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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Species A (Claims 8-17) in the reply filed on 11/20/25 is acknowledged.
Claim 42 is also withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species since it discloses a motor which is to species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/25.
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 “biasing mechanism structure as claimed in claims 8-9, 47-49” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 45, 56, 63, 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
In claim 45 at line 1-2 the limitation recites “the first half-pin is disposed at a first angle relative to an axis transverse to the bone”.
In claim 56 at line 12-13 the limitation recites “move at least one of the first beam or the second beam along an axis transverse to a bone of a patient”.
In claim 63 at line 7 the limitation recites “a means for distracting a segment of bone”.
In claim 66 at line 1 the limitation recites “means for distracting a segment of bone”.
These limitations cannot be satisfied without the inclusion of the human organism, or a bone of a patient, therefore, applicant is claiming the sternum as part of the invention. Instead, applicant should use “adapted to” or “configured to” language to overcome the 101 rejection.
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.
In the claim 63 the limitation “a means for distracting a segment of bone by moving at least one of the first beam or the second beam laterally relative to a bone of a patient” in lines 7-8 invokes 112(f), this same limitation is repeated in claim 66.
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: “biasing mechanism” in claims 8-9 and 47.
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 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 8-17 and 39-55 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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected as indefinite since the scope of the “biasing mechanism” recited in lines 11-12 (claim 8) and lines 3-5 (claim 9) is unclear. The term “biasing mechanism” does not appear in the specification as originally filed instead the term “bias” only appears in a single paragraph [0084]. In that specific paragraph of the specification the applicant recites “the knob 222 may be configured to move in quarter-turns by the provision of projections (not shown) on the underside of the knob 222, which fit within recesses (not shown) on the block 226 at 90-degree intervals. . . . . [a] spring 234 may be disposed between the knob 222 and the sleeve adapter 235 to bias the projections towards the recesses. In this way, each time the knob 222 is turned, the threaded rod 224 is moved a predetermined amount” (emphasis added). Therefore, since none of the structure that is biased is shown it is unclear what the full extent of the structure is meant to be included by this paragraph. Based on this paragraph the spring 234 could be interpreted as the biasing mechanism however, it is unclear how a spring would be capable of indicating discrete angular positions of a rod.
Claims 10-17 and 39-46 are rejected as indefinite for depending upon an indefinite claim.
Claims 47 is rejected as indefinite since the scope of the “biasing mechanism” recited in lines 11-14 is unclear. The claim recites the mechanism comprises a resilient member then recites that the function of the mechanism is to bias the actuator in one of a plurality of discrete positions. The term “biasing mechanism” does not appear in the specification as originally filed instead the term “bias” only appears in a single paragraph [0084]. In that specific paragraph of the specification the applicant recites “the knob 222 may be configured to move in quarter-turns by the provision of projections (not shown) on the underside of the knob 222, which fit within recesses (not shown) on the block 226 at 90-degree intervals. . . . . [a] spring 234 may be disposed between the knob 222 and the sleeve adapter 235 to bias the projections towards the recesses. In this way, each time the knob 222 is turned, the threaded rod 224 is moved a predetermined amount” (emphasis added). Therefore, since none of the structure that is biased is shown it is unclear what the full extent of the structure is meant to be included by this paragraph. Based on this paragraph the spring 234 could be interpreted as the biasing mechanism however, it is unclear how a spring would be capable of indicating discrete angular positions of a rod.
Claims 47-55 are rejected as indefinite for depending upon an indefinite claim.
In regards to claim 49, the limitation recites that the biasing mechanism comprises a knob comprising a plurality of projections and wherein the resilient member biases the projections towards the recesses in lines 1-6. However, looking to the specification as originally filed in paragraph [0084] as quoted above and to independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9 which also disclose the biasing mechanism and its components it is unclear if the knob is meant to be part of the biasing mechanism since it is represented as a separate component from the mechanism itself.
Claims 50-51 are rejected as indefinite for depending upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 8-16, 41, 43-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN106108992A) in view of Goff et al (US Patent 6617534B2) and Moradi et al (US Patent Pub. 20200069334A1).
Li recites a distractor for a transverse bone transport system. Specifically in regards to claim 8, Li recites a first beam (11) comprising a first opening (opening for 6) and a first moveable half-pin holder (6); a second beam (1) comprising a second opening (opening for 6) and a second moveable half-pin holder (also 6), wherein a length of the second beam (1) is larger than a length of the first beam (1), wherein the first and second moveable half-pin holders (6) are radially displaced (by means of being screwed in or out); and an actuator comprising: a knob (8); a threaded rod (9) disposed within the first opening (opening in 10 on 11) of the first beam (11) and the second opening of the second beam (1); wherein the knob (8) is configured to rotate in a first direction to increase a distance between the first beam (11) and the second beam (1) and in a second direction to decrease a distance between the first beam (11) and the second beam (1) (Fig. 1-3; and Para. [0024],[0054]-[0068]). However, the reference is silent as to the pin holders moving longitudinally or the actuator having a biasing mechanism.
Goff in regards to claim 8 recites an actuator comprising a knob (52) and a biasing mechanism (76/64/60) configured to indicate discrete angular positions of the rod (Fig. 2-5; and Col. 2 line 25-30, Col. 4 lines 61-65, Col. 5 lines 19-23,40-45,58-61, Col. 6 lines 28-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the knob (8) of Li to have detents and a spring as taught in Goff in order to have a means for the user to have tactile feedback as the user turns the knob (Goff: Col. 5 ln 19-23). However, the combination is still silent as to the pin holder moving longitudinally.
Moradi recites a distractor for a transverse bone transport system. Specifically in regards to claim 8, Moradi recites a beam (102/104) having first and second moveable half-pin holders (1242/1442) that are longitudinally and radially displaceable (Fig. 1a-1d; and Para. [0041]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to modify the combination by modifying the pin holders (6) of Li to move longitudinally and rotationally as taught in Moradi in order to provide three degrees of freedom for the exemplary orthopedic device (Para. [0041]).
In regards to claim 9-10, Li in view of Goff and Moradi recite a distractor for transverse bone transport. Specifically Goff recites wherein the actuator knob (52) is rotatable through a plurality of discrete angular rotational positions (positions created by 76), and wherein the biasing mechanism (64/72/60) biases the knob (52) into the plurality of discrete angular positions such that the plurality of discrete angular positions of the knob (52) correspond to the discrete angular positions of the rod, and wherein each of the plurality of discrete angular rotational positions of the knob (52) is located a set angular distance from neighboring discrete angular rotational positions (Fig. 2-5; and Col. 2 line 25-30, Col. 4 lines 61-65, Col. 5 lines 19-23,40-45,58-61, Col. 6 lines 28-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to modify the knob (8) of Li to have detents and a spring as taught in Goff in order to have a means for the user to have tactile feedback as the user turns the knob (Col. 5 ln 19-23).
In regards to claim 11, Li recites wherein the set angular distance corresponds to a discrete set lateral distance between the first beam and the second beam (Para. [0024],[0067]-[0068]).
In regards to claim 12, Li recites wherein the first and second moveable half-pin holders (6) are configured to pivot between a plurality of angular positions (The pin holders are screws that can be rotated to be set at a plurality of angular positions.) (Fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 13, Li recites wherein the first moveable half-pin holder (6) is configured to hold a first pin (7), wherein the first moveable half-pin holder (6) is configured to tighten around the first pin (7) such that the first pin (7) is held in a first angular position of the plurality of angular positions (The pin holders are screws that can be rotated to be set at a plurality of angular positions.) (Fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 14, Li recites wherein the second moveable half-pin holder (6) is configured to hold a second pin (7), wherein the second moveable half-pin holder (6) is configured to tighten around the second pin (7) such that the second pin (7) is held in a second angular position of the plurality of angular positions (The pin holders are screws that can be rotated to be set at a plurality of angular positions.) (Fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 15, Li recites wherein the first angular position and the second angular position are different (The pin holders are screws that can be rotated to be set at a plurality of angular positions even different angles as needed.) (Fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 16, Li recites wherein the threaded rod (9) is threadedly received in the second beam (1) such that the actuator is configured to move the first beam (11) relative to the second beam (1) (Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 41, Li recites wherein the threaded rod (9) is threadedly received in the first beam (11) such that the actuator is configured to move the second beam (1) relative to the first beam (11) (The threaded rod 9 is received in the opening in guide 10.1 which is connected to beam 11.) (Fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 43-44, Li recites wherein the first and second moveable half-pin holders (6) are configured to hold a first half-pin (7) attached to a transport segment of a bone and a second half-pin (7) inserted into the bone proximate to a transport segment (Fig. 1-3 and 6-7).
In regards to claim 45, Li recites wherein the first half-pin (7) is disposed at a first angle relative to an axis transverse to the bone and the second half-pin (7) is disposed at a second angle relative to the axis, and wherein the first angle and the second angle are different and non-zero (The pin holders are screws that can be rotated to be set at a plurality of angular positions even different angles as needed.) (Fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 46, Li wherein the second moveable half-pin holder (6) is configured to couple to a connector coupled to a ring of an external fixation device (Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 47-48, 52-53, 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN106108992A) in view of Goff et al (US Patent 6617534B2).
Li recites a distractor for a transverse bone transport system. Specifically in regards to claim 47-48, Li recites a first portion (11) comprising at least two openings, each being configured to receive a screw (6) for holding a half-pin (7); a second portion (1) comprising at least two openings, each opening being configured to receive a screw (6) for holding a half-pin (7), wherein a first length of the first portion (1) is smaller than a second length of the second portion (1); an actuator coupled to the first and second portions (1/11) that moves the first portion (11) relative to the second portion (1), the actuator comprising: a threaded rod (9) extending through the first portion (11), wherein the threaded rod (9) is configured to rotate to move the first portion (11) relative to the second portion (1) to one of a plurality of discrete position of the first portion (11) relative to the second portion (1) (Fig. 1-3; and Para. [0024],[0054]-[0068]). However, the reference is silent as to actuator having a biasing mechanism.
Goff in regards to claim 47-48 recites an actuator comprising a biasing mechanism (76/64/60) a resilient member (64), wherein the biasing member is configured to bias the actuator in one of a plurality of discrete positions, and wherein the biasing mechanism also comprises at least one projection (72/76a) and at least one recess (76b), wherein the resilient member (64) is configured to bias the at least one projection (72) into the at least one recess (76b) during rotation (Fig. 2-5; and Col. 2 line 25-30, Col. 4 lines 61-65, Col. 5 lines 19-23,40-45,58-61, Col. 6 lines 28-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to modify the knob (8) of Li to have detents and a spring as taught in Goff in order to have a means for the user to have tactile feedback as the user turns the knob (Goff: Col. 5 ln 19-23).
In regards to claim 52, Li recites wherein the actuator is configured to rotate the threaded rod (9) in a first direction to move the first portion (11) laterally outward; and in a second direction to move the first portion (11) laterally inward (Fig. 1-3 and 6-7; Para. [0024],[0067]-[0068]).
In regards to claim 53, Li recites wherein each discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions of the first portion (11) relative to the second portion (1) is a same lateral distance from a neighboring discrete position (Fig. 1-3 and 6-7; Para. [0024],[0067]-[0068]).
In regards to claim 55, Li recites wherein the screw (6) for holding the half-pin (7) is configured to hold the half-pin in a plurality of angular positions (The pin holders are screws that can be rotated to be set at a plurality of angular positions.) (Fig. 1-3).
Claim(s) 56-58, 60-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN106108992A) in view of Moradi et al (US Patent Pub. 20200069334A1).
Li recites a distractor for a bone transport system. Specifically in regards to claim 56-58, Li recites a first beam (11) comprising a first half-pin holder (6); a second beam (1) comprising a second half-pin holder (6), wherein a first length of the first beam (11) is smaller than a second length of the second beam (1); and an actuator comprising: a rod (9) comprising a threaded portion extending through the first beam (10.1 on 11) and the second beam (1), and a knob (8) coupled to the rod (9), wherein rotation of the knob (8) causes rotation of the rod (9) to move at least one of the first or second beams along an axis transverse to a bone of a patient (Fig. 1-3 and 6-7; and Para. [0024],[0054]-[0068]). Li recites wherein the first beam (11) has a third half-pin holders (6) and wherein the second beam (1) has a fourth half-pin holders (6) (Fig. 1-3). However, the reference is silent as the pin holder moving in angled slots and wherein the angle for each slot is different.
Moradi recites a distractor for a bone transport system. Specifically in regards to claim 56-57, Moradi recites a beam (102/104) having first and third half-pin holders (1242) and second and fourth half-pin holders (1442) slidable within longitudinal slots that are at differing angles (It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to make the first slot at different angle then the second slot as needed since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves, only routine skill in the art.)(Fig. 1a-1d; and Para. [0041]-[0045]). In regards to claim 58, Moradi recites wherein the angles are the same (Fig. 1b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to modify the combination by modifying the pin holders (6) of Li to move longitudinally and rotationally in angled slots as taught in Moradi in order to provide three degrees of freedom for the exemplary orthopedic device (Moradi: Para. [0041]).
In regards to claims 60-61, Li in view of Moradi recite a distractor for a bone transport system having first and second beams having first through fourth half-pin holders in four slots. However, the references are silent as to the angles of the slots being 0 or 45 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the combination by making the first slot angled at 45 degrees and the second, third, and fourth slots angled at 0 degrees since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves, only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 62, Li recites wherein the first and second moveable half-pin holders (6) are configured to hold a first half-pin (7) attached to a transport segment of a bone and a second half-pin (7) inserted into the bone proximate to a transport segment (Fig. 1-3 and 6-7).
In regards to claim 63-64, Li recites a distractor for a bone transport system. Specifically, Li recites a first beam (11) comprising a first half-pin holder (6); a second beam (1) comprising a second half-pin holder (6), wherein a first length of the first beam (11) is smaller than a second length of the second beam (1) such that the first and second half-pin holders (6) are horizontally displaced; and a means (8/9) for distracting a segment of bone by moving at least one of the first beam (11) or the second beam (1) laterally relative to a bone of a patient (Fig. 1-3 and 6-7; and Para. [0024],[0054]-[0068]). Li recites wherein the first beam (11) has a third half-pin holder (6) and wherein the second beam (1) has a fourth half-pin holder (6) (Fig. 1-3). However, the reference is silent as the pin holder moving in a slot.
Moradi recites a distractor for a bone transport system. Specifically in regards to claim 63-64, Moradi recites a beam (102/104) having first and third half-pin holders (1242) and second and fourth half-pin holders (1442) slidable within longitudinal slots so that the pin-holders are laterally displaceable (Fig. 1a-1d; and Para. [0041]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to modify the combination by modifying the pin holders (6) of Li to move longitudinally and rotationally in slots as taught in Moradi in order to provide three degrees of freedom for the exemplary orthopedic device (Moradi: Para. [0041]).
In regards to claim 65, Li in view of Moradi recite a distractor as provided above. Li recites wherein the third slot is located on an end of the first beam (11) opposite the end on which the first slot is located, and wherein the fourth slot is located on an end of the second beam (1) opposite the end on which the second slot is located (If the screws 6 of Li were modified to beholders located in slots as taught in Moradi then the slots would be located in the corners of each of the beams of 1 and 11.) (Fig. 1-3).
In regards to claim 66, Li recites wherein the means for distracting (8/9) a segment of bone is located between the first half-pin holder (6) and the third half-pin holder (6) of the first beam (11) and between the second half-pin holder (6) and the fourth half-pin holder (6) of the second beam (1) (Fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 59 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELA I SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)270-5269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCELA I. SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775