Detailed Action
This is the final office action for US application number 18/567,761. Claims are evaluated as filed on April 17, 2026.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections in this office action have been amended to address the amended claims. Examiner directs Applicant to the rejection below for a more in-depth description of the limitations.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that method claims have been amended in anticipation of rejoinder of the method claims (Remarks p. 1), Examiner notes that Applicant previously amended the original method claims to depend from claim 1 and did not withdraw the method claims. Thus, there are no withdrawn claims to potentially rejoin.
With regards to Applicant’s argument regarding the interview discussion (Remarks p. 9-10), Examiner notes that it appears that Applicant’s representative has again switched their argument relative to that in their extended interview in which they would barely permit the Examiner to speak and attempted to prevent the end of the interview. Thus, it seems only reasonable to conclude that oral/verbal discussion of this application was detrimental to the prosecution history and consideration of the application. Thus, Examiner will not be accepting further such phone calls. With regards to the continually changing arguments regarding the restriction requirement, Examiner notes that such was based upon the original disclosure and Applicant has not been able to argue clear support or delineation of support for many features of Figs. 1-3 or clearly articulate the intended entirety of the invention originally disclosed. Thus, Examiner suggests amending the disclosure in any continuation application filed to provide a clear disclosure of each embodiment. In the interest of promoting compact prosecution and in light of at least paragraph 43, Examiner considered Figs. 1-3 to represent a single species, which, based on Applicant’s arguments provided since the first action on the merits, will be reconsidered in future filings based upon the clarity of those disclosures with regards to the intended invention. As for the instant application, Examiner has continued to consider the disclosure of Figs. 1-3 as elected and given the original disclosure considerable breadth in considering support for the claimed invention.
Priority
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 No. PCT/US2002/040090 and 63/231,981, 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. Application No. PCT/US2002/040090 and 63/231,981 fail to provide adequate support for the “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region” of claim 7 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4, “manually operated actuator extends between the first region and the second region” of claim 8 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 and “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region” of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends, “the second device is disposed within the third device” of claim 15, “passing a cerclage wire through the surgical site using the first device” of claim 16 line 4, “inserting the first member of the first device into the surgical site; circumnavigating the second region of the first member about an anatomical feature within the surgical site” of claim 16 lines 6-8, “inserting the cerclage wire through the at least one aperture within the first region of the first member of the first device; advancing the cerclage wire through the cannula of the first and second members; removing the first device from the surgical site;” of claim 16 lines 10-14, and “passing a terminal end of the cerclage wire into the locking mechanism of the second device; creating a tension within the cerclage wire by displacing the locking mechanism within the second device” of claim 16 lines 18-21.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As to claim 7, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 from which claim 7 depends. That is, such does not appear to be described in the specification, shown in the drawings, and was not originally claimed. Instead, Fig. 3 indicates 235 along the second, hooked region of the first member and paragraph 40 discloses that 235 is an actuator. It does not appear that the arcuate motion indicated by 235 on second/hooked region 220 in Fig. 3 can be reasonably interpreted as being slidably disposed on a first region that is substantially linear in shape. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 from which claim 7 depends.
As to claims 8, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “manually operated actuator extends between the first region and the second region” of claim 8 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 and “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. That is, such does not appear to be described in the specification, shown in the drawings, and was not originally claimed. Instead, Fig. 3 indicates 235 along the second, hooked region of the first member and paragraph 40 discloses that 235 is an actuator. It does not appear that the arcuate motion indicated by 235 on second/hooked region 220 in Fig. 3 can be reasonably interpreted as being slidably disposed on a first region that is substantially linear in shape as specified by claims 1 and 7 from which claim 8 depends nor does it appear reasonable to assert that the shown 235 extends between the first region and the second region . Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “manually operated actuator extends between the first region and the second region” of claim 8 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 and “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4, “manually operated actuator extends between the first region and the second region” of claim 8 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 and “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends, “the second device is disposed within the third device” of claim 15, “passing a cerclage wire through the surgical site using the first device” of claim 16 line 4, “inserting the first member of the first device into the surgical site; circumnavigating the second region of the first member about an anatomical feature within the surgical site” of claim 16 lines 7-8; “inserting the cerclage wire through the at least one aperture within the first region of the first member of the first device; advancing the cerclage wire through the cannula of the first and second members; removing the first device from the surgical site;” of claim 16 lines 10-14, and “passing a terminal end of the cerclage wire into the locking mechanism of the second device; creating a tension within the cerclage wire by displacing the locking mechanism within the second device” of claim 16 lines 18-21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 20-22 should read “the device has a closed configuration when a continuity exists between the first and second cannula that allows passing of the cerclage wire through both the first and second cannula via the openings in the first and second terminal ends; and”.
Claim 4 lines 1-3 should read “a fixed spacing exists between the first and second terminal ends
Claim 4 lines 8-9 should read “the fixed spacing between the first and second terminal ends to [[to ]]form the closed configuration of the device”.
Claim 5 line 1 should read “wherein .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sliding interface” in claim 1 line 11, “locking mechanism” of claim 13 line 7, "cutting interface" of claim 13 line 12, “locking mechanism” of claim 16 line 16, and "cutting interface" of claim 16 line 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 7, “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 from which claim 7 depends appears to be new matter. That is, such does not appear to be described in the specification, shown in the drawings, and was not originally claimed. Instead, Fig. 3 indicates 235 along the second, hooked region of the first member and paragraph 40 discloses that 235 is an actuator. It does not appear that the arcuate motion indicated by 235 on second/hooked region 220 in Fig. 3 can be reasonably interpreted as being slidably disposed on a first region that is substantially linear in shape. Thus, “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 from which claim 7 depends constitutes new matter.
As to claims 8, the “manually operated actuator extends between the first region and the second region” of claim 8 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 and “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends appears to be new matter. That is, such does not appear to be described in the specification, shown in the drawings, and was not originally claimed. Instead, Fig. 3 indicates 235 along the second, hooked region of the first member and paragraph 40 discloses that 235 is an actuator. It does not appear that the arcuate motion indicated by 235 on second/hooked region 220 in Fig. 3 can be reasonably interpreted as being slidably disposed on a first region that is substantially linear in shape as specified by claims 1 and 7 from which claim 8 depends nor does it appear reasonable to assert that the shown 235 extends between the first region and the second region . Thus, “manually operated actuator extends between the first region and the second region” of claim 8 for “the first region being substantially linear in shape” of claim 1 line 4 and “a manually operated actuator coupled to the component and being slidably disposed on at least the first region, wherein displacement of the manually operated actuator causes displacement of the component on the second region” of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends constitutes new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-10, and 13-23 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “wherein the first cannula has a cannula opening at the first terminal end and an aperture in the first region, each for entry or exit of the cerclage wire” in line 6 and to what “each” is intended to refer, e.g. the previously recited first and second regions, first cannula, passage, cannula opening, or aperture. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the first cannula has a cannula opening at the first terminal end and an aperture in the first region, wherein each of the cannula opening and the aperture are configured for entry or exit of the cerclage wire into or out of the first cannula”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “wherein the second cannula has a cannula opening at the second terminal end and an aperture in the third region, each for entry or exit of the cerclage wire” in line 14 and to what “each” is intended to refer, e.g. the previously recited first and second regions, first cannula, second cannula, passages, cannula openings, or apertures. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the second cannula has a cannula opening at the second terminal end and an aperture in the third region, wherein each of the cannula opening and the aperture of the second cannula are configured for entry or exit of the cerclage wire into or out of the second cannula”.
Claim limitation ““sliding interface” in claim 1 line 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, no structure has been defined or identified as the claimed interface that is in addition to the claimed component to enable one to determine the claimed structure and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 13 is/are unclear with regards to “a first device for passing cerclage wire constructed according to the device defined in claim 1,” in lines 3-4 and the cerclage wire claimed to be “constructed to the device defined in claim 1” as the device of claim 1 does not construct a cerclage wire. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “a first device for passing cerclage wire, the first device comprising of claim 1”.
Claim(s) 16 is/are unclear with regards to “providing a first device constructed according to the device defined in claim 1,” in lines 3-4 and the cerclage wire claimed to be “constructed to the device defined in claim 1” as the device of claim 1 does not construct a cerclage wire. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “providing a first device comprising of claim 1”.
Claim(s) 16 recites/recite the limitation "the space" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the discontinuity of claim 1 lin16 and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 16 recites/recite the limitation "the at least one aperture within the first region" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the “an aperture” of claim 1 lines 6-7, and suggests amending as, “the
Claim(s) 16* recites/recite the limitation "the cannula of the first and second members" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is further unclear as there appears to be no cannula that is of both of the first and second members. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to the “first cannula” of the first member claim 1 lines 2-3 and the “second cannula” of claim 1 lines 9-10, and suggests amending as, “the first and second cannula of the first and second members”.
Claim(s) 16 is/are unclear with regards to “configured to slidably displace within the channel along an axis of the;” in line 17 and the missing word between “the” and the “;” that has been omitted without being annotated. In the immediately prior claims, this was “body”. Thus, Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “configured to slidably displace within the channel along an axis of the body;”.
Claim(s) 16 is/are unclear with regards to “passing a terminal end of the cerclage wire into body the locking mechanism” in line 18 and the apparently extra word “body” that has been added without being annotated, i.e. seemingly erroneously from line 17.”. Thus, Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “passing a terminal end of the cerclage wire into
Claim(s) 23 recites/recite the limitation "the fixed spacing" in each of lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is, claim 4 introduces “a fixed spacing” but claim 23 does not depend from claim 4 and instead depends from claim 21, then claim 22, and finally claim 1. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7-10, 14, 15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4, 5, 7-10, 14, 15, and 17-22 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.
Claims 13, 16, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action for the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 6:30am-4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights