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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the word “material” should be deleted since each further instance of this limitation throughout the claims recites “donor bone”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 5, the word --is-- should be added before the word “configured”. Furthermore, Lines 6-7 should be amended as follows: “and is configured to be cut along to at least partially define Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the word “material” should be deleted since each further instance of this limitation throughout the claims recites “donor bone”. Furthermore, Lines 14-18 should be amended as follows: “wherein [[when]] the first and second gripping surfaces are configured to hold the donor bone fixed relative to the frame and the guide [[is]] fixed relative to the donor bone, such that the guide is entirely separate from the frame, a portion of the donor bone separates an entirety of the frame from an entirety of the guide, and the donor bone remains stable while cuts are made along the first guide surface and the second guide surface.” 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 3, 7-9 & 20 is 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 3 at Line 1-2 recites “wherein the side plate includes a bone-facing surface with a side plate central protrusion thereon,” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the recited “bone-facing surface” is the same as the bone-facing surface previously recited in Claim 1 at Lines 6-7, or in addition to/different from. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the bone-facing surface of the side plate comprises a side plate central protrusion thereon,”.
Claim 7 at Line 3 recites “configured to accept a cutting tool for cutting an allograft”, at Line 5 recites “configured to accept a cutting tool for cutting an allograft” and Line 7 recites “the allograft”. Firstly, it is unclear if the allograft of Line 5 is the same or in addition to the allograft of Line 3. Secondly, it is unclear if the allograft of Line 7 is the allograft of Line 3 or Line 5 or if the three instances of “the allograft” are all reciting the same allograft. Lastly, it is unclear if the recited “allograft” is the same as the “donor bone” previously recited in Claim 1, or if the guide is used on an allograft as well. For purposes of examination, Lines 3, 5 & 7 are being interpreted as “configured to accept a cutting tool for cutting an allograft from the donor bone”, at Line 5 recites “configured to accept [[a]] the cutting tool for cutting [[an]] the allograft from the donor bone” and Line 7 recites “the allograft from the donor bone”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 at Lines 2-4 recites the limitation “and the second guide surface defines part of a first side plate slit in between the opposing outer side surfaces, the side plate further comprising a second side plate slit” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the recited “first side plate slit” and “second side plate slit” are the same as the ones previously recited in newly amended Claim 1, or in addition thereto. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as follows: “wherein the side plate includes opposing outer side surfaces extending from the end plate to a free end of the side plate, wherein the first side plate slit is in between the opposing outer side surfaces,
Claim 20 at Line 1 recites “donor bone material”, at Lines 7, 8, 15, 16, & 17 recites the term “the donor bone”, and at Line 8 recites the term “a donor bone” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the various recitations of donor bone are all the same as the “donor bone material” of Line 1, different donor bones, or a combination thereof. For purposes of examination, Line 1 is being interpreted as “donor bone”, and each instance thereafter is being interpreted as “the donor bone”. It is suggested that the claim be amended as such or so that all instances recite similar terminology for clarity purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitations of Claim 7 are previously recited verbatim in newly amended Claim 1, and thus Claim 7 fails to further limit Claim 1 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9 & 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lionberger et al. (US PG Pub No. 2004/0260301).
Regarding Claims 1 & 5, Lionberger et al. discloses a guide (10, Figs. 1-11, Paragraphs [0023-0037]) comprising: an end plate (upper horizontal/anterior block portion 11, Figs. 1 & 4, Paragraph [0023]) having an outer surface (exterior surface of 11, Figs. 3-4) and a bone-facing surface (interior/bone adjacent surface of 11, Figs. 3-4) opposite the outer surface, the end plate including a first guide surface (opening in 11 defining slot 20, Figs. 1 & 5), wherein the first guide surface defines part of a first end plate slit (slot 20) passing through the outer and bone-facing surfaces of the end plate (Fig. 5); and a side plate (lower vertical/distal block portion 12, Figs. 1-2 & 4, Paragraph [0023]) extending at an angle from the end plate (Fig. 1) and having an outer surface (exterior surface of 12, Fig. 2) and a bone-facing surface (interior/bone adjacent surface of 12, Fig. 4) opposite the outer surface, the side plate including a second guide surface (opening in 12 defining 25, Figs. 1-2 & 5), wherein the second guide surface defines part of a first side plate slit (See examiner annotated Fig. 2 below) passing through the outer and bone-facing surfaces of the side plate and having a length extending along a direction orthogonal to the end plate, the side plate further comprising a second side plate slit (See examiner annotated Fig. 2 below) passing through the outer and bone-facing surfaces of the side plate and having a length extending along a direction orthogonal to the length direction of the first side plate slit.
PNG
media_image1.png
752
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the end plate and the side plate are formed together monolithically (Figs. 1 & 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Lionberger et al. discloses a second end plate slit (slot 21, Figs. 1 & 5) spaced apart from the first end plate slit, the second end plate slit passing through the outer and bone-facing surfaces of the end plate (Paragraphs [0024-0026]) and defining a cutting plane at an angle relative to a cutting plane of the first end plate slit (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7 as best understood, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the second guide surface is a portion of an outer side surface of the side plate (See examiner annotated Fig. 1 above), such that the first and second end plate slits are capable of accepting a cutting tool (surgical saw, Paragraph [0024]) for cutting an allograft of the donor bone and defining a thickness dimension of the allograft of the donor bone, a side plate slit of the side plate (horizontal slot 22 in 12, Figs. 1-2 & 5) is capable of accepting the cutting tool for cutting the allograft of the donor bone and defining a height dimension of the allograft of the donor bone, and the outer side surface is capable of being cut along to at least partially define a width dimension of the allograft of the donor bone (With respect to the functional language above, the slots and exterior surfaces of the guide 10 are fully capable of accepting and guiding the surgical saw to cut a height, width, and thickness of an allograft as recited.).
Regarding Claims 8-9 as best understood, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the side plate (12) includes opposing outer side surfaces (left and right lateral side surfaces 13 & 14) extending from the end plate to a free end of the side plate (lower-most horizontal end surface of 12, Fig. 2), wherein the first side plate slit is in between the opposing outer side surfaces (Fig. 1), such that a cutting plane of the second side plate slit is orthogonal to a cutting plane of the first side plate slit (See examiner annotated Fig. 1 above), and wherein the end plate defines an opening (aperture 32 through left fixation lug 30 in 11, Figs. 1 & 5) configured to receive a first bone anchor (stabilizing pin 40, Figs. 1-2) and the side plate defines an opening (each aperture 32 through left fixation lug 31 in 12, Figs. 1 & 5) configured to receive a second bone anchor (stabilizing pin 40, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the side plate includes opposing outer side surfaces (left lateral side surface 13 and right lateral side surface 14, Fig. 2) extending from the end plate to a free end of the side plate (lower-most horizontal end surface of 12, Fig. 2), and the second guide surface defines part of a side plate slit in between the opposing outer side surfaces (See “first side plate slit” in examiner annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the second guide surface is an outer side surface of the side plate (See examiner annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the side plate is a first side plate and the guide further comprises a second side plate (angled central plate portion extending between 11 & 12, See examiner annotated Fig. 1 above) extending from the end plate and from the first side plate (Figs. 3-5), the second side plate being oriented at an angle relative to the end plate and the first side plate (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the end plate and the side plate are capable of being attached directly to a donor bone (via stabilizing pins 40 through fixation lugs 30 in 11 and fixation lugs 31 in 12, Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lionberger et al. discloses wherein the guide defines openings (apertures 32 in fixation lugs 30 in 11 and apertures 32 in fixation lugs 31 in 12) each configured to receive a pin (stabilizing pins 40, Figs. 1-3) to fix the guide to a donor bone (Paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdelgany et al. (US PG Pub No. 2002/0082604).
Regarding Claim 16, Abdelgany et al. discloses a method of retrieving an allograft for implantation in a patient (Paragraph [0041-0044]) comprising: securing a cutting guide (guide 10, Figs. 1-4) to a donor bone (donor tibia 18, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0041]) such that an end plate (22, Fig. 1) of the cutting guide faces an end surface of the donor bone (See examiner annotated Fig. 2 below) and a side plate (24, Fig. 1) of the cutting guide that extends from the end plate (via 12, Paragraphs [0031-0032]) faces a side surface of the donor bone, the side plate extending at an angle from a side of the end plate (side of 22 with hinge 30/32/28, which connects side plate 24 to end plate 22 at an angle, Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0032, 0031]) (See examiner annotated Fig. 2 below); forming a first bone cut through the end surface of the donor bone (through cutting guide 14c, Figs. 2 & 7C, Paragraphs [0034-0035]) using a cutting tool (cutting device such as sagittal saw, Paragraph [0042]) positioned along a first guide surface (right-most vertical slot formed through 14c as seen in examiner annotated Fig. 7C below) of the end plate (Paragraph [0033]); forming a second bone cut through the side surface of the donor bone using the cutting tool positioned along a second guide surface of the side plate (top left-most angled slot formed through 14c as seen in examiner annotated Fig. 7C below) (Paragraph [0042]); and forming a third bone cut through the donor bone, the third bone cut being at an angle relative to each of the first and second bone cuts (Paragraph [0042]), wherein a portion of the donor bone defined by the first, second and third bone cuts encompasses a bone segment to be implanted into a joint of the patient (Figs. 5-6, “As one example, the resulting bone graft may appear as shown in FIG. 6, having a roughened surface 40. As mentioned above, the present invention provides the flexibility of providing a wide variety of bone graft shapes, including, but not limited to, grafts that are straight, wedge-shaped, and elliptically shaped.”, Paragraph [0044]).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
967
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
643
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Abdelgany et al. discloses forming a fourth bone cut through the end surface of the donor bone using the cutting tool (Paragraph [0042]) positioned through a plate slit in the end plate (opening 20 formed through 22 where cutting guide 14c is inserted, Fig. 1, “One example of various ways in which the cutting guide 14 can be detachably mounted to the main body 12 is to provide a cutting guide-receiving structure 20 associated with the main body 12, as shown in FIGS. 1-3. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the cutting guide-receiving structure 20 may be an opening or nesting structure and the cutting guide 14 may be in the form of an insert sized to fit within the opening or nesting structure.”, Paragraph [0034]) (See examiner annotated Fig. 7C above).
Regarding Claim 18, Abdelgany et al. discloses forming a fourth bone cut through the side surface of the donor bone using the cutting tool (Paragraph [0042]) positioned through a plate slit in the side plate (See examiner annotated Fig. 7C above) (opening 20 formed through 24 where cutting guide 14c is inserted, Fig. 1, “One example of various ways in which the cutting guide 14 can be detachably mounted to the main body 12 is to provide a cutting guide-receiving structure 20 associated with the main body 12, as shown in FIGS. 1-3. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the cutting guide-receiving structure 20 may be an opening or nesting structure and the cutting guide 14 may be in the form of an insert sized to fit within the opening or nesting structure.”, Paragraph [0034]) (See examiner annotated Fig. 7C above).
Regarding Claim 19, Abdelgany et al. discloses wherein the first guide surface (right-most vertical slot formed through 14c) defines part of a plate slit in the end plate (when 14c is inserted into the opening 20 formed through 22, Figs. 1 & 7c) and forming the first bone cut includes using the cutting tool positioned through the plate slit (Paragraph [0042]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lionberger et al. (US PG Pub No. 2004/0260301) in view of Luckman (US Patent No. 4,926,847).
Regarding Claims 2 & 3 as best understood, Lionberger et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the guide includes a protrusion (stabilizing peg) that is capable of being positioned within a first trough (notch) on an end surface of a donor bone (“For a posterior cruciate sacrificing surgical procedure utilizing a tibia stabilizing peg (not shown), wherein the peg penetrates the notch of the femur for stability, an additional recess or cavity may be required to be drilled, sawed, or milled into the distal femur to accommodate the stabilizing peg.”, Paragraph [0054]).
Lionberger et al. does not disclose that the protrusion is a central protrusion on the bone-facing surface of the end plate, and wherein the side plate bone-facing surface has a side plate central protrusion thereon, the side plate central protrusion being aligned with and offset from opposing outer side surfaces of the side plate and being sized to be positionable within a second trough on a side surface of the donor bone when the end plate central protrusion of the end plate is positioned within the first trough on the end surface of the donor bone. Lionberger et al. does disclose various apertures (26, Fig. 2; and 32, Fig. 5) and lugs (30 & 31, Fig. 2) on both the end plate (11) and the side plate (12) for accepting stabilizing pins (41 & 40, Fig. 1) for aligning and securing the guide to the bone (Paragraph [0030]).
Luckman discloses a surgical cutting block (12, Figs. 1 & 5, Abstract) configured to be removably secured to a bone for making cuts to the bone (Col. 3, Line 32- Col. 6, Line 6), wherein the block comprises spikes (38 & 38) secured to a central portion of a body (31) of the block (Col. 4, Lines 17-34) and configured to be driven into the bone to help position the block in the proper position (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bone-facing surface of the end plate of Lionberger et al. to add two spikes secured to the central portion thereof, and modify the side plate to replace the pin apertures therethrough with two spikes secured to the bone-facing surface thereof as taught by Luckman in order to provide the guide with a means for initially securing the end plate and side plate in a desired position on the bone prior to insertion of the stabilization pins and cutting the bone.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lionberger et al. (US PG Pub No. 2004/0260301) in view of Bonutti (US PG Pub No. 2003/0028196).
Regarding Claim 10, Lionberger et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in Claim 1, except wherein the first guide surface is an outer side surface of the end plate. The opening in 11 defining slot 20 extends between the left and right side lateral surfaces 13 & 14 but not entirely therebetween as seen in Figs. 1 & 5.
Bonutti discloses various embodiments of cutting guides configured to be placed on a bone to make cuts thereon, wherein one particular cutting guide (500, Fig. 38) comprises a guide surface defining a horizontal cutting slot (540) which extends between an exterior surface and an interior bone-facing surface of the guide and between left and right side lateral surfaces of the guide such that the slot continues along the right outer side surface of the guide and defining an open ended slot (Paragraph [0342]). Bonutti teaches that “The open end 542 of the slot 540 facilitates movement of the saw blade 170 along the slot and angling of the saw blade relative to the slot to maximize the extent of the initial portion of the tibial cut. Thus, the extent of the tibial cut formed during movement of the saw blade along the guide surface 530 on the tibial resection guide 500 is maximized by forming the slot 540 with the open end 542 so that the saw blade can be angled at the open end 542 of the slot.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first guide surface defining the slot 20 in the endplate of Lionberger et al. to extend through the right outer side surface of the endplate such that the slot is open ended as taught by Bonutti in order to allow a cutting tool to be angled as needed at the open end of the slot based on the desired cuts needed on the bone.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litwak et al. (US Patent No. 5,092,572) in view of Shim (US Patent No. 8,800,158).
Regarding Claim 20 as best understood, Litwak et al. discloses a system for retrieving donor bone for implantation in a patient (Col. 2, Line 46- Col. 4, Line 45), the system comprising: a frame (allograft vise, Figs. 1-4) comprising: a first member (stationary vise plate 8, Fig. 1) including a first gripping surface (face portion 6); and a second member (moveable vise plate 2, Fig. 1) movably coupled to the first member (Col. 2, Lines 46-55), the second member including a second gripping surface (face portion 4), wherein the first member and the second member are configured to clamp the donor bone (Abstract).
Litwak et al. does not disclose the system further comprising a guide configured for attachment to the donor bone while the donor bone is held fixed by the first and second gripping surfaces, the guide comprising: an end plate having an outer surface and a bone-facing surface opposite the outer surface, the end plate including a first guide surface; and a side plate extending at an angle from the end plate, the side plate including a second guide surface, wherein the first and second gripping surfaces are configured to hold the donor bone fixed relative to the frame and the guide fixed relative to the donor bone, such that the guide is entirely separate from the frame, a portion of the donor bone separates an entirety of the frame from an entirety of the guide, and the donor bone remains stable while cuts are made along the first guide surface and the second guide surface. It is noted that the frame of Likwak et al. is fully capable of holding the donor bone by the first and second gripping surfaces to keep the donor bone stable while cuts are made through a guide.
Shim discloses an allograft cut guide (10, Figs. 1-7, Col. 6, Line 43 – Col. 11, Line 39) capable of being attached to a donor bone (Abstract), comprising: an end plate (18, Fig. 1-2) having an outer surface (exterior upper slotted surface of 18) and a bone-facing surface (interior, bone-adjacent surface of 18, not depicted in Figs. 1-2, See 106 & 108 in Fig. 7) opposite the outer surface, the end plate including a first guide surface (20A, Fig. 1-2); and a side plate (14/12, Figs. 1-2) extending at an angle from the end plate, the side plate including a second guide surface (20a’, Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Litwak et al. to add a allograft cut guide as taught by Shim which is configured to be attached to the donor bone while held by the first and second gripping surfaces of the vise such that the guide is entirely separate from the frame, a portion of the donor bone separates an entirety of the frame from an entirety of the guide, and the donor bone remains stable while cuts are made along the first guide surface and the second guide surface, in order to allow the allograft to be cut and shaped as desired based on the surgeon’s preference and/or a particular patient’s needs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/26/26, have overcome the 112(b) rejections for claims 7 & 20.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/26, with respect to the Lionberger rejection of claims 1, 4-7 & 11-15: The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, using a new interpretation of Lionberger, based on the newly amended claims. Lionberger et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above and the argument as presented is not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/26, with respect to the Abdelgany et al. rejection of claims 16-19: The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As seen in the office action above, Abdelgany et al. discloses a method of retrieving an allograft for implantation in a patient (Paragraph [0041-0044]) comprising: securing a cutting guide (guide 10, Figs. 1-4) to a donor bone (donor tibia 18, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0041]) such that an end plate (22, Fig. 1) of the cutting guide faces an end surface of the donor bone (See examiner annotated Fig. 2 below) and a side plate (24, Fig. 1) of the cutting guide that extends from the end plate (via 12, Paragraphs [0031-0032]) faces a side surface of the donor bone, the side plate extending at an angle from a side of the end plate (side of 22 with hinge 30/32/28, which connects side plate 24 to end plate 22 at an angle, Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0032, 0031]) (See examiner annotated Fig. 2 below). Thus, Abdelgany et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated in the newly amended claims and the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/26, with respect to the Steiner et al. rejection of claim 20: The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on the newly amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JESSICA WEISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN T. TRUONG, 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 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.
/JESSICA WEISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights