught by Memmolo/Schatz/Hayashi to be the same material as the annular retention member as taught by Sutter since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Such as the selection of the two metal materials as shown as being selected due to being biocompatible, a corrosive resistant material and can be sterilized for reuse. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the specific metal material claimed, i.e. a titanium alloy, or other metal materials disclosed provides an advantage or unexpected result and both Schatz and Hayashi teach a variety of materials are known to be used.
Claims 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Padros Fradera (EP 1974680) in view of Sutter (4,553,942).
Padros Fradera teaches with respect to claim 18, a dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see annotated figure), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 6, the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain a cooperating component by directly engaging with an internal surface of the cooperating component to form a snap fit or a press fit with the internal surface of the cooperating component (see annotated figure below, pars. 37, 39), wherein the annular resilient retention member 6 is a band, and is formed from a stainless steel (par. 39, “preferably of stainless steel’, see figs. 3-4). Padros Fradera teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is formed of the same material as the shaft of the dental tool at a location at which the annular resilient retention member is connected.
PNG
media_image4.png
738
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sutter teaches a dental tool 13, a dental implant 9, the dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end 13d/13e/13f/13g and a proximal end 13a, a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 15, the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain the dental implant by forming a snap fit connection with the dental implant (col. 5, ll. 19-68, col. 6, ll. 1-28), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a band and is formed from a titanium alloy or stainless steel (col. 3, ll. 25-29, such that the rust resistant steel is known to be a stainless steel), and the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material at a location at which the annular resilient retention member is connected (col. 4, ll. 30-34, col. 3, ll. 25-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the material of the shaft as taught by Padros Fradera to be the same material as the annular retention member as taught by Sutter since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Such as the selection of the two metal materials as shown as being selected due to being biocompatible, a corrosive resistant material and can be sterilized for reuse.
With respect to claim 19, Padros Fradera/Sutter teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Padros Fradera further teaching wherein the band is discontinuous (see par. 37, “open elastic washer 6”, see fig. 4, par. 39, “it ends 6a and 6b tend to separate”).
With respect to claim 20, Padros Fradera/Sutter teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Padros Fradera further teaching wherein the band has at least one protrusion on its outer surface (see fig. 6, annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
378
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22, Padros Fradera/Sutter teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Padros Fradera further teaching the band 13 comprises a ring (such as it is an elastic washer, i.e. an adjustable ring).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Padros Fradera (EP 1974680) in view of Sutter (4,553,942) further in view of Hayashi et al. (2007/0105067).
Padros Fradera/Sutter teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the band comprises at least one kink.
Hayashi teaches a dental element comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see figures 8-9B, such that the dental tool is the implant), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element (portion of implant with groove 8), the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member 10 configured to axially retain a cooperating component by forming a snap fit or a press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (such that the dental crown 12 is the cooperating member, see pars. 41, 43-44), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a hollow band, and is formed from stainless steel (see par. 42) and further with respect to claim 22, the band comprise at least one kink that protrudes from a surface of the shaft for engagement with the cooperating component (par. 42, such that it is oval shaped and as defined by the applicant has a kink since it is not uniformly curved, such that the side opposite the opening is the kinked portion in that it forms a protrusion which extends along the longitudinal length of the band, see fig. 10B, such that when placed on the shaft which is circular, the kink would protrude from the surface of the shaft). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the resilient hollow band taught by Padros Fradera/Sutter with the resilient hollow band having a kink as taught by Hayashi in order to adjust the strength during connection and disconnection (see par. 42 of Hayashi).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Memmolo et al. (2007/0072148) in view of Padros Fradera (EP 1974680) in view of Sutter (4,553,942).
With respect to claim 17, Memmolo teaches a combination comprising a dental tool 1 and a dental implant 14, the dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end (towards 12) and a proximal end (towards 2), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 13, the functional element comprising an annular resilient retention member 13 (see figs. 2, 2a, 4, 4a, pars. 25-26) configured to axially retain the dental implant 14 by directly engaging with an internal surface of the dental implant to form a snap/press fit with an internal surface of the cooperating component (par. 28, “the implant undercut 18 designed for subsequent insertion of the dental implant 14 is also dimensioned suitably for clampingly receiving the clamp ring 13”, figs. 2-2a), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a band (see figs 2-2a, 4-4a, such that it extends around the shaft). Memmolo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the annular resilient retention member is metal which is titanium alloy or stainless steel and the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material.
Padros Fradera teaches with respect to claim 17, a dental tool 1, and a cooperating element 2, the dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end and a proximal end (see annotated figure), and a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 6, the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain a cooperating component by directly engaging with the internal surface of the cooperating element (see figs. 5-6, pars. 37, 39), wherein the annular resilient retention member 6 is a band, and is formed from a stainless steel (par. 39, “preferably of stainless steel”, see figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Memmolo with the annular retention member of stainless steel as taught by Padros Fradera since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that the annular retention member of both Memmolo and Padros Fradera are performing the same function of attaching two elements together. It is further noted that Padros Fradera teaches the elastic means/retention element can be made of a rubber material such as silicone. Memmolo/Padros Fradera teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material.
Sutter teaches a dental tool 13, a dental implant 9, the dental tool comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis and including a distal end 13d/13e/13f/13g and a proximal end 13a, a distal end region of the tool comprising a functional element 15, the functional element comprising a metal annular resilient retention member configured to axially retain the dental implant by forming a snap fit connection with the dental implant (col. 5, ll. 19-68, col. 6, ll. 1-28), wherein the annular resilient retention member is a band and is formed from a titanium alloy or stainless steel (col. 3, ll. 25-29, such that the rust resistant steel is known to be a stainless steel), and the shaft and the annular resilient retention member are formed of the same material at a location at which the annular resilient retention member is connected (col. 4, ll. 30-34, col. 3, ll. 25-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the material of the shaft as taught by Memmolo/Padros Fradera to be the same material as the annular retention member as taught by Sutter since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Such as the selection of the two metal materials as shown as being selected due to being biocompatible, a corrosive resistant material and can be sterilized for reuse.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the new limitation of the single kink “formed at one end of the hollow band”. However, as discussed above in the rejection, the prior art of Schatz teaches the kink being formed at one end of the band, such that it is formed at the closed end of the band. It is noted that the applicant shows in the figures that the kink is located near a free end of the discontinuous band, however, does not positively claim the end having to be a free end. It is further noted that the applicant does not disclose the location of the kink providing any advantage or unexpected result, such that the applicant discloses a single kink or a plurality of kinks are possible as design choices. Therefore, it is further noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the location of the kink as a matter of design choice.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Schatz does not teach a “single kink” as claimed but rather has two kinks, which are bend around an axis remote from the central axis. However, that prior art teaches a single kink as claimed. Such that the applicant claims that the single kink is formed by “a section of the hollow band that is bent around an axis remote from the central axis”. It is noted that portion 13 is the only section that is bent as claimed. The portions annotated as “kinks” by the applicant are a portion of the single kink 13, as claimed that is connected to the legs 31 that has the second different radius as disclosed by Schatz. As discussed in par. 35 of Schatz, it teaches that the spring has a nose 13 having a first radius and two legs 31 having a second radius. Such that has shown in the figure, the nose is connected to the legs. Therefore, the Schatz teaches the invention as claimed. Further as discussed above, it is noted that the location and number of kinks is disclosed as a design choice and that the kink is for increasing the resilience and hence the retentive force of the band. It is noted that the single kink taught by Schatz is disclosed as increasing the retentive force as discussed in par. 35. Therefore, it is noted that it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the kink as a matter of obvious design choice as such a modification would involve rearrangement of parts.
PNG
media_image6.png
204
442
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached on 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights