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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/29/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2025(2) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “optimum the number” in line 2 should be “optimum number”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 20 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said subject identification information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said additive manufacture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240190080 to Pare Barniol (hereinafter “Barniol”), in view of US20180286118 to Littlefield et al. (hereinafter “Littlefield”).
As for claim 1, Barniol substantially discloses a method of manufacturing a device, said device being represented by a device data file (Barniol, see [0018] and [0021]), said method comprising:
partitioning said device data file into a plurality of device portion data files, each device portion data file corresponding to a device portion of said device (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033] for partitioning 3D model 206 into separate 3D models, each correspond to different portions (220/222) of the 3D model);
forming a data file array comprising an array of said device portion data files corresponding to an array of a plurality of device portions of said device (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]); and
processing said data file array to concurrently manufacture said array of said plurality of device portions by additive manufacture apparatus (Barniol, see [0018], [0022] and [0033])
Barniol does not explicitly disclose manufacturing a custom cranial remodeling orthosis device for a corresponding subject, said custom cranial remodeling orthosis device being represented by a data file.
However, Littlefield in an analogous art discloses manufacturing a custom cranial remodeling orthosis device for a corresponding subject, said custom cranial remodeling orthosis device being represented by a data file (Littlefield, see Fig. 1 and [0152]-[0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield into the method of Barniol. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to accurately manufacture a cranial remodeling device (Littlefield, see [0009]).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses assembling said concurrently manufactured plurality of device portions together to form said device (Barniol, see [0041]).
Littlefield further discloses to form cranial remodeling orthosis device (Littlefield, see Fig. 1 and [0152]-[0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield into the method of Barniol. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to accurately manufacture a cranial remodeling device (Littlefield, see [0009]).
Claim(s) 3-6 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barniol, in view of Littlefield, further in view of US20140052415 to Baran et al. (hereinafter “Baran”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses providing each device portion data file with data (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]), engage with one or more corresponding portions carried by one or more adjacent other device portions when said plurality of device portion data files are manufactured into device portions (Barniol, see [0041]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose data corresponding to one or more integrally formed connecting portions to engage with one or more corresponding connecting portions carried by one or more adjacent other device portions.
However, Baran in an analogous art discloses data corresponding to one or more integrally formed connecting portions to engage with one or more corresponding connecting portions carried by one or more adjacent other device portions (Baran, see [0030]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Baran further discloses arranging each said connecting portion carried by a said device portion to affix said device portion with a corresponding connection portion carried by an adjacent device portion when said device portions are assembled together (Baran, see Fig. 1 and [0030]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses securely affix said device portion into permanent engagement (Barniol, see [0041], “welding”). Baran further discloses arranging each said connecting portion carried by a said device portion to affix said device portion into engagement with a corresponding connection portion carried by an adjacent device portion when said device portions are assembled together (Baran, see Fig. 1 and [0030]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses removably affix said device portion with a corresponding connection portion carried by an adjacent device portion (Barniol, see [0041], “mechanical fasteners”). Baran further discloses arranging each said connecting portion carried by a said device portion to affix said device portion with a corresponding connection portion carried by an adjacent device portion when said device portions are assembled together (Baran, see Fig. 1 and [0030]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses determine partitioning of said device data file into said device portion data files (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose utilizing one or more algorithms to determine optimum partitioning of said device.
However, Baran in an analogous art discloses utilizing one or more algorithms to determine optimum partitioning of said device (Baran, see [0043]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses device portion data files (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). Littlefield further discloses said cranial remodeling orthosis device (Littlefield, see Fig. 1 and [0152]-[0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield into the method of Barniol. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to accurately manufacture a cranial remodeling device (Littlefield, see [0009]).
The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose processing said plurality of device portion to include and determine placement of integrally formed connecting portions and corresponding integrally formed connecting portions carried by said plurality of device portions so that said plurality of device portions can be assembled into said device.
However, Baran in an analogous art discloses processing said plurality of device portion to include and determine placement of integrally formed connecting portions and corresponding integrally formed connecting portions carried by said plurality of device portions so that said plurality of device portions can be assembled into said device (Baran, see [0062]-[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses device portion data files (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). Littlefield further discloses said cranial remodeling orthosis device (Littlefield, see Fig. 1 and [0152]-[0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield into the method of Barniol. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to accurately manufacture a cranial remodeling device (Littlefield, see [0009]).
The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose processing said device portion to determine numbers and placements of integrally formed connecting portions and corresponding integrally formed connecting portions carried by said plurality of device portions to assemble said plurality of device portions into said device.
However, Baran in an analogous art discloses processing said device portion to determine numbers and placements of integrally formed connecting portions and corresponding integrally formed connecting portions carried by said plurality of device portions to assemble said plurality of device portions into said device (Baran, see [0017] and [0062]-[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses device portion data files (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose processing said device data to determine an optimum the number of said device portion data.
However, Baran in an analogous art discloses processing said device data to determine an optimum the number of said device portion data (Baran, see [0043]-[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Baran into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensure that the components may be assembled (Baran, see [0015]).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barniol, in view of Littlefield, further in view of US7242798 to Littlefield et al. (hereinafter “Littlefield’798”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses partitioning said corresponding device data file into at least one device portion data file and at least one device portion data file (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose at least one anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion, at least one posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion.
However, Littlefield’798 in an analogous art discloses at least one anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion, at least one posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 9-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield’798 into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide function improvements to the band for both suspension and application of corrective force (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 29-31).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses partitioning said corresponding device data file into at least one device portion data file and at least one device portion data file (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose plurality of anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device data, at least one posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion.
However, Littlefield’798 in an analogous art discloses plurality of anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device data, at least one posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 9-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield’798 into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide function improvements to the band for both suspension and application of corrective force (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 29-31).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses partitioning said corresponding device data file into at least one device portion data file and at least one device portion data file (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose at least one anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device data, a plurality of posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion.
However, Littlefield’798 in an analogous art discloses at least one anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device data, a plurality of posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 9-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield’798 into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide function improvements to the band for both suspension and application of corrective force (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 29-31).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses partitioning said corresponding device data file into at least one device portion data file and at least one device portion data file (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose a plurality of anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device data, a plurality of posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion.
However, Littlefield’798 in an analogous art discloses a plurality of anterior cranial remodeling orthosis device data, a plurality of posterior cranial remodeling orthosis device portion (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 9-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield’798 into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide function improvements to the band for both suspension and application of corrective force (Littlefield’798, see col. 15 lines 29-31).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barniol, in view of Littlefield, further in view of US20150057784 to Butler et al. (hereinafter “Butler”).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses including information in each of said plurality of device portion data files for each corresponding device portion (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). Littlefield further discloses said cranial remodeling orthosis device (Littlefield, see Fig. 1 and [0152]-[0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield into the method of Barniol. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to accurately manufacture a cranial remodeling device (Littlefield, see [0009]).
The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose including identification information in each of said plurality of device portion, said identification information indicating for each said corresponding device portion the position of said corresponding device portion.
However, Butler in an analogous art discloses including identification information in each of said plurality of device portion, said identification information indicating for each said corresponding device portion the position of said corresponding device portion (Butler, see Fig. 2 and [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Butler into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to assist with the assembly operation by adding assembly labels (Butler, see [0074]).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Butler further discloses including said identification information onto each said device portion (Butler, see Fig. 2 and [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Butler into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to assist with the assembly operation by adding assembly labels (Butler, see [0074]).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses including information into each said device portion data file (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose including subject identification information.
However, Butler in an analogous art discloses including subject identification information (Butler, see Fig. 2 and [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Butler into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to assist with the assembly operation by adding assembly labels (Butler, see [0074]).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Butler further discloses manufacturing said subject identification information onto each corresponding said device portion (Butler, see Fig. 2 and [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Butler into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to assist with the assembly operation by adding assembly labels (Butler, see [0074]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barniol, in view of Littlefield, further in view of US20180012311 to Small et al. (hereinafter “Small”).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses including information into each said device portion data file (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose including manufacturing trace information.
However, Small in an analogous art discloses including manufacturing trace information (Small, see abstract and [0087]-[0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Small into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method of securely tracing manufactured parts (Small, see [0055]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barniol, in view of Littlefield, further in view of US20170007367 to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose utilizing powder bed fusion 3D printing for said additive manufacture. However, Li in an analogous art discloses utilizing powder bed fusion 3D printing for said additive manufacture (Li, see [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Small into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to achieve the predictable result of producing strong, fully dense parts by using powder bed fusion 3D printing.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barniol, in view of Littlefield, in view of Small, further in view of US9626608 to Bobbitt, III (hereinafter “Bobbitt”).
As for claim 21, Barniol substantially discloses a method of manufacturing a device, from a device data file, (Barniol, see [0018] and [0021]), said method comprising:
partitioning said device data file into a plurality of device portion data files, each device portion data file corresponding to a device portion of said device (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033] for partitioning 3D model 206 into separate 3D models, each correspond to different portions (220/222) of the 3D model);
including information into each of said device portion data files (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]);
processing said plurality of device portion data files to provide a data file array comprising an array of said device portion data files for manufacture by additive manufacturing apparatus, said array of said device portion data files corresponding to a corresponding array of a plurality of device portions of said cranial remodeling device (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]); and
processing said data file array by additive manufacture apparatus to concurrently manufacture said array of said plurality of device portions, each of said device portions (Barniol, see [0018], [0022] and [0033])
Barniol does not explicitly disclose manufacturing a custom cranial remodeling orthosis device for a corresponding subject.
However, Littlefield in an analogous art discloses manufacturing a custom cranial remodeling orthosis device for a corresponding subject, said custom cranial remodeling orthosis device being represented by a data file (Littlefield, see Fig. 1 and [0152]-[0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Littlefield into the method of Barniol. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to accurately manufacture a cranial remodeling device (Littlefield, see [0009]).
The combination of Barniol and Littlefield does not explicitly disclose generating manufacturing trace information; including said manufacturing trace information into device portion data. However, Small in an analogous art discloses generating manufacturing trace information; including said manufacturing trace information into device portion data (Small, see abstract and [0087]-[0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Small into the above combination of Barniol and Littlefield. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method of securely tracing manufactured parts (Small, see [0055]).
The combination of Barniol, Littlefield and Small does not explicitly disclose device having said manufacturing trace information integrally formed thereon. However, Bobbitt in an analogous art discloses device having said manufacturing trace information integrally formed thereon (Bobbitt, see col. 2 lines 42-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Bobbitt into the above combination of Barniol, Littlefield and Small. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide secure tracing and counterfeiting prevention (Bobbitt, see col. 2 lines 22-24).
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Barniol further discloses generating information into each of said device portion data files, each of said device portion having said information (Barniol, see [0022] and [0033]). Bobbitt further discloses generating subject information, device having said subject information integrally formed thereon (Bobbitt, see col. 2 lines 42-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Bobbitt into the above combination of Barniol, Littlefield and Small. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide secure tracing and counterfeiting prevention (Bobbitt, see col. 2 lines 22-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20190015238 discloses an orthosis (10) for correcting deformities in the head shape of babies and young children comprises a mesh layer (20). The mesh layer (30) comprises regions of varying stiffness in the mesh layer which are adapted to apply varying pressure to a wearer's head, so as to restrict undesirable growth and allow desired growth to correct the deformities. Accordingly, the mesh layer (30) provides a layer of uniform thickness but variable stiffness, so that a lightweight means of applying appropriate pressure to the wearer's head is provided. The mesh layer (30) can be manufactured by 3D printing, based on a scan of the wearer's head.
US20080184489 discloses an infant head positioning device that provides back head support in order to prevent skull deformities, such as positional plagiocephaly, and provides support to the infant's head in other activities where back head support is needed. Generally, the infant head positioning device comprises: (1) a hat member made of soft, flexible, adjustable materials; and (2) one or more cushioning made of soft, pressure relieving materials placed in various positions in the back and sides of the hat member to redistribute and alleviate the pressure on the back of the infant's head. The cushioning pads can be placed either in the inside or outside of the hat member. In a preferred embodiment of the infant head positioning device, the top of the hat member has an open, aerated grid design that allows excess heat to dissipate.
US20120296249 discloses an orthotic helmet and methods for fabrication and use thereof. The orthotic is molded in situ on a growing infant's head for the treatment of plagiocephaly, postsurgical cranial molding, or other desired treatment plans. The helmet makes contact in areas where cranial shape and volume are adequate, and no contact in areas of planned cranial growth. The helmet includes a shell, a bladder system which can be filled with a viscoelastic expandable foam, a fastener and a retaining strap. In the areas of deficient cranial volume, a volume of modeling putty equivalent to the target growth volume is placed against the cranium, manually molded until the planned target volume and form have been attained, and the helmet is molded in place over this spacer material. The spacer is then removed, and the helmet is then worn continuously until resolution of the deformity or attainment of planned form is reached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights