Detailed Action
This is the first office action on the merits for US application number 19/109,011.
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
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs. 4 and 5 show only general regions of white and grey with no discernable structure. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
479
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “path” of claim 1 and the “third indicator structure” of claim 7 that is claimed in addition to the “first indicator structure” of claim 1 but labeled in Figs. 2, 3, and 6 as the same structure, “third x-ray image” of claim 7, “several alignment structures” of claim 8, the coupling device/bone screw of claim 9, the bone screw able to be secured on an end face in a femoral head of claim 9, the “interlocking manner” of claim 10, and the method of claims 12-15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 lines 1-5, the phrases "such as", “in particular”, and “usually” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 lines 1-5 are also unclear with regards to the unusual comma usage and as to where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as,
“A positioning device for an intramedullary nail comprising:
a curved handle …”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “and an alignment sight” in line 7 and what phrase this is intended to be a part of given the unusual comma usage and format of the claim, the usage of indefinite terms like “such as”, the labeling of the ‘curved handle 3’ compared to the ‘curved handle arm 9’, and the disclosure of page 18 lines 20-31 that reads as though the ‘curved handle’ equates to the barely mentioned ‘positioning device’. Examiners best guess is that Applicant may be intending to claim that the positioning device comprises a curved handle arm, a target guide, a connection element, and an alignment sight that each have various claimed features. Examiner is interpreting lines 4-7 as referring to, and suggests amending as, “
a curved handle arm, [[with]]
a target guideing a target aperture and a target axis,
a connection element to releasably connect the intramedullary nail to the curved handle arm, and
an alignment sighting a first indicator structure…”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “a first indicator structure in order to display a path of the target axis with the first indicator structure in a second X-ray image of the alignment sight along a target line of sight located in a first alignment plane formed by the target axis and the first indicator structure” in lines 7-10 and the intended scope of “in order to”, a “path” of an axis and how an axis can be reasonably construed to travel in order to have or need a “path”, a second x-ray image when there has been no first x-ray image recited, the repetition of ‘indicator structure’ and ‘alignment sight’, ‘a target light of sight’ that appears to refer to neither the ‘target guide’ nor the ‘alignment sight’ despite the similarity of terms, and what is overall a very long run-on phrase that appears to provide functionality of function regarding the function of a structure that is merely claimed as “structure”; thus this limitation is either so broad as to have nearly no meaning or its meaning is unclear. Further, it is unclear if there is support in the original disclosure for the first indicator structure being aligned with the target axis or representing the target axis or the like. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “a first indicator structure
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “wherein the alignment sight (7) comprises a second indicator structure (12) adapted to indicate an orthogonal tilting of the line of sight (S 1) from the first alignment plane along a line of sight (Sl) deviating from the target line of sight (S2) in a first X-ray image of the alignment sight (7), to permit an adjustment of the line of sight (S 1) to the target line of sight (S2),” in lines 11-15 and what appears to be further functions of the unclear functionality of the functions of lines 8-11. Examiners best guess is that Applicant may be intending to claim that the alignment sight comprises a first indicator structure and a second indicator structure that each provide a function and that their function is interrelated; however, what is supported by the original disclosure is unclear. Examiner is interpreting lines 7-15 as referring to, and suggests amending as, “an alignment sight comprising a first indicator structure and a second indicator structure
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “wherein the second indicator structure is formed with a plurality of gap delimiting walls such that the gap delimiting walls form two tilt indicator gaps spaced apart from one another in the first X-ray image of the alignment sight,” in lines 15-17 and the intended structure of “second indicator structure” “formed with” walls and gaps and thus what is formed by said walls and gaps or is the second indictor structure instead the walls and gaps or how a gap can be reasonably defined/claimed without providing the structure that defines it, i.e. how one can reasonably claim an absence of structure based on unclaimed structural features. This is further unclear when viewed in Figs. 2 and 3 in which the second indicator structure is labeled as 12, 14 and points at two gaps and no walls which are not labeled in the view of Fig. 6 in order to clarify the intended structure, where Fig. 6 further comprises first gap delimiting walls 15 and second gap delimiting walls 16 . Examiner notes that after considerable time spent attempting to provide a reasonable interpretation of claim 1 lines 7-18, Examiner has been unable to determine a clear meaning of many of the limitations as detailed above. Further, where such is shown is also unclear. Thus, Examiner suggests amending to clarify. In the interest of performing compact prosecution and in light of Applicant’s disclosed device with a particular emphasis on the features clearly shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6 that appear to be intended to be broadly claimed, Examiner is interpreting this as referring to “
an alignment sight comprising a recess,, and two tilt indicator gaps spaced apart from one another; wherein the two tilt indicator gaps are configured to be viewed in [[the]]a first X-ray image of the alignment sight to enable determination of a direction of [[the]] orthogonal tilting relative gap widths of the two tilt indicator gaps.”.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-15 is/are unclear with regards to the above detailed clarity issues for claim 1 as well as many of the same difficulties. Thus, Examiner suggests amending throughout for clarity so that the claimed limitations can be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and will attempt to note any different appearing clarity issues herein individually. Examiner has attempted to address the apparent scope of each in the below rejections.
Claim(s) 5 is/are unclear with regards to “downstream” as there is no flow of anything claimed, “wall pairs” and antecedent basis and the number of walls claimed relative to the number supported in, e.g. Fig. 6. Claim(s) 5 is/are further unclear with regards to a wall being parallel to the first plane and orthogonal to the first plane when the walls are clearly not shown to be orthogonal in Fig. 6 and it is unclear how a structure can be both parallel and orthogonal when the ordinary definitions of parallel and orthogonal are considered. Further, such is unclear with regards to “the respective tilt indicator gap” and to which of the gaps of claim 1 such is intended to refer as well as antecedence for multiple wall pairs. Finally, such is unclear as to how a gap can have a change in gap width for the disclosed structure of Figs. 2, 3, and 6 what do not appear to have adjustable walls in order for the gap width to change. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the two tilt indicator gaps are oriented to be configured to show different imaged gap widths in an x-ray image depending on an orthogonal tilt
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 6 is also unclear as to the meaning of “adapted such that” and the intended scope of a structure being ‘adapted such that (the structure)…is arranged between’ another structure. Further, claim 6 is unclear as to the meaning of “preferably implemented” in a product claim and how a recess could be reasonably construed to be implemented/formed with an incision for the ordinary meaning and usage of “incision” relative to the shown structure designated as first indicator structure 11. Finally, given the clarity issues noted for claim 8 and above for claim 1, Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the alignment sight recess is arranged between the two tilt indicator gaps
Claim(s) 7 is/are unclear with regards to a third indicator structure that differs from the first indicator structure as such have been disclosed by Applicant to refer to elements 13 and 11, which Figs. 2, 3, and 6 show to be the same line, i.e. structural feature. Further, the functional language appears to merely claim that another x-ray image can be taken at another angle in order to achieve desired alignment, which does not appear to be further limiting the claimed structures as there appears to be no reasonable interpretation of the limitations that would lead one to think that such is limited to being able to be imaged only 1-2 times and yet be securable within bone. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 8 is/are unclear with regards to support for the “several alignment structures” and the intended structure that such refers to in the original disclosure. It appears that this is intended to claim a structure that is a discernably spaced in a different direction than those of claim 1 in order to permit identification of tilt/alignment in a direction perpendicular to that of claim 1. Examiner suggests identifying support in the original disclosure and, as a product is claimed, amending to claim the structure of the product, e.g. ‘the alignment sight further comprises (whatever structure is disclosed); wherein the plurality of walls are spaced from one another in a first direction, wherein the (whatever structure is disclosed) are spaced in a second direction, wherein the first and second direction are substantially orthogonal’ or the like. Examiner is interpreting this consistent with this suggestion.
Claim(s) 9 is/are unclear with regards to the same issues identified in the preceding claims as well has how a bore can be reasonably construed to ‘project’ from a structure as well as support for a screw capable of securing to an end face of a femoral head. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “
A positioning system for positioning and/or securing an intramedullary nail in a comprising:[[has]]
the[[a]] positioning device of claim 1, and
an intramedullary nail that can be introduced into an intramedullary canal of the bone, wherein the intramedullary nail has a bore extending transversely in relation to a longitudinal axis of the intramedullary nail to accommodate a the system configured to introduce the bone screw into the bore such that the bone screw projects beyond the bore on bone screw can be secured on [[the]]a bone surface
Claim(s) 10 is/are unclear with regards to similar limitations and wording as detailed for the preceding claims. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending to read “the target guide comprises a guide device and a drill device guide, wherein the drill device guide comprises a drill device canal for guiding the bone drill device, wherein the drill device guide can be releasably connected to the guide device in an interlocking manner such that the drill device guide can be guided displaceably along the target axis relative to the guide device to guide the drill device canal to a bone surface of the bone or to the intramedullary nail when the intramedullary nail is introduced into the bone”.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are unclear with regards to method claims that include no method steps as well as similar clarity issues to those detailed above. Examiner is interpreting this as being a method of providing the system of claims 9-11 and suggests amending to clarify.
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 of this title, 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) 1, 2, 5-9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau (US 2009/0209851) in view of Prien et al. (US 2022/0296284, hereinafter “Prien”).
As to claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12-15, Blau discloses a positioning device (device shown in Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) capable of positioning and/or securing an intramedullary nail (1654, Fig. 16A) capable of treating a fracture of a proximal femur (Fig. 16A, ¶94), the positioning device comprising: a curved handle arm (see illustration of Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A), a target guide (see illustration of Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) capable of guiding a bone drill device (Fig. 16F), the target guide defining a target aperture (see illustration of Fig. 16A, Figs. 16A and 16D, ¶97) and a target axis (along the target aperture, e.g. along the k-wire 1687 shown in Fig. 16D, Figs. 16A and 16D, ¶97), a connection element (see illustration of Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) capable of connecting the intramedullary nail to the curved handle arm (¶94 discloses attachment to the nail as shown in Fig. 16A) in a manner that appears to be releasable (Fig. 16H shows the intramedullary nail secured within the bone with a screw inserted therethrough as described in at least ¶98 where there appears to be no reason to keep the insertion tool/positioning connected to the implanted nail post-operatively), and an alignment sight (1660) comprising a plurality of walls (shown on each side of each opening in Fig. 16A; where the openings are labeled as such in the see illustration of Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A), and two tilt indicator gaps (across each opening; where the openings are labeled as such in the illustration of Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) spaced apart from one another (Fig. 16A); wherein the two tilt indicator gaps are capable of being viewed in a first X-ray image of the alignment sight (Figs. 16B and 16C, ¶s 94-96) capable of enabling determination of a direction of orthogonal tilting (Fig. 16C) by comparing relative gap widths of the two tilt indicator gaps (Fig. 16C, ¶s 94 and 96). As to claim 2, Blau discloses the alignment sight is formed with at least one elevation and/or at least one depression (openings are labeled as such in the illustration of Fig. 16A, which would cause a change in elevation relative to the surfaces of the walls shown on the right-facing surface of 1660 in Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) in order to form a structure that can be identified in an X-ray image (Fig. 16A, ¶s 94 and 96). As to claim 5, Blau discloses that the two tilt indicator gaps are oriented to be capable of showing different imaged gap widths in an x-ray image depending on an orthogonal tilt (due to the offset/spacing between the openings as shown generally vertical in Fig. 16A, such will show as having a different imaged gap size depending on the axis the device is tilted about and the angle of the x-ray, Fig. 16A). As to claim 7, Blau discloses that the alignment sight comprises a third indicator structure (generally horizonal ends of the openings as shown in Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) capable of indicating in a third X-ray image of the alignment sight (in as much as Applicant’s, Fig. 16A) an orthogonal tilting from a second alignment plane which is aligned at right angles to the first alignment plane (in as much as Applicant’s, Fig. 16A) in order to align the third X-ray image with the second alignment plane (in as much as Applicant’s, Fig. 16A). As to claim 8, Blau discloses that the alignment sight further comprises several alignment structures/edges (generally horizonal ends of the openings as shown in Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) arranged one behind the other in a direction parallel to a target line of sight (Fig. 16A) such that a defined alignment or superimposition of the alignment structures/edges indicates an arrangement of the line of sight of the third X-ray image within the second alignment plane (in as much as Applicant’s, Fig. 16A); wherein the plurality of walls are spaced from one another in a first direction (Fig. 16A), wherein the alignment structures/edges are spaced in a second direction (Fig. 16A), wherein the first and second direction are substantially orthogonal (as defined, Fig. 16A). As to claim 9, Blau discloses a positioning system (Figs. 16A-16H) capable of positioning and/or securing an intramedullary nail (1654, Fig. 16A) in a proximal femur (Fig. 16A) to treat a fracture of a proximal femur (Fig. 16A, ¶94), the positioning system comprising: the positioning device of claim 1 (as detailed herein), and an intramedullary nail (1654) that can be introduced into an intramedullary canal of the bone (Fig. 16A), wherein the intramedullary nail has a bore (see illustration of Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) extending transversely in relation to a longitudinal axis of the intramedullary nail (Figs. 16A and 16E-16H) capable of accommodating a bone screw (Fig. 16H, ¶98), the system capable of introducing the bone screw into the bore such that the bone screw projects beyond the bore on both sides (Fig. 16H), wherein the bone screw can be secured on a bone surface (Fig. 16H, ¶98). As to claim 12, Blau discloses providing the system as detailed herein (Figs. 16A-16H). As to claim 13, Blau discloses a bone drill device (Figs. 16E and 16F, ¶s 97 and 98) comprising a K-wire (Fig. 16E, ¶97) guided along the target axis into the bone using the target guide of the curved handle (Figs. 16E and 16F, ¶s 97 and 98), wherein the line of sight is adjusted on the basis of the second indicator structure before the bone drill device is visible in the first X-ray image for a comparison with the first indicator structure (Figs. 16A-16C, ¶s 94-96). As to claim 14, Blau discloses that the intramedullary comprises a bore (see illustration of Fig. 16A, Fig. 16A) extending transversely in relation to a longitudinal axis of the intramedullary nail (Figs. 16E-16H) capable of accommodating a bone screw (Fig 16H, ¶98), wherein the bone drill device/the K-wire is guided with the target guide through the bore along the target axis (Figs. 16E and 16F, ¶s 97 and 98). As to claim 15, Blau discloses a bone drill device comprising a K-wire (Figs. 16E and 16F, ¶s 97 and 98), wherein the bone drill device has a diameter smaller than the a bone screw (Figs. 16E-16H, ¶s 97 and 98), is guided along the target axis through the bore in a first step (Figs. 16E-16H, ¶s 97 and 98), after which a bone bore canal is introduced into the bone along the target axis with a bone drill (Figs. 16E-16H, ¶s 97 and 98), wherein the target wire acts as a guide (Figs. 16E-16H, ¶s 97 and 98), after which the coupling device is introduced into the bore via the bone bore canal (Figs. 16E-16H, ¶s 97 and 98).
Blau is silent to an express disclosure of the connection element being capable of releasing the intramedullary nail and the curved handle arm. Further, Blau is silent to the alignment sight comprising a recess. As to claim 6, Blau is silent to the alignment sight recess is arranged between the two tilt indicator gaps.
Prien teaches a similar positioning device (Figs. 1A-3A and 8, ¶51) capable of positioning and/or securing an intramedullary nail (108, Fig. 1B) capable of treating a bone fracture (¶4), the positioning device comprising: a curved handle arm (104, 106), a target guide (210) capable of guiding a bone drill device (Figs. 1A and 1B, ¶s 30, 33, and 35), the target guide defining a target aperture (Figs. 2 and 3A) and a target axis (along the target aperture, e.g. along 112A and 112B as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B, Figs. 1A and 1B), a connection element (114, 122) capable of releasably connecting the intramedullary nail to the curved handle arm (Fig. 1B, ¶s 37, 57, and 64; where ¶s 37 and 57 discloses that 122 in a bolt threadably connected to the nail, ¶64 discloses decoupling the device from the nail by removing bolt 122), and an alignment sight (800) comprising a recess (804, 806, see illustration of Fig. 8, Fig. 8, ¶51), a plurality of walls (see illustration of Fig. 8, Fig. 8), and two tilt indicator gaps (across each recess and across each opening; where the openings are labeled as such in the see illustration of Fig. 8, Fig. 8) spaced apart from one another (Fig. 8). As to claim 5, Prien teaches that the two tilt indicator gaps are oriented to be capable of showing different imaged gap widths in an x-ray image depending on an orthogonal tilt (due to the offset/spacing between the openings as shown generally horizontal in Fig. 8, such will show as having a different imaged gap size depending on the axis the device is tilted about and the angle of the x-ray, Fig. 8). As to claim 6, Prien teaches that the alignment sight recess is arranged between the two tilt indicator gaps (Fig. 8 shows that there are recesses between gaps due to the number of recesses and walls provided, Fig. 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to expressly specify that the connection element as disclosed by Blau is removable as taught by Prien in order to predictably couple the handle arm to the nail (Prien ¶s 37 and 57) while permitting selected removal of the device from the installed nail (Prien ¶64). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the alignment sight as disclosed by Blau by adding recesses as taught by Prien in order to permit k-wires to be snapped into surgeon selected recesses to best assess the equidistant alignment between the k-wire and an installed nail on a fluoroscopy image (Prien ¶51), e.g. for a particular target axis of a particular target aperture (Blau Fig. 16A; Prien Fig. 3A).
PNG
media_image3.png
766
1053
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
695
909
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau and Prien in view of Watanabe et al. (WO 2007/109302, hereinafter “Watanabe”).
As to claim 10, the combination of Blau and Prien discloses the invention of claim 9 as well as the target guide comprises a guide device (Fig. 16A).
The combination of Blau and Prien is silent to a drill device guide, wherein the drill device guide comprises a drill device canal for guiding the bone drill device, wherein the drill device guide can be releasably connected to the guide device in an interlocking manner such that the drill device guide can be guided displaceably along the target axis relative to the guide device to guide the drill device canal to a bone surface of the bone or to the intramedullary nail when the intramedullary nail is introduced into the bone. As to claim 11, the combination of Blau and Prien is silent to the target guide comprises a tissue protection jacket that can be moved relative to the guide device in order to at least partially envelop the drill device guide in a deployed position, wherein the drill device guide is guided in the direction of bone or intramedullary nail in order to separate the drill device guide from a body part tissue surrounding the bone.
Watanabe teaches a similar positioning device (device of Figs. 50-53, Figs. 50-53) capable of positioning and/or securing a bone implant (2002. Figs 45-60, ¶142), positioning device comprising: a curved handle arm (2030), a target guide (2034) capable of guiding a bone drill device (¶158), the target guide defining a target aperture (2036, Fig. 50, ¶155) and a target axis (along the aperture, Fig. 50), a connection element (Fig. 50) capable of connecting the bone implant to the curved handle arm (Fig. 50), wherein the target guide comprises a guide device (Fig. 50) and a drill device guide (2048), wherein the drill device guide comprises a drill device canal (Fig. 53, ¶158) capable of guiding the bone drill device (¶158), wherein the drill device guide can be releasably connected to the guide device in an interlocking manner such that the drill device guide can be guided displaceably along the target axis relative to the guide device (Fig. 53, ¶158) capable of guiding the drill device canal to a bone surface of the bone or to the bone implant when the bone implant is introduced into the bone (Fig. 53, ¶158). As to claim 11, the Watanabe teaches that the target guide comprises a tissue protection jacket (2044, 2042, 2038) that can be moved relative to the guide device in order to at least partially envelop the drill device guide in a deployed position (Fig. 50, ¶155), wherein the drill device guide is guided in the direction of bone or intramedullary nail (Figs. 50-53, ¶s 155-158) in order to separate the drill device guide from a body part tissue surrounding the bone (Figs. 50-53, ¶s 155-158).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the system as disclosed by the combination of Blau and Prien by adding a drill device guide and a tissue protection jacket as taught by Watanabe in order to guide insertion of a guide pin (Blau Fig. 16E, ¶97; Watanabe ¶157) and a drill (Blau Fig. 16F; Watanabe ¶158) that will prepare a cavity in the bone (Watanabe ¶158).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 6-4.
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 or telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on (571)272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights