DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 4/18/25.
Claims 1-21 are finally rejected.
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 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.
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 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 8 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 8 recites the limitations "the […] third panel row". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over et al. (US 20090222071, “Li”) in view of Horning (US 20020052569), Whitmore (US 2519611) and St. Ours (US 5072455).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a flexible thermal device comprising: a fabric ring having an inner fabric layer (Fig. 3, lining 106) and an outer fabric layer (Fig. 3, support layer 123) and first terminal circumference at a first edge and a second terminal circumference at an opposite second edge (Figs. 2A-B, circumferences of terminal cuffs 108); a plurality of panels defined between the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer creating a first panel row (Par. 34 and figs. 2-3, first row of pockets 114 defined by lining 106 and support layer 123); and a plurality of gel cells being retained in the plurality of panels in the first panel row (Figs. 2-3, thermal modules 104 are retained in pockets 114; par. 29 discloses that thermals modules 104 can be gel packs); wherein the panels are bordered by stiches joining the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer (Fig. 3, stitch lines 116).
Li fails to teach that the fabric ring is elastic; that the disclosed stiches are stretch stitches; and wherein the gel cells freeze solid when left for 24 hours at one of 2 degrees Celsius, 0 degrees Celsius, -5 degrees Celsius, and -10 degrees Celsius.
Regarding the elastic aspect, Horning teaches an analogous thermal device (Abstract and fig. 2), in which the cuff is constructed of an elastic cuff material (Par. 10, ‘The bandage may be made of flexible cloth or plastic material, preferably an elastic cloth material.’) in order to impart a radially compressive force to the body (Par. 30, ‘Thus, central web 4 can be constructed to impart a radial compressive force over the encircled portion of a body part.’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to construct the thermal device of an elastic fabric, in order to impart a radially compressive force to the body, as taught by Horning.
Regarding the stretch stitch aspect, Whitmore teaches using a zigzag stretch stitch in order to permit desired stretching along seams when sewing together elastic fabrics (Col. 2, lines 17-22, ‘The panels 2, 2 are joined at their front edges to the adjacent edges of the panel by stitching 4, 4, which stitching is preferably of zigzag character to permit the desired stretching along the seams.’).
Therefore, in view Whitmore it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to utilize stretch stiches in order to accommodate stretching along seams when sewing together elastic fabrics.
Regarding the freezing temperature aspect, St. Ours teaches an analogous thermal device which comprises a gel which has a freezing temperature of about 0 degrees C (Col. 6, lines 21-24, ‘The gel freezes at a temperature of about 0 degrees C.’).
Therefore, in view of St. Ours it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to further modify Li, as modified, by configuring the freezing point of the gel to be 0 degrees Celsius in order to set the operating temperature of the cooling pack to a desired temperature, as taught by St. Ours.
Further, the examiner maintains that it would be obvious to POSITA to optimize the freezing point as needed or desired, since freezing point is a result-effective variable which affects the operating temperature of the gel pack. Further, methods of adjusting the freezing point of a gel through the use of chemical additives are well known in the art of cooling packs. Therefore, POSITA would have found it obvious to select a freezing point of a gel based on the desired operating temperature of the cooling pack, and to adjust the freezing point using well-known chemical additives, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Li, as modified, teaches constructing the thermal device of an elastic material (Li has previously been modified in view of Horning to construct the thermal device of an elastic material; see Horning, par. 10), but fails to teach wherein the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer are formed of fabric that can be stretched 25% longer than an unstretched length, and returns to the original length when released.
The examiner maintains, however, that it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time the invention was filed to select an appropriate elastic material with optimal elastic properties, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Li, as modified, further teaches wherein the first panel row has at least four panels (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Li, as modified, further teaches a second panel row adjacent to the first panel row (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Li, as modified, further teaches wherein the second panel row is adjacent to the first panel row and spacing the first panel row from the second terminal circumference (Fig. 2A, the second row of thermal modules 104 is adjacent the first row of thermal modules and spaces the first row of thermal modules from the second terminal cuff 108).
Regarding claim 7, Li, as modified, fails to teach a third panel row adjacent to the second panel row, wherein the second panel row spaces the first panel row from the third panel row.
Horning teaches an analogous thermal device which has three rows of panels, wherein the second panel row spaces the first panel row from the third panel row (Fig. 8), in order to provide a longer thermal device which treats a larger surface area.
Therefore, in view of Horning, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to further modify Li, as modified, by providing a third row of panels in order to provide a longer thermal device which treats a larger surface area, as taught by Horning.
Regarding claim 8, Li, as modified, fails to teach wherein the first, second, and third panel row each contain six panels.
The examiner maintains, however, that it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to optimize the number of panels per row, since the number of panels per row is considered a result effective variable which affects the surface area being treated by thermal device, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Li, as modified, further teaches wherein the first panel row contains an even number of panels (Fig. 2B, showing each row having four gel packs).
Regarding claim 10, Li, as modified, further teaches wherein each panel has only one gel cell retained within (Figs. 2-3, showing each pocket 114 having a single thermal module 104 which is disclosed to be a gel pack in par. 29).
Regarding claim 11, Li, as modified, further teaches wherein the stretch stitch is one of a Triple Straight Stitch, a Zigzag Stitch, a Three Step Zigzag stich, a Lightning Bolt Stich, a Honeycomb Stitch, an Overlock/Overedge Stitch, a Feather Stitch, a twin needle stich, blind hem stretch stich, and the stich is with substantially non-elastic thread (Li has previously been modified in view of Whitmore to utilize a zigzag stitch in order to permit stretching along the seam; see Whitmore, col. 2, lines 17-22).
Regarding claim 15 Li, as modified, further teaches wherein the gel cells freeze solid at 0 degrees Celsius (Li has previously been modified in view of St. Ours to set the freezing point of the gel to 0 degrees Celsius; see St. Ours, col. 6, lines 21-24, ‘The gel freezes at a temperature of about 0 degrees C.’).
Regarding claim 16, Li, as modified, fails to teach wherein the gel cells measure between 1 and 3 inches in width, 2 and 8 inches in height, and between 0.02 and 1 inch in thickness.
The examiner maintains, however, that it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time the invention was filed to optimize the dimensions of the gel cells, since the dimension of the gel cells are considered to be result effective variables which affect the surface area and cooling power provided to the user, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Li, as modified, fails to teach wherein adjacent gel cells are spaced between 0.2 and 0.8 inches from one another.
The examiner maintains, however, that it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time the invention was filed to optimize the spacing between adjacent gel cells, since the spacing between adjacent gel cells is a result-effective variable which affects the total surface area of target area as well as the density of cooling packs within the target area, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Li, as modified, teaches wherein the first and the second terminal circumference have a relaxed diameter relative to a diameter of the device at a mid-point between the first and the second terminal circumference (Fig. 2B, showing the diameter of cuffs 108 to be smaller than the diameter of the device at the midpoint), but fails to teach that this relaxed diameter is 5% to 15% smaller.
The examiner maintains, however, that it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time the invention was filed to optimize the terminal diameter of the cuff, since the terminal diameter of the cuff is a result effective variable which affects the attachment of the thermal device to the body part of the user, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Horning, Whitmore and St. Ours, as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 15-17 and 19, above, and further in view of Carstens (US 20070106356).
Regarding claim 2, Li, as modified, fails to teach wherein the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer are formed of fabric that is elastic in four different directions.
Carsten teaches an analogous thermal device (Abstract) in which is comprised of a fabric which is elastic in four different directions (Par. 39, ‘In one embodiment, elastic regions 12 are elastic in both the lateral and longitudinal directions.’).
In view of Carstens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was filed to select a material which is elastic in four directions, as taught by Carstens, in order to enhance the compression of the device against the skin of the user.
Regarding claim 18, Li, as modified, fails to teach wherein the inner fabric layer and an outer fabric layer are one of spandex or spandex blended with a second fabric.
However, Carsten teaches utilizing a spandex material for an elastic region of the device (Par. 37, ‘In one embodiment, the holder comprises wholly plain knit, e.g., jersey knit, using elastomeric fiber material such as Lycra® or spandex yarn having suitable mechanical properties in all courses.’).
Therefore, since both Li, as modified, and Carstens teach different elastomeric materials for providing compression forces to the body of the user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was filed to substitute one known elastomeric material for the other in order to achieve the predictable result of an elastomeric material for providing a compression force to the body of a user. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Horning, Whitmore and St. Ours, as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 15-17 and 19, above, and further in view of Cleva (US 20130061374, “Cleva”).
Li, as modified, fails to teach wherein the stretch stich is a strait stich with elastic thread.
Cleva teaches the use of a strait stitch with an elastic thread as an alternative to a zigzag stitch for use as a stretch stitch (Par. 72, ‘Straight stitching patterns (e.g., using elastic thread) can also be used for the side stitchings 306, 308.’).
Therefore, since both Li, as modified, and Cleva teach alternative stretch stitch types for allowing for elasticity of fabric, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to substitute one known stretch stitch type for the other in order to achieve the predictable result of a stretch stitch to allow for the elasticity of fabric. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Horning, Whitmore and St. Ours, as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 15-17 and 19, above, and further in view of Subia (US 20110040360).
Regarding claim 13, Li, as modified, fails to teach wherein a first elastic cord is attached to the first terminal circumference and a second elastic cord is attached to the second terminal circumference.
Subia teaches an analogous device (Abstract), which comprises two elastic cords each attached to a terminal circumference of the device (Fig. 1 and par. 23, ‘The pair of elastic members includes a first elastic member 104a and a second elastic member 104b.’).
Therefore, in view of Subia, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to further modify Li, as modified, by providing elastic cords attached to the terminal circumferences of the device in order to enhance attachment of the device to a body part of the user.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Horning, Whitmore and St. Ours, as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 15-17 and 19, above, and further in view of Ross (US 20110029051).
Regarding claim 14, Li, as modified, fails to teach that the gel cells contain one of diethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, and vinyl-coated silica gel.
Ross teaches an analogous thermal device (Abstract) which comprises a gel cell (Par. 27, ‘As in the first embodiment, the cold pack can include a gel pack having a non-toxic gel serving as the cold source and coupled, flexible, laminate sheets containing the gel.’) which contains one of diethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, and vinyl-coated silica gel (Par. 19, ‘Other cold sources include non-toxic materials such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, vinyl-coated silica gel and chemical slurries which have a freezing point between zero and 32 degrees Fahrenheit. ’).
Therefore, since both Ross and Li, as modified, teach alternative refrigerant gels for use in thermal therapy devices, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to substitute one known refrigerant gel type for the other in order to achieve the predictable result of a refrigerant gel for use in a thermal therapy device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Horning, Whitmore and St. Ours, as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 15-17 and 19, above, and further in view of Hill et al. (US 5148804, “Hill”).
Regarding claim 21, Li, as modified, teaches inserting an injured body part within the flexible thermal device of claim 1 (Par. 32, ‘According to the embodiment shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, eight thermal modules 104 may be installed surrounding the arm on both the upper and lower sides of the elbow. ’), but fails to teach wherein the gel cells of the flexible thermal device are one of above 38, 40, 42, 45, or 48 degrees Celsius and below 9.5, 5, 2, or 0 degrees Celsius for a period of at least 15 minutes.
Hill teaches an analogous method of providing thermal therapy to a user in which gel cells are maintained against the body (Abstract) and wherein gel cells are one of above 38, 40, 42, 45, or 48 degrees Celsius and below 9.5, 5, 2, or 0 degrees Celsius for a period of at least 15 minutes (Col. 8, line 64- col. 9, line 2, ‘When used and applied to a knee, the skin surface of the knee is lowered between 40 to 45 degrees F in approximately 30 minutes and can be maintained at this temperature for approximately ten hours.’).
Therefore, since both Li, as modified, and Hill teach alternative protocols for providing thermal therapy to a user, it would have been obvious to POSITA at the time that the invention was filed to substitute one know protocol of applying thermal therapy to a user for the other in order to arrive at a protocol for applying thermal therapy to user. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Horning, Whitmore, Carstens, Subia and Ross.
Note that the combinations of Li in view of each of these references have already been describe above, and therefore will not be reiterated.
Regarding claim 20, Li, as modified, teaches a flexible thermal device (Par. 4, ‘However, it should preferably have the flexibility to conform to the surface contour of the body part being treated.’) comprising: an elastic (Li has previously been modified by Horning to comprises an elastic material; see Horning, par. 10, ‘The bandage may be made of flexible cloth or plastic material, preferably an elastic cloth material.’) fabric ring having an inner fabric layer (Fig. 3, lining 106) and an outer fabric layer (Fig. 3, support layer 123) and first terminal circumference at a first edge and a second terminal circumference at an opposite second edge (Figs. 2A-B, circumferences of terminal cuffs 108); a plurality of panels defined between the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer creating a first panel row (Par. 34 and figs. 2-3, first row of pockets 114 defined by lining 106 and support layer 123), the panels being bordered by stretch stiches joining the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer (Li has previously been modified in view of Whitmore to utilize stretch stiches; see Whitmore, col. 2, lines 17-22); a second panel row adjacent to the first panel row, the second panel row being adjacent to the first panel row and spacing the first panel row from the second terminal circumference (Fig. 2A, the second row of thermal modules 104 is adjacent the first row of thermal modules and spaces the first row of thermal modules from the second terminal cuff 108); the first and the second panel row each contain six panels (Li has previously been modified to optimize the number of panels per row; see the discussion of claim 8, above); a plurality of gel cells being retained in the plurality of panels in the first and the second panel row (Figs. 2-3, thermal modules 104 are retained in pockets 114; par. 29 discloses that thermals modules 104 can be gel packs), with each panel having only one gel cell retained within (Figs. 2-3, showing each pocket 114 having a single thermal module 104 which is disclosed to be a gel pack in par. 29); the gel cells measure between 1 and 3 inches in width, 2 and 8 inches in height, and between 0.02 and 1 inch in thickness (Li has previously been modified to optimize the dimensions of each gel cell; see the discussion of claim 16, above); the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer are formed of fabric that is elastic in four different directions (Li has previously been modified in view of Carstens to enhance the selection of elastic material used in the device; see Carstens, par. 39, ‘In one embodiment, elastic regions 12 are elastic in both the lateral and longitudinal directions.’); the inner fabric layer and the outer fabric layer are formed of fabric that can be stretched 25% longer than an unstretched length in four directions, and returns to the original length when released (Li has previously been modified to optimize the elastic properties of the elastic material; see the discussion of claim 3, above); the stretch stitch being one of a Triple Straight Stitch, a Zigzag Stitch, a Three Step Zigzag stich, a Lightning Bolt Stich, a Honeycomb Stitch, an Overlock/Overedge Stitch, a Feather Stitch, a twin needle stich, blind hem stretch stich, and the stich 1s with substantially non-elastic thread or being a strait stich with substantially elastic thread, or some combination thereof (See Whitmore, col. 2, lines 17-22); a first elastic cord being attached to the first terminal circumference and a second elastic cord being attached to the second terminal circumference (Li has previously been modified by Subia to provide elastic cords attached to the terminal circumferences; see Subia, fig. 1 and par. 23, ‘The pair of elastic members includes a first elastic member 104a and a second elastic member 104b.’); the gel cells containing one of diethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, hydroxyethyl cellulose, sodium polyacrylate, and vinyl-coated silica gel, or some combination thereof (Li has previously been modified by Ross to utilize a gel comprising hydroxyethyl cellulose or vinyl-coated silica; see Ross par. 19); adjacent gel cells being spaced between 0.2 and 0.8 inches from one another (Li has previously been modified to optimized the spacing between adjacent gel cells; see the discussion of claim 17, above); the inner fabric layer and an outer fabric layer are one of spandex or spandex blended with a second fabric (See Carstens, par. 37); and the first and the second terminal circumference having a relaxed diameter 5% to 15% smaller than a diameter of the device at a mid-point between the first and the second terminal circumference (Li has previously been modified to optimize the terminal diameters; see the discussion of claim 19, above).
Li, as modified, fails to teach the gel cells freezing solid when left for 24 hours at one of 2 degrees Celsius, 0 degrees Celsius, -5 degrees Celsius, and -10 degrees Celsius.
Ross, however, teaches that an analogous cooling gel which has a freezing point anywhere between 0 and 32 degrees Fahrenheit or between -17.78 and 0 degrees Celsius (Par. 19, ‘Other cold sources include non-toxic materials such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, vinyl-coated silica gel and chemical slurries which have a freezing point between zero and 32 degrees Fahrenheit.’).
Therefore, in view of Ross, it would have been obvious to POSITA to configure the cooling gel to have a freezing point within the disclosed temperature range including any of 0, -5, and -10 degrees Celsius, in order to set the operating temperature of the device to a desired temperature.
In addition, the examiner maintains that it would be obvious to POSITA to optimize the freezing point as needed or desired, since freezing point is a result-effective variable which affects the operating temperature of the gel pack. Further, methods of adjusting the freezing point of a gel through the use of chemical additives are well known in the art of cooling packs. Therefore, POSITA would have found it obvious to select a freezing point of a gel based on the desired operating temperature of the cooling pack, and to adjust the freezing point using well-known chemical additives, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 4/18/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of St. Ours.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/18/25 with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has neither amended the claim nor provided arguments contesting the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/18/21 with respect to the rejection of claim 8, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 8 still lacks antecedent basis for "the […] third panel row". Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM JOSEPH AVIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
ADAM JOSEPH. AVIGAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3739
/ADAM J AVIGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794