DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 19/115,502 filed March 26, 2025, which is a national stage entry of PCT/CA2023/051395 filed October 20, 2023 and claims priority from provisional application 63/417,738 filed October 20, 2022. Claims 1-20, as presented in the preliminary amendments filed March 2, 2026, are currently pending.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) and receipt of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 17-19 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 17 recites the limitation “the torso brace”; however, claim 15 would only provide sufficient antecedent basis for the torso brace if the skeletal distraction device is a vertebral distraction device and the first brace is a torso brace. Since claim 15 alternatively recites that the skeletal distraction device may instead be a knee distraction device, an elbow distraction device, or a cervical distraction device, wherein the first brace is either a femur brace, a radius brace, or a skull brace, respectively, it is unclear if claim 17 is requiring that the skeletal distraction device is the vertebral distraction device. For examination purposes, claim 17 has been interpreted to include the limitation “wherein the skeletal distraction device is the vertebral distraction device”.
Claims 18 and 19 are included in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependence from rejected claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pethybridge (US 4,721,102), in view of Freund (US 1,722,205), and in further view of DiAngelo et al. (US 2014/0276308).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, Pethybridge discloses a skeletal distraction device (traction device) for a four-limbed vertebrate comprising:
a first brace (upper band 10) adapted to contact a first body portion of the vertebrate (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 29-46);
a second brace (lower band 11) adapted to contact a second body portion of the vertebrate, the first body portion and the second body portion being connected through at least one joint permitting a relative movement between the first body portion and the second body portion (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 29-46); and
a load transfer mechanism (biasing means 18+19+21+22) connecting the first brace (10) to the second brace (11), the load transfer mechanism (18+19+21+22) having a first spring (compression spring 21) having a first axis (along the longitudinal axis of the load transfer mechanism) and a vertical support (housing 18 + flexible slide member 22) connected to the first brace (10) at a first extremity and to the second brace (11) at a second extremity, wherein the vertical support is operative to transfer a second load between the first brace (10) and the second brace (11) (Figs. 1-3; column 2, lines 29-30 & 57-68; column 3, lines 1-8);
wherein when the vertebrate wears the skeletal distraction device, the first spring (21) is operative to transfer a first load along the first axis between the first brace (10) and the second brace (11) (Figs. 1-3; column 3, lines 16-21).
However, Pethybridge fails to teach that the first spring has coils and is connected to the first brace at a first end and a preload adjuster connected to the second brace and a second end of the first spring.
Freund discloses a skeletal distraction device (body supporting apparatus) for a four-limbed vertebrate comprising a first brace (strap 15) adapted to contact a first body portion of the vertebrate, a second brace (strap 1) adapted to contact a second body portion of the vertebrate, and a load transfer mechanism (arm 5) connecting the first brace (15) to the scone brace (1) and having a first spring (spring 14) having coils and connected to the first brace (15) (via stem 11) and having a first axis passing through centers of the coils, a preload adjuster (nut 12) connected to the second brace (1) (via arm member 7) and connected to a second end of the first spring (14) and being operable to adjust a preload of the first spring (14) when the first brace (15) and the second brace (1) are respectively in contact with the first body portion and the second body portion, and a tubular member (8) (analogous to the claimed second spring and the vertical support 18+22 taught by Pethybridge for purpose of this rejection) positioned within the coils of the first spring (14) and connected to the first brace (15) at first extremity (stem 11) and to the second brace (1) at a second extremity (lower member 7), the tubular member (8) operative to transfer a second load between the first brace (15) and the second brace (1), wherein when the vertebrate wears the skeletal distraction device, the first spring (14) is operative to transfer a first load along the first axis between the first brace (15) and the second brace (1) by adjusting the preload (Figs. 1-3; page 1, lines 44-54, 59-66, & 91-96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by Pethybridge such that the first spring has coils encompassing the vertical support such that the first spring can be connected to the first brace at a first end and to include a preload adjuster connected to the second brace and a second end of the first spring and operative to adjust a preload of the first spring as taught by Freund for the purpose of permitting the device to be adjusted to suit requirements of different vertebrates.
Although Pethybridge discloses that the vertical support (18+22) includes a slide member (22) that is preferably formed from stainless steel and flexible, wherein the vertical support is straight when unloaded (column 3, lines 4-8), the combination of Pethybridge and Freund fails to teach that the vertical support is a second spring operative to transfer the second load along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis.
DiAngelo discloses a skeletal distraction device (back support device 700) for a four-limbed vertebrate comprising a first brace (upper support component 101) adapted to contact a first body portion of the vertebrate, a second brace (lower support component 102) adapted to contact a second body portion of the vertebrate, and a load transfer mechanism connecting the first brace (101) to the second brace (102) and having a second spring (medial element 204) connected to the first brace (101) at a first extremity and the second brace (102) as a second extremity, the second spring (204) being operative to transfer a load between the first brace (101) and the second brace (102) along an axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the load transfer mechanism (Figs. 7A-7B; ¶ 0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge and Freund such the vertical support is a formed from flexible material that deforms under a load and exerts a resistive force such that the vertical support is a second spring operative to transfer the second load along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis as taught by DiAngelo for the purpose of aiding trunk extension or aiding or biasing load supportive of lateral bending.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and DiAngelo further discloses that the second spring (204) slidingly engages of the first and the second brace (101, 102) at its respective one of the first extremity and the second extremity, wherein the second spring (204) is fixedly connected to the first brace (101) (via T-plate 302) and slidingly connected to the second brace (102) (via holster 201 and connector 305) (Fig. 7B; ¶ 0106-0107 & 0121-0122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo such that the second spring slidingly engages of the first and the second brace at its respective one of the first extremity and the second extremity, wherein the second spring is fixedly connected to the first brace and slidingly connected to the second brace as further taught by DiAngelo for the purpose of enabling the second spring to move vertically with respect to the second brace while being anchored with respect to the first brace.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and DiAngelo further discloses that the second spring (204) is made of a composite material (fiberglass or carbon fiber) (¶ 0104 & 0120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to construct the second spring of the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo from a composite material as further taught by DiAngelo since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Freund further discloses that the preload adjuster (12) comprises a slider (nut 12 can slide along the threads of lower member 7) connected to the first spring (14) at the second end, the slider (12) being operable to displace the second end of the first spring (14) along the first axis, wherein the preload adjuster (12) comprises an adjusting knob (nut 12 is turned like a knob to adjust its position along lower member 7) operative to move the slide (12) to adjust the preload of the first spring (14) (Fig. 3; page 1, lines 59-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo such that the preload adjuster comprises a slider connected to the first spring at the second end and being operable to displace the second end of the first spring along the first axis and an adjusting knob operative to move the slide to adjust the preload of the first spring as further taught by Freund for the purpose of permitting the device to be adjusted to suit requirements of different vertebrates.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Pethybridge further discloses that the load transfer mechanism (18+19+21+22) comprises a left load transfer mechanism and a right load transfer mechanism, the left load transfer mechanism connecting a left portion of the first brace (10) to a left portion of the second brace (11) and the right load transfer mechanism connecting a right portion of the first brace (10) to a right portion of the second brace (11) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Pethybridge further discloses that the positions of the load transfer mechanisms (18+19+21+22) may be adjustable (column 2, lines 1-6; column 3, lines 25-30) while Freund further discloses that the load transfer mechanism (5) comprises a left load transfer mechanism and a right load transfer mechanism and the first springs (14) and the tubular members (8) of respective the left and right load transfer mechanisms (5) are adapted to be substantially aligned with a frontal plane of the vertebrate when in use (Fig. 1; page 1, lines 44-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo such that the first springs and the second springs of respective the left and right load transfer mechanisms are adapted to be substantially aligned with a frontal plane of the vertebrate when in use as further taught by Freund for the purpose of effectively supporting the lateral sides of the vertebrate.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Pethybridge further discloses that each one of the first brace (10) and the second brace (11) comprise a size adjusting mechanism (fastening means 12, 14) operable to adjust a size of the respective first brace (10) and second brace (11) so as to snugly fit a respective body portion of the vertebrate (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 34-46).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Pethybridge further discloses that the skeletal distraction device is a vertebral distraction device, wherein the first brace (10) is a torso brace and the second brace (11) is a pelvic brace, the torso brace (10) being adapted to contact an upper portion of a torso of the vertebrate and the pelvic brace (11) being adapted to rest on a pelvic region of the vertebrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Freund further discloses that the first brace (15), the second brace (1), and the load transfer mechanism (5) are capable of being adapted to a physiology and weight of the vertebrate selected from the group consisting of a human, a vertebrate domestic animal, a vertebrate farm animal, and a vertebrate wild animal (page 1, lines 91-96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo such that the first brace, the second brace, and the load transfer mechanism are capable of being adapted to a physiology and weight of the vertebrate selected from the group consisting of a human, a vertebrate domestic animal, a vertebrate farm animal, and a vertebrate wild animal as further taught by Freund for the purpose of adjusting the device to suit requirements of different vertebrates and permit the device to be adapted for use by vertebrates of different sizes.
Regarding claim 20, Pethybridge discloses a vertebral distraction device (traction device) for human wearer having a frontal axis, a longitudinal axis, and a sagittal axis, the vertebral distraction device comprising:
a torso brace (upper band 10) adapted to contact an upper portion of a torso of the wearer (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 29-46);
a pelvic brace (lower band 11) adapted to rest on a pelvic region of the wearer (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 29-46); and
a load transfer mechanism (biasing means 18+19+21+22) connecting the torso brace (10) to the pelvic brace (11), the load transfer mechanism (18+19+21+22) having a first spring (compression spring 21) connected to one of the torso brace (10) and the pelvic brace (11) at a first end and a vertical support (housing 18 + flexible slide member 22) connected to one of the torso brace (10) and the pelvic brace (11) at a first extremity and, at a second extremity, slidingly engaging the other one of the torso brace (10) and the pelvic brace (11) along the longitudinal axis (via pocket 17) (Figs. 1-3; column 2, lines 29-30 & 57-68; column 3, lines 1-8);
wherein when the wearer wears the vertebral distraction device, the first spring (21) is operative to transfer a first load along the longitudinal axis between the torso brace (10) and the pelvic brace (11) and the vertical support (18+22) is operative to support a second load (Figs. 1-3; column 3, lines 16-21).
However, Pethybridge fails to teach a preload adjuster connected to the other of the torso brace and the pelvic brace and connected to a second end of the first spring.
Freund discloses a vertebral distraction device (body supporting apparatus) for a human wearer, the vertebral distraction device comprising a torso brace (strap 15) adapted to contact an upper torso of the wearer, a pelvic brace (strap 1) adapted to rest on a pelvic region of the wearer, and a load transfer mechanism (arm 5) connecting the torso brace (15) to the pelvic brace (1) and having a first spring (spring 14) connected to the torso brace (15) (via stem 11), a preload adjuster (nut 12) connected to the pelvic brace (1) (via arm member 7) and connected to a second end of the first spring (14) and being operable to adjust a preload of the first spring (14) along a longitudinal axis of the wearer when the torso brace (15) and the pelvic brace (1) are respectively in contact with the torso and the pelvic region of the wearer, and a tubular member (8) (analogous to the claimed second spring and the vertical support 18+22 taught by Pethybridge for purpose of this rejection) connected to the torso brace (15) at first extremity (stem 11) and, at a second extremity (lower member 7), engaging the pelvic brace (1), wherein when the wearer wears the vertebral distraction device, the first spring (14) is operative to transfer a first load along the longitudinal axis between the torso brace (15) and the pelvic brace (1) by adjusting the preload and the tubular member (8) is operative to support a second load (Figs. 1-3; page 1, lines 44-54, 59-66, & 91-96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the vertebral distraction device taught by Pethybridge such that the first spring is a coil spring encompassing the vertical support such that the first spring can be connected to the torso brace at a first end and to include a preload adjuster connected to the pelvic brace and a second end of the first spring and operative to adjust a preload of the first spring as taught by Freund for the purpose of permitting the device to be adjusted to suit requirements of different wearers.
Although Pethybridge discloses that the vertical support (18+22) includes a slide member (22) that is preferably formed from stainless steel and flexible (column 3, lines 4-8), the combination of Pethybridge and Freund fails to teach that the vertical support is a second spring operative to support the second load along at least one of the frontal axis and the sagittal axis, the second spring being fixedly connected to the torso brace and slidingly engaging the pelvic brace.
DiAngelo discloses a vertebral distraction device (back support device 700) for a human wearer, the vertebral distraction device (700) comprising a torso brace (upper support component 101) adapted to contact an upper portion of a torso of the wearer, a pelvic brace (lower support component 102) adapted to rest on a pelvic region of the wearer, and a load transfer mechanism connecting the torso brace (101) to the pelvic brace (102) and having a second spring (medial element 204) fixedly connected to the first brace (101) at a first extremity (via T-plate 302) and, at a second extremity, slidingly engaging the pelvic brace (102) along the longitudinal axis (via holster 201), wherein the second spring (204) is operative to support a load along at least one of the frontal axis and the sagittal axis, the second spring (204) still being slideable at the second extremity with respect to the pelvic brace (102) (Figs. 7A-7B; ¶ 0104, 0106-0107, & 0121-0122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the vertebral distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge and Freund such the vertical support is a formed from flexible material that deforms under a load and exerts a resistive force such that the vertical support is a second spring operative to support the second load along at least one of the frontal axis and the sagittal axis, the second spring being fixedly connected to the torso brace and slidingly engaging the pelvic brace as taught by DiAngelo for the purpose of aiding trunk extension or aiding or biasing load supportive of lateral bending.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pethybridge, in view of Freund, and in further view of DiAngelo as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and in even further view of McFarland (US 3,776,224).
The combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the first spring has a first spring constant along the first axis and the second spring has a second spring constant along the second axis, wherein the first spring constant and the second spring constant are different from each other.
McFarland discloses a skeletal distraction device (cervical brace) comprising a first brace (jaw support member 59 + rear head support 64), a second brace (shoulder harness 10), and a load transfer mechanism having a first spring (inner spring 50) having a first spring constant along a first axis and a second spring (outer spring 26) having a second spring constant along a second axis, wherein the first spring constant and the second spring constant are different from each other (Figs. 1-3; column 1, lines 16-43; column 5, lines 10-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo such that the first spring has a first spring constant along the first axis and the second spring has a second spring constant along the second axis, wherein the first spring constant and the second spring constant are different from each other as taught by McFarland for the purpose of maintaining continuous upward force to distract the first brace from the second brace while providing a restoring force upon bending of vertebrate during use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pethybridge, in view of Freund, and in further view of DiAngelo as applied to claims 1, 4, and 8 above, and in even further view of Pickford et al. (US 3,912,248).
The combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the preload adjuster comprises a ratcheting mechanism preventing the slider from retracting under the preload.
Pickford discloses an analogous load transfer mechanism (mount) comprising a first spring (compression spring 16) and preload adjuster connected to an end of the first spring (16) and operable to adjust a preload of the first spring (16), wherein the preload adjuster comprises a slider (sliding disc 36) connected to the first spring (16) at the end thereof and being operable to displace the end of the first spring (16) along a first axis, wherein the preload adjuster further comprises a ratcheting mechanism (ratcheting mechanism 40) preventing the slider (36) from retracting under the preload (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 42-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo such that the preload adjuster comprises a ratcheting mechanism preventing the slider from retracting under the preload as taught by Pickford for the purpose of ensuring the slider is locked in position after the desired reload of the first spring has been set.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pethybridge, in view of Freund, and in further view of DiAngelo as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in even further view of Robbins (US 2,886,031).
The combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Pethybridge further discloses that the skeletal distraction device is a vertebral distraction device, wherein the first brace (10) is a torso brace and the second brace (11) is a pelvic brace, the torso brace (10) being adapted to contact an upper portion of a torso in a lower region of a rib cage of the vertebrate, and the pelvic brace (11) being adapted to rest on a pelvic region of the vertebrate (Fig. 2).
However, the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo fails to teach that the torso brace comprises a left torso brace portion, a right torso brace portion, and a torso strap connecting the left torso brace portion to the right torso brace portion and adapted to contact the vertebrate under a breast region of the vertebrate, and wherein the pelvic brace comprises a left pelvic brace portion, a right pelvic brace portion, and a pelvic strap connecting the left pelvic brace portion to the right pelvic brace portion.
Robbins discloses a vertebral distraction device (body support) comprising a torso brace and a pelvic brace, wherein the torso brace has left and right torso brace portions (concave parts 12 + soft pads 21) and a torso strap (upper band 11) connecting the left and right torso brace portions (12+21), the torso strap (11) being adjustable so as to be operative to workably fit the right and left torso brace portions (12+21) on an upper portion of a torso of a vertebrate, wherein the torso brace is adapted to contact the upper portion of the torso in a lower region of a rib cage of the vertebrate and the torso strap (11) is adapted to contact the vertebrate under a breast region of the vertebrate, and wherein the pelvic brace has left and right pelvic brace portions (concave parts 15 + soft pads 22) and a pelvic strap (lower band 14) connecting the left and right pelvic brace portions (15+22), the pelvic strap (14) being adjustable so as to be operative to adjust the right and left pelvic brace portions (15+22) on a pelvis of the pelvic region of a vertebrate (Figs. 1-2; column 1, lines 46-57 & 67-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skeletal distraction device taught by the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo such that the torso brace comprises a left torso brace portion, a right torso brace portion, and a torso strap connecting the left torso brace portion to the right torso brace portion and adapted to contact the vertebrate under a breast region of the vertebrate, and wherein the pelvic brace comprises a left pelvic brace portion, a right pelvic brace portion, and a pelvic strap connecting the left pelvic brace portion to the right pelvic brace portion as taught by Robbins for the purpose of providing contoured brace components configured to comfortably engage with the vertebrate while wearing the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claims 4, 8, and 10.
Claim 11 is indicated as allowable since the combination of Pethybridge / Freund / DiAngelo fails to discloses that the second spring is slideable with respect to the slider and is devoid of load bearing capacity along the first axis in combination with the limitations recited in claims 4, 8, and 10.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Yang (US 2020/0155336), Leake et al. (US 2016/0296361), Williams et al. (US 2016/0058597), Kline (US 2015/0209213), Behzadian et al. (US 2011/0184325), Dunfee et al. (US 2006/0161083), Zours et al. (US 2005/0228325), Ousdal (US 5,916,188), Hatley et al. (US 5,462,518), Bode (US 5,195,947), Shtabholz (US 4,987,885), Scott (US 4,715,362), and Mittasch (US 3,548,817).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at 571-270-5237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights