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 .
Status of the Claims
No claims are amended, cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. ITVR2015A000022, PCT/IB2016/050819 and USPA 15/551,497, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 recite limitations for which support cannot be located in the prior filed applications. Said limitations include “temporary and/disposable prosthetic device...”, “screw”, “coupling or mesh”, and/or “uniformly distributed”. Accordingly, instant claims are afforded an effective filing date of September 7, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: said claim recites, “said plastic mixture comprises UHMWPE in one of the following percentages: at least 40%”. In order to improve clarity and readability, it is suggested that the limitation is amended to recite, “said plastic material comprises at least 40% UHMWPE”.
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the active agents listed in the claims should be lowercase.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: said claim recites, “polylacic” which appears to be a misspelling of polylactic.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1-12, 14, 18 and 19 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 claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Dependent claims 2-12 and 19 do not remedy the indefinite issue and as such said dependent claims suffer from the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 includes several periods in the middle of the claim (lines 14-16), and as such the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the language following the period further limits the claimed invention. ”. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 7 also recites molecular weights in lines 14-16 without any units. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear which units of measurement are intended.
Claim 10 recites various indefinite language including “etc.” at line 12, “such as” at lines 14 and 15, “or other forms” and “in their forms” in lines 15 and 16. Said phrases render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the phrases “etc.”, “or other forms” and “in their forms” are also indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said further polyethylene” in lines 1-2 of the claim and “the predetermined quantity” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The term “little” in claim 12 (lines 2 and 7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “little” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites various indefinite language including “such as” twice at line 11 and “or other forms” and “in their forms” in lines 12 and 13. Said phrases render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the phrases “or other forms” and “in their forms” are also indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained.
Claim 18 recites the limitation, “wherein said added material” in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation, “further ceramic additive” in line 3 of the claim. The claim is indefinite because the word “further” makes it unclear as to whether the ceramic component of claim 13 is being referred to or whether there is an additional ceramic component.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said further ceramic additive” in lines 12 and 17 of the claim and “said radiopacifying agent” in line 13 and the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 19 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.
Claim 19 recites, “a plastic material that is PEEK”. Claim 19 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out UHMWPE as a plastic base material and polyethylene to form a plastic mixture. The limitation does not properly further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 1 sets out the plastic materials as UHMWPE and PE and claim 19 states that the plastic material is PEEK. If applicant intends to include PEEK as an additional plastic material, it is suggested adding language, for example, wherein the plastic material further comprises PEEK.
Claim 19 recites, “said at least one pharmaceutical or medical substance that is a bacteriostatic agent”. Claim 19 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out a pharmaceutical or medical substance comprising at least one antibiotic. The limitation does not properly further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 1 sets out that the pharmaceutical or medical substance comprises at least one antibiotic and claim 19 states that said at least one pharmaceutical or medical substance is a bacteriostatic agent. If applicant intends to include a bacteriostatic agent as an additional medical substance, it is suggested adding language, for example, wherein the pharmaceutical or medical substance further comprises a bacteriostatic agent.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faccioli et al. (WO 2016/132289 A1, Aug. 25, 2016, hereafter as “Faccioli”).
The claimed invention is drawn to a method for the obtainment of a thread made of a material biocompatible and implantable in the human body, comprising the following steps: providing UHMWPE as a plastic base material, wherein said UHMWPE has a molecular weight and is in granular or pellet form, providing a polyethylene material with a molecular weight which is lower than the molecular weight of the UHMWPE, wherein said polyethylene material is in powder, granular or pellet form, adding said polyethylene material to the UHMWPE or vice versa, mixing said polyethylene material with the UHMWPE, obtaining a plastic mixture, providing a pharmaceutical or medical substance comprising at least one antibiotic, adding said pharmaceutical or medical substance to said plastic mixture, mixing said pharmaceutical or medical substance with said plastic mixture, obtaining an added base mixture, wherein said pharmaceutical or medical substance is uniformly distributed in the added base mixture, heating said added base mixture in an extruder at a predetermined temperature which is lower than the degradation temperature of said pharmaceutical or medical substance, obtaining a melted material, extruding said melted material in order to obtain said thread made of said heated material, cooling down said thread, and moulding said thread in order to obtain a device able to be implanted in the human body such as a catheter, screw or joint, coupling or mesh, spacer device, prosthesis or prosthetic device.
Regarding instant claims 1, 4-6, 13, 15, 16 and 20, Faccioli teaches a method for the obtainment of a device (i.e., catheters, spacer device for treating a bone or a joint location) that can be implanted in the human body (abstract; page 1, lines 5-7). Said method comprises providing a biocompatible and implantable material comprising a plastic material/polymer such as polyethylene (PE), low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), polypropylene, polyamide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or a mixture thereof in the form of pellets or granules (abstract; page 4, lines 10-15; page 5, lines 14-25; page 8, lines 11-12; claim 14), providing an additive such as a pharmaceutical or medical substance (e.g., an antibiotic) and/or a radio-opacifying agent (e.g., metallic powders, barium sulphate, zirconium oxide, bismuth oxide) and/or a further additive, mixing the polymer and said additive(s) to obtain a mixed base material (claim 14), heating said mixed material to a predetermined temperature to obtain a melted material, extruding/forming/molding the melted material to obtain one or more threads or cooling the melted material and crushing or granulating the material in order to obtain a crushed or granulated material, or cooling the one or more threads and then crushing or granulating the thread (claim 15; page 9, lines 14-16), and molding the one or more threads or crushed/granulated materials by means of a tridimensional printer or by means of injection molding or by means of molding presses or using a thermoplastic molding technique (claim 16). Faccioli also teaches that the temperature at which the material is melted must be below the degradation or damaging temperature of the pharmaceutical or medical substance (page 9, lines 19-21). Faccioli also teaches including additional medical additives such as a soluble and/or reabsorbable ceramic material, in the form of powder or granules including tricalcium phosphate or calcium sulphate or hydroxyapatite, or colouring substances of the biocompatible type and adapted to be introduced in the human body (page 7, lines 18-23). Faccioli teaches the particular antibiotics, gentamicin sulphate or another suitable antibiotic (page 6, lines 11-16). Faccioli teaches incorporating an antiseptic agent, of organic or inorganic nature, a bacteriostatic agent, such as silver in its various forms, such as metallic powder or salts such as citrate, proteinate, colloidal, electrolytic (page 6, lines 16-19).
Faccioli does not teach the particular combination of PE and UHMWPE.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine PE and UHMWPE with a reasonable expectation of success because Faccioli teaches a plastic material/polymer such as polyethylene (PE), low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), polypropylene, polyamide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or a mixture thereof. Faccioli effectively teaches a finite group of suitable polymer materials as well as mixtures thereof and selecting PE and UHMWPE is within routine experimentation.
Faccioli also does not teach “uniform distribution”, however it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to thoroughly mix the materials together obtain a uniform or homogenous mixture with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure uniform properties throughout the composition.
Regarding instant claims 2, 7 and 19, Faccioli teaches the elements discussed above.
Faccioli does not teach LDPE or HDPE in combination with UHMWPE.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine LDPE or HDPE with UHMWPE with a reasonable expectation of success because Faccioli teaches a plastic material/polymer such as polyethylene (PE), low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), polypropylene, polyamide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or a mixture thereof. Faccioli effectively teaches a finite group of suitable polymer materials as well as mixtures thereof and selecting LDPE or HDPE and UHMWPE is within routine experimentation.
It is noted that LDPE (typically 50,000-500,000 Daltons) and HDPE (typically 100,000- 250,000 Daltons) are known to have much lower molecular weights as compared to the molecular weight of UHMWPE (typically over 3 million Daltons).
Regarding instant claim 3, Faccioli teaches the elements discussed above. It is noted that adding an ingredient a little at a time or all at once are the only possible options in adding an ingredient. While Faccioli does not explicitly teach how much is added at a time, a skilled artisan would have only two options and it is within the knowledge of a skilled artisan to either add an ingredient a little at a time or all at once.
Regarding instant claims 8, 9 and 18, Faccioli teaches the elements discussed above. It is noted that vancomycin and a radiopacifying agent can be as low as 0% which is deemed an optional ingredient.
While Faccioli does not explicitly teach percentages of each ingredient, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of UHMWPE, LDPE or HDPE, and gentamicin sulfate by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and "the final step [of the claimed invention] is merely the logical result of common sense application of the maxim ‘try, try again’” (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding instant claim 10 and 14, Faccioli teaches the elements discussed above. Faccioli also teaches including additional medical additives such as a soluble and/or reabsorbable ceramic material, in the form of powder or granules including tricalcium phosphate or calcium sulphate or hydroxyapatite, or colouring substances of the biocompatible type and adapted to be introduced in the human body (page 7, lines 18-23). Faccioli teaches the particular antibiotics, gentamicin sulphate or another suitable antibiotic (page 6, lines 11-16). Faccioli teaches incorporating an antiseptic agent, of organic or inorganic nature, a bacteriostatic agent, such as silver in its various forms, such as metallic powder or salts such as citrate, proteinate, colloidal, electrolytic (page 6, lines 16-19).
Regarding instant claims 11 and 17, Faccioli teaches the elements discussed above. Faccioli also teaches wherein said mixing or adding step and said heating step of said material occur simultaneously in a dedicated machinery, such as an extruder (claim 17).
Regarding instant claim 12, Faccioli teaches the elements discussed above. It is noted that is established that selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)). It is also noted that adding an ingredient a little at a time or all at once are the only possible options in adding an ingredient. While Faccioli does not explicitly teach how much is added at a time, a skilled artisan would have only two options and it is within the knowledge of a skilled artisan to either add an ingredient a little at a time or all at once.
Regarding instant claim 21, Faccioli teaches the elements discussed above. Faccioli teaches that the temperature at which the material is melted must be below the degradation or damaging temperature of the pharmaceutical or medical substance (page 9, lines 19-21). Faccioli also teaches that, for example, an antibiotic that has a melting temperature of 180°C, so as not to degrade during moulding, must not exceed such a temperature (page 10, lines 2-3).
While Faccioli ides not teach the particular temperature of equal to or less than 160°C, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a melting temperature that is less than the degradation or damaging temperature of the desired pharmaceutical or medical substance with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain the therapeutic effectiveness of the pharmaceutical or medical substance.
The combined teachings of Faccioli and Domb render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/243,439.
The instant inventio is described above.
The copending claims are drawn to method for the obtainment of a device implantable in the human body, including a temporary and/or disposable prosthetic device or spacer device for treating a bone or a joint location or a catheter, screw or joint, coupling or mesh, comprising a biocompatible material that can be implanted in the human body, according to claim 1, comprising the following steps: providing said biocompatible material which comprises a plastic material, providing a pharmaceutical or medical substance including at least one antibiotic, mixing said plastic material and said at least one antibiotic obtaining a mixed base material, heating said mixed base material to a predetermined temperature obtaining a melted material, extruding or forming said melted material obtaining at least one thread of material, or cooling said melted material and then crushing or granulating it in order to obtain a crushed or granulated material, or cooling said at least one thread of material and then crushing or granulating it in order to obtain a crushed or granulated material, molding said at least one thread of material or said crushed or granulated material by means of a tridimensional printer or by means of injection molding or by means of molding press or using a thermoplastic molding technique, in order to obtain said device, wherein said method comprises a step of providing a radio-opacifying agent including at least one iodine derivative, and/or wherein said step of providing a pharmaceutical or medical substance including at least one antibiotic comprises providing hollow microspheres housing said at least one antibiotic inside an inner cavity thereof or inside pores thereof; and the resulting thread and device thereof. The copending claims further recite said plastic material comprises or consists of an acrylic resin including a copolymer composed of MMA, styrene and ethyl acrylate or polymethylmethacrylate or mixtures comprising acrylic polymers and/or copolymers, or comprises or consists of polyethylene (PE) or low- density polyethylene or high-density polyethylene or ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or polypropylene or polyamide or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or a mixture of UHMWPE and at least one of a low-density PE and a high- density PE and amounts thereof (claim 9), said plastic material comprises a further additive including a soluble and/or reabsorbable ceramic material, in the form of powder or granules, comprising tricalcium phosphate or calcium sulphate or hydroxyapatite or a mixture thereof, and/or coloring substances of the biocompatible type and adapted to be introduced in the human body (claim 10), wherein said at least one antibiotic comprises or consists of at least one of gentamicin sulphate, Amikacin, Azlocillin, Aztreonam, Clarithromycin, Chloramphenicol, Ciprofloxacin, Clindamycin, Coumermycin, Fosfomycin, Josamycin, Kanamycin, Mezlocillin, Mupirocin, Nalidixic acid, Netilmicin, Norfloxacin, Novobiocin, Ofloxacin, Oxacillin, Sulbactam, Tobramycin, Trimethoprim, Trimethoprim together with Sulphamethoxazole, Vancomycin, another suitable antibiotic which is thermoresistant and that is active against microbial infections, etc., and/or wherein said pharmaceutical or medical substance further comprises or consists of an antiseptic agent of organic or inorganic nature, a bacteriostatic agent comprising silver in its forms, such as metallic powder or salts comprising citrate, proteinate, colloidal, electrolytic, or other forms, or copper or gold in their forms or alloys, or as salts, boric acid (claim 11), wherein said mixing step and said heating step of said material occur simultaneously in an extruder (claim 14), wherein said molding step comprises feeding said at least one thread of material to a tridimensional printer in order to obtain said device (claim 15), etc.
The copending claims anticipate the subject matter of the instant claims.
Thus, the subject matter of the instant claims are unpatentable over the subject matter of the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, Th and F 9:00 am - 3:30 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, Johann Richter can be reached on 571-272-0646. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617