DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Support for the claims 1-18, 20 can be found in US Provisional Application 62/104,757 and as such these claims have an effective filing date of January 18, 2015.
Response to Arguments
The previous 112 rejections are moot in view of applicants amendments.
The previous Obvious type double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Pimenta does not disclose a set screw but the modification of Pimenta in view of Fortin does disclose a set screw, see rejection below. Examiner notes the examiner has modified the rejections in view of the amendments to the claims.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pimenta US 8,287,597 in view of Fortin US 2011/0224793.
Regarding Claim 1, Pimenta discloses a spinal implant (Fig 16, reference will also be made to Figs 13-15 as Fig 16 is a variation of Fig 13-15 but with a tab, Col 7 lines 5-10) comprising:
an upper surface (#116), a lower surface (#118), a distal wall (#120), a proximal wall (#122), an anterior sidewall (#112), and a posterior sidewall (#114), wherein the spinal implant has a longitudinal length extending from the proximal wall to the distal wall (as seen in Fig 13-14), a width extending from the anterior sidewall to the posterior sidewall (Fig 13-14), and wherein the longitudinal length is greater than the width of the spinal implant (Fig 13-14) and
a tab (#213, see also Col 7 lines 7-25 where there can be only one tab extending above the upper surface), wherein the tab comprises: a fixation aperture (#214) extending therethrough (Fig 16), the fixation aperture being configured to receive a fixation anchor (Col 7 line 60), a locking mechanism (“locking mechanism… canted coil” Col 7 lines 30-40) configured to resist disengagement of the fixation anchor from the fixation aperture (Col 7 lines 30-40).
Regarding Claim 2, Pimenta discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, further comprising a first fusion aperture (#127) extending through the upper surface and the lower surface (Fig 13), wherein the first fusion aperture has a longitudinal aperture length extending generally parallel to the longitudinal length of the spinal implant (as seen in Fig 13), and an aperture width extending generally parallel to the width of the spinal implant, wherein the longitudinal aperture length is greater than the aperture width (Fig 13, the aperture is rectangular in shape having a length along the length of the implant and a smaller width along the width of the implant).
Regarding Claim 3, Pimenta discloses the spinal implant of claim 2, further comprising a second fusion aperture (other aperture #127, Fig 13) extending through the upper surface and the lower surface (Fig 13), wherein the second fusion aperture is configured to permit bone growth when the implant is positioned within an intervertebral space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra (Col 6 lines 29-40).
Regarding Claim 4, Pimenta discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, wherein the spinal implant comprises one or more anti-migration elements (“ridges” as seen in Fig 13-14, Col 6 lines 55-60) on the upper surface, wherein each anti-migration element of the one or more anti-migration elements comprises a ridge extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal length of the implant (as seen in Fig 13-14).
Regarding Claim 5, Pimenta discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, wherein the detachable tab is configured to engage an exterior surface of one of a first vertebra and a second vertebra when the implant is positioned within an intervertebral space between the first vertebra and the second vertebra (Fig 16, Col 7 line 15-18 where the tab engages a first upper vertebra when the implant is placed between the first and second vertebra).
Regarding Claim 7, Pimenta discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, wherein the tab comprises only one fixation aperture (single aperture #214, Fig 16).
Regarding Claim 8, Pimenta discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, wherein the fixation anchor is a screw (“screw” Col 7 lines 35-40, the examiner notes that the fixation anchor is only functionally recited).
Regarding Claim 11, Pimenta discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, further comprising: an anterior height (height on the anterior side wall or left side as seen in Fig 15) extending from the upper surface to the lower surface at the anterior sidewall (Fig 15), and a posterior height (height on the posterior side wall or right side as seen in Fig 15) extending from the upper surface to the lower surface at the posterior sidewall (Fig 15), wherein the anterior height is greater than the posterior height (Fig 15), such that the upper and lower surfaces increase in slope from the posterior sidewall to the anterior sidewall (as seen in Fig 15), and form an angle (angle alpha, Fig 15) greater than 20 degrees (Col 6 lines 10-24).
Pimenta discloses that there can be one tab that extends the upper surface (Col 7 lines 7-25) but does not disclose an extension fixedly attached to the proximal wall, the extension comprising a first arm extending proximally from the proximal wall; and the tab being a detachable tab configured to couple with the first arm, and an attachment surface configured to couple to an interior facing surface of the first arm in a plurality of positions, wherein the detachable tab is configured to be coupled to the proximal wall by a set screw received in a set screw aperture.
Fortin discloses a spinal implant (Figs 3-11) comprising:
an upper surface (see Fig below), a lower surface (opposite the upper surface see Fig below), a distal wall (see Fig below), a proximal wall (opposite the distal wall, see Fig below, examiner notes that the back of surface #121 engages the proximal wall, see annotated Fig 11 below ), an anterior sidewall (see Fig below), and a posterior sidewall (opposite the anterior sidewall, see Fig below), wherein the spinal implant has a longitudinal length extending from the proximal wall to the distal wall (as best seen in Fig 10), a width extending from the anterior sidewall to the posterior sidewall (as seen in Fig 10), and wherein the longitudinal length is greater than the width of the spinal implant (as seen in Fig 10, see also Figs 15-17, the implant is placed laterally and where the length is greater than the width);
an extension fixedly attached to the proximal wall (see Fig below),
the extension comprising a first arm extending proximally from the proximal wall (see Fig below); and
a detachable tab (#12) configured to couple with the first arm (Fig 3, 7-10) and extending only above the upper surface (Fig 3, 7-10),
wherein the detachable tab comprises:
a fixation aperture (#123a) extending therethrough, the fixation aperture being configured to receive a fixation anchor (paragraph 38),
and an attachment surface (#121) sized and shaped to couple to an interior facing surface (not labeled below but interior surface of the first arm that couples with the attachment surface #121, Fig 3, 7-10) of the first arm in a plurality of positions (Fig 7-10, paragraph , 3345-46),
wherein the detachable tab is configured to be coupled to the proximal wall by a plug(#13) received in an aperture (aperture where #13 is located in Fig 11, paragraph 47),
where this allows one to adjust the tab to any number of vertebral profiles and place the tab in a desired orientation and/or position (paragraph 15-16, 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Fortin discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, further comprising a second arm of the extension (see Fig below), wherein the second arm of the extension extends proximally from the proximal wall (similar to the first arm, see Fig below) and comprises a second interior facing surface that couples to the attachment surface of the detachable tab (see Fig below, Fig 3, 7-11).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Fortin discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, further comprising a second arm of the extension (see Fig below, opposite the first arm), wherein the attachment surface is configured to couple to the second arm of the extension in the plurality of positions (Fig 7-10).
PNG
media_image3.png
467
933
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Fortin discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, wherein at least two of the plurality of positions are offset by a fixed rotational angle (angle Beta, Fig 9, angle is fixed when plug #13 is screwed in, paragraph 47) relative to a longitudinal axis (Fig 9 where the longitudinal axis is coming off the page, Fig 10 the longitudinal axis is along the length of the implant) of the spinal implant (Fig 9-10).
Regarding Claim 13, Fortin discloses the spinal implant of claim 1, wherein at least two of the plurality of positions are offset by a fixed rotational angle (angle Beta, Fig 9, angle is fixed when plug #13 is screwed in, paragraph 47) defines a plane parallel to the proximal wall (Fig 9 where the plane is along the page and parallel to the proximal wall, see also Fig 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the invention was made to modify Pimenta to have the tab be detachable and include an attachment surface, where the proximal wall would include an extension with a first arm, a plug received in an aperture in view of Fortin above because this allows one to adjust the tab to any number of vertebral profiles and place the tab in a desired orientation and/or position.
Pimenata as modified discloses that the plug (#13 in view of Fortin) is screwed into the aperture (paragraph 47 in Fortin) but does not explicitly state the plug is a set screw and the aperture is a set screw aperture.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plug of Pimenta as modified by Fortin to be threaded such that it is a set screw received in a set screw aperture because the threads allow it to be “screwed” into the set screw aperture. Examiner notes that since Fortin discloses that plug is “screwed” that is already infers that the plug is threaded and therefore can be considered a set screw.
Regarding Claim 6, Pimenta as modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the tab has one fixation aperture (#214 in Pimenta) but does not disclose the detachable tab comprises two fixation apertures.
Fortin further teaches that the detachable tab (#12) comprises two fixation apertures (#123a-123b, Fig 6) to allow screws to pass therethrough to attach the tabs to the vertebra (paragraph 38).
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pimenta as modified to have the tab have two fixation apertures in view of additional teachings of Fortin above because this provides a known number of apertures to obtain predictable results of screws extending through the fixation apertures to fix the tab to the vertebra.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pimenta US 8,287,597 in view of Fortin US 2011/0224793 and Brantigan US 5,425,772.
Regarding Claim 14, Pimenta discloses a system (Figs 13-16) comprising:
a spinal implant (Fig 16, reference will also be made to Figs 13-15 as Fig 16 is a variation of Fig 13-15 but with a tab, Col 7 lines 5-10) including:
an upper surface (#116), a lower surface (#118), a distal wall (#120), a proximal wall (#122), an anterior sidewall (#112), and a posterior sidewall (#114), wherein the spinal implant has a longitudinal length extending from the proximal wall to the distal wall (as seen in Fig 13-14),
and tab (#213, see also Col 7 lines 7-25 where there can be only one tab extending above the upper surface), wherein the tab comprises: a fixation aperture (#214) disposed therethrough, the fixation aperture being configured to receive a fixation anchor (Col 7 line 60), a locking mechanism (“locking mechanism… canted coil” Col 7 lines 30-40) configured to resist disengagement of the fixation anchor from the fixation aperture (Col 7 lines 30-40).
Pimenta discloses that there can be one tab that extends the upper surface (Col 7 lines 7-25) and where there is an opening at the proximal wall that appears to be used for an inserter (see below and Col 6 lines 64 to Col 7 line 5) but does not disclose an extension fixedly attached to the proximal wall, the extension comprising a first arm extending proximally from the proximal wall, and the tab being a detachable tab configured to couple to the first arm and an attachment surface configured to couple to an interior facing surface of the first arm in a plurality of fixed positions; and an inserter configured to couple with the spinal implant and configured to position the spinal implant within an intervertebral space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra.
PNG
media_image4.png
302
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fortin discloses a spinal implant (Figs 3-11) comprising:
an upper surface (see Fig below), a lower surface (opposite the upper surface see Fig below), a distal wall (see Fig below), a proximal wall (opposite the distal wall, see Fig below, examiner notes that the back of surface #121 engages the proximal wall, see annotated Fig 11 below ), an anterior sidewall (see Fig below), and a posterior sidewall (opposite the anterior sidewall, see Fig below), wherein the spinal implant has a longitudinal length extending from the proximal wall to the distal wall (as best seen in Fig 10), a width extending from the anterior sidewall to the posterior sidewall (as seen in Fig 10), and wherein the longitudinal length is greater than the width of the spinal implant (as seen in Fig 10, see also Figs 15-17, the implant is placed laterally and where the length is greater than the width);
an extension fixedly attached to the proximal wall (see Fig below),
the extension comprising a first arm extending proximally from the proximal wall (see Fig below); and
a detachable tab (#12) configured to couple with the first arm (Fig 3, 7-10) and extending only above the upper surface (Fig 3, 7-10),
wherein the detachable tab comprises:
a fixation aperture (#123a) extending therethrough, the fixation aperture being configured to receive a fixation anchor (paragraph 38),
and an attachment surface (#121) configured to couple to an interior facing surface (not labeled below but interior surface of the first arm that couples with the attachment surface #121, Fig 3, 7-10) of the first arm in a plurality of fixed positions (Fig 7-10, see also paragraphs 45-46 where plug #13 fixes the tab in a plurality of fixed positions),
wherein the detachable tab is configured to be coupled to the proximal wall by a plug(#13) received in an aperture (aperture where #13 is located in Fig 11, paragraph 47),
where this allows one to adjust the tab to any number of vertebral profiles and place the tab in a desired orientation and/or position (paragraph 15-16, 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brantigan discloses a spinal implant (Fig 4-5) with a proximal wall (#11d) having a threaded opening (#11g), an inserter (#20) configured to couple with the spinal implant (Fig 5, coupled via opening #11g) and configured to position the spinal implant within an intervertebral space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra (Col 5 lines 35-45, Col 6 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the invention was made to modify Pimenta to have the tab be detachable and include an attachment surface, where the proximal wall would include an extension with a first arm, a pliug received in an aperture, in view of Fortin above because this allows one to adjust the tab to any number of vertebral profiles and place the tab in a desired orientation and/or position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the invention was made to modify Pimenta as modified to have the opening be a threaded opening and to include an inserter view of Brantigan above because this provides a known tool to insert a spinal implant.
Pimenata as modified discloses that the plug (#13 in view of Fortin) is screwed into the aperture (paragraph 47 in Fortin) but does not explicitly state the plug is a set screw and the aperture is a set screw aperture.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plug of Pimenta as modified by Fortin to be threaded such that it is a set screw received in a set screw aperture because the threads allow it to be “screwed” into the set screw aperture. Examiner notes that since Fortin discloses that plug is “screwed” that is already infers that the plug is threaded and therefore can be considered a set screw.
Regarding Claim 15, Pimenta as modified discloses system of claim 14, wherein the inserter comprises an elongate body (Fig 5 in Brantigan where the body would be elongated for one to grasp the instrument) having a proximal end (Fig 5 in Brantigan, not shown but would be gripped by a user) and a distal end (Fig 5 in Brantigan), and an inserter head (threaded end of #20, Fig 5 in Brantigan) positioned at the distal end and configured to couple to the implant (Fig 5 in Brantigan).
Regarding Claim 16, Pimenta as modified discloses system of claim 15, wherein the implant comprises a threaded receiving aperture (#11g in Brantigan, discussed in the modification above) disposed on the proximal wall (Fig 4-5 in Brantigan), and the inserter head comprises a threaded connector (threaded end, Fig 5 in Brantigan), wherein the threaded receiving aperture is configured to matingly receive the threaded connector (Col 5 lines 35-45, Col 6 lines 1-6 in Brantigan).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pimenta US 8,287,597 in view of Fortin US 2011/0224793.
Regarding Claim 17, Pimenta discloses a method for correcting a sagittal imbalance in a lumbar spine (preamble of Claim 1), comprising:
creating a lateral access corridor to a target site on the lumbar spine (Figs 3-4, corridor created using retractor #34, Col 3 lines 25 – Col 4 line 15 ;
preparing an intervertebral space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra of the lumbar spine for insertion of a spinal implant (Col 4 lines 15-35),
the spinal implant (Fig 16, reference will also be made to Figs 13-15 as Fig 16 is a variation of Fig 13-15 but with a tab, Col 7 lines 5-10) comprising: an upper surface (#116), a lower surface (#118), a distal wall (#120), a proximal wall (#122), an anterior sidewall (#112), and a posterior sidewall (#114), wherein the spinal implant has a longitudinal length extending from the proximal wall to the distal wall (as seen in Fig 13-14),
a tab (#213, see also Col 7 lines 7-25 where there can be only one tab extending above the upper surface), the tab comprising: : a fixation aperture (#214) extending therethrough (Fig 16), the fixation aperture being configured to receive a fixation anchor (Col 7 line 60), a locking mechanism (“locking mechanism… canted coil” Col 7 lines 30-40) configured to resist disengagement of the fixation anchor from the fixation aperture (Col 7 lines 30-40);
and advancing the spinal implant through the lateral access corridor into the intervertebral space (Col 6 lines 24-30).
Regarding Claim 18, Pimenta discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising anchoring the spinal implant to at least one of the first vertebra and the second vertebra, wherein the anchoring comprises advancing the fixation anchor through the fixation aperture into one of the first and second vertebrae (Fig 16 in Pimenta and Col 7 lines 25-40 where the fixation anchor is placed into an upper first vertebra to anchor the implant).
Pimenta discloses that there can be one tab that extends the upper surface (Col 7 lines 7-25) but does not disclose an extension fixedly attached to the proximal wall, the extension comprising a first arm extending proximally from the proximal wall, and the tab being a detachable tab configured to couple with the first arm, the detachable tab comprising an attachment surface configured to couple to an interior facing surface of the first arm in a plurality of fixed positions.
Fortin discloses a spinal implant (Figs 3-11) comprising:
an upper surface (see Fig below), a lower surface (opposite the upper surface see Fig below), a distal wall (see Fig below), a proximal wall (opposite the distal wall, see Fig below, examiner notes that the back of surface #121 engages the proximal wall, see annotated Fig 11 below ), an anterior sidewall (see Fig below), and a posterior sidewall (opposite the anterior sidewall, see Fig below), wherein the spinal implant has a longitudinal length extending from the proximal wall to the distal wall (as best seen in Fig 10), a width extending from the anterior sidewall to the posterior sidewall (as seen in Fig 10), and wherein the longitudinal length is greater than the width of the spinal implant (as seen in Fig 10, see also Figs 15-17, the implant is placed laterally and where the length is greater than the width);
an extension fixedly attached to the proximal wall (see Fig below),
the extension comprising a first arm extending proximally from the proximal wall (see Fig below); and
a detachable tab (#12) configured to couple with the first arm (Fig 3, 7-10) and extending only above the upper surface (Fig 3, 7-10),
wherein the detachable tab comprises:
a fixation aperture (#123a) extending therethrough, the fixation aperture being configured to receive a fixation anchor (paragraph 38),
and an attachment surface (#121) configured to couple to an interior facing surface (not labeled below but interior surface of the first arm that couples with the attachment surface #121, Fig 3, 7-10) of the first arm in a plurality of positions (Fig 7-10, see also paragraphs 45-46 where plug #13 fixes the tab in a plurality of fixed positions),
wherein the detachable tab is configured to be coupled to the proximal wall by a plug(#13) received in an aperture (aperture where #13 is located in Fig 11, paragraph 47),
where this allows one to adjust the tab to any number of vertebral profiles and place the tab in a desired orientation and/or position (paragraph 15-16, 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the invention was made to modify Pimenta to have the tab be detachable and include an attachment surface, where the proximal wall would include an extension with a first arm, a plug received in an aperture, in view of Fortin above because this allows one to adjust the tab to any number of vertebral profiles and place the tab in a desired orientation and/or position.
Pimenata as modified discloses that the plug (#13 in view of Fortin) is screwed into the aperture (paragraph 47 in Fortin) but does not explicitly state the plug is a set screw and the aperture is a set screw aperture.
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plug of Pimenta as modified by Fortin to be threaded such that it is a set screw received in a set screw aperture because the threads allow it to be “screwed” into the set screw aperture. Examiner notes that since Fortin discloses that plug is “screwed” that is already infers that the plug is threaded and therefore can be considered a set screw.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pimenta US 8,287,597 and Fortin US 2011/0224793, as applied to claim 17 above, and further view of Brantigan US 5,425,772.
Pimenta as modified discloses the method of claim 17 (as discussed above) where Pimenta discloses an opening at the proximal wall that appears to be used for an inserter (see below and Col 6 lines 64 to Col 7 line 5) but does not disclose coupling an inserter with the spinal implant and positioning the spinal implant into the intervertebral space; and decoupling the inserter from the spinal implant after the positioning.
PNG
media_image4.png
302
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Brantigan discloses a spinal implant (Fig 4-5) with a proximal wall (#11d) having a threaded opening (#11g), coupling an inserter (#20) with the spinal implant (Fig 5, coupled via opening #11g) and positioning the spinal implant into the intervertebral space (Col 5 lines 35-45, Col 6 lines 1-6); and decoupling the inserter from the spinal implant after the positioning (Col 5 lines 35-45, Col 6 lines 1-6).
an inserter (#20) configured to couple with the spinal implant (Fig 5, coupled via opening #11g) and configured to position the spinal implant within an intervertebral space between a first vertebra and a second vertebra (Col 5 lines 35-45, Col 6 lines 1-6, not explicitly disclosed but the inserter would be removed following implantation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the invention was made to modify Pimenta as modified to have the opening be a threaded opening and to include an inserter, coupling the inserted with the implant in view of Brantigan above because this provides a known tool to insert a spinal implant, where the inserter would be removed from the spinal implant after positioning the implant in the disc space.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773