DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed December 23rd, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, 23-24, 26, 28, and 30-37 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Particularly the limitations “the first sleeve fastener and second sleeve fastener are configured to directly couple to each other at a location spaced from the body without intermediate body-mounted fastening structures when coupled to each other” (claims 34 and 35); “configured to fold around the infant without rigid support structures” claim 36), and “the first sleeve fastener and second sleeve fastener directly couple to each other without coupling to body-mounted landing areas or anchoring structures” (claim 37) are recited.
There is a question of possession to the claimed subject matter, particularly the “without” limitation in each of the cited limitations above. Wherein “without” is recognized as both a negative and an exclusionary proviso. Where it has previously been held “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977)” and “"Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation…Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.” (MPEP 2173.05(i) is relevant). Where there respectfully appears to be silence as to the nature of being “without intermediate body-mounting fastening…” (claims 34-35), “without rigid support structures” (claim 36) and “without coupling to the body-mounted landing areas or anchoring structures” (claim 37) in the body of applicant’s disclosure and the figures generally cannot serve as explicit support for features being explicitly excluded. At most applicant’s disclosure avails/recites “the swaddle wrap 702 may be utilized without the infant bodice restraint article 602” (paragraph [0068]), however, such exclusion would be confusing to the present claims as the bodice appears to be needed for the requisite sleeves and such. As such there respectfully does not appear to be support for the newly claimed limitation. The claims are considered to introduce new matter and should be appropriately cancelled or otherwise amended to subject matter that is possessed by applicants.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are construed as the identified citations (at least from without onward) to be cancelled from the claims, while limitations such as “the first and second fastener are configured to directly couple to each other at a location spaced from the body” “the first, second, and third attachment points are disposed on a soft, flexible swaddle wrap”, and “the first sleeve fastener and the second sleeve fastener directly couple to each other” are considered for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, and 5-6, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker (U.S. Pub. No. 20160113331) in view of Boxer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4165555).
Regarding claim 1, Blacker discloses (FIGS. 1-4B) an infant garment (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4A), comprising: a body (correspondent 100/110; FIGS. 1) adapted to surround a torso of an infant (As conveyed through FIGS. 1-4A); a first sleeve (correspondent 252; FIG. 3A/3B) coupled to the body (As illustrated in FIGS. 3A/3B); a second sleeve (correspondent 262; FIGS. 3A/3B) coupled to the body (as illustrated in FIGS. 3A/3B); and a swaddle wrap (200; FIGS. 1-2B) coupled to the body (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-4A) and that is configured to compress the first sleeve and the second sleeve to the body and restricts movement (as eminently conveyed through FIGS. 2A/2B); a first sleeve fastener (252; FIG. 3A) that projects from the first sleeve (As illustrated in FIG. 3A); a second sleeve fastener (262; FIGS. 3A) that projects from the second sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 3A); a plurality of wrap fasteners (230; FIG. 2A/138; FIG. 2B/232/238; FIG. 6A) disposed on an interior surface of the swaddle wrap (as illustrated in FIG. 6A, [0030]: “interior surface 210”); and wherein the first sleeve fastener and the second sleeve fastener are configured to couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of each other and the plurality of wrap fasteners to restrict movement of the first sleeve and the second sleeve.
However, although Blacker demonstrates two fasteners upon the sleeves (252/260; FIGS. 4A-5B); Blacker does not explicitly disclose a first tab that projects from the first sleeve, the fastener being disposed on the first tab; a second tab that projects from the second sleeve a second sleeve fastener being disposed on the second tab.
Regardless, Boxer teaches (FIGS. 3-6) a hoop shaped garment element (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-6; clarified in [5:47-61]: “After hook-and-pile pairs are formed of the type created by cutting along lines… adheres these to clothing by steam-pressing the sock or glove or other garment material for a period long enough to melt the plastic 56 so that it is embedded in the backing strip 52 and into the texture of the sock, glove, or other garment”), and provides a first tab (24-27a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the first sleeve (correspondent 22; as illustrated in FIG. 3-4), a first sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 24/27; FIG. 3-6) being disposed on the first tab (As illustrated in FIG. 3-6); a second tab (26-28a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the second sleeve (correspondent 23; FIG. 3-4), a second sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 26/28; FIGS. 3-6) being disposed on the second tab (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated or substituted the tabs with the fasteners thereon as demonstrated in Boxer (FIGS. 3-6) into/for the fasteners of the sleeves in Blacker (as illustrated in FIG. 4A-5B). Where the results would have been predictable as both Boxer and Blacker are concerned with garments and fastener assemblies therewith. Where Blacker would continue to facilitate some form of fastening it’s sleeves with the other, and likewise the fasteners of Boxer would continue to associate two garment elements together. Where further advantageously, Boxer considers that the two elements (socks/gloves/etc.) “can then be laundered and after laundering and drying will still be joined together” [4:40-50]. Where similar benefit would provide the sleeves from becoming tangled in the laundering cycle, making the invention easier to use by not having to untangle the clothes as substantially and avail the means to mitigate fastening other units of the garment by being able to close the fasteners as Boxer provides.
Regarding claim 2, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses (FIGS. 1-4A) the infant garment of claim 1, comprising: a first body fastener (158, right; FIG. 3A/254, right; FIG. 4A); a second body fastener(158, left; FIG. 3A/254, left; FIG. 4A); the first sleeve fastener disposed on the first sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 3A); the second sleeve fastener disposed on the second sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 3A); wherein the first body fastener is configured to couple to the first sleeve fastener in order to restrict movement of the first sleeve; and wherein the second body fastener is configured to couple to the second sleeve fastener to restrict movement of the second sleeve ([0024]: “In this manner the first arm portion 156 can be caused to adhere to the body portion 110 of the pajama component 100.”)
Regarding claim 5, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses (FIGS. 1-2B) the infant garment of claim 1, wherein the swaddle wrap is moveable to a stored position. As demonstrated in FIGS. 1-2A, the swaddle wrap (200) is able to be removed (through 140 and 138; FIGS. 2A/2B, elucidated in [0022]), and analogous to the bib (318; FIG. 7A) elucidated in [0038] “can be attached to the rear panel of the pajama component and thereby stored in a secure location via… the hook and loop fastening system”, where similarly the swaddle wrap uses a hook and loop system (138; FIGS. 2A/2B; elucidated in [0022]: “hook and loop fastener system 138”). Therefore, in the ordinary operation of the apparatus, the swaddle wrap is movable to a stored position as Blacker considers.
Regarding claim 6, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses (FIGS. 1-2B) the infant garment of claim 1, wherein the swaddle wrap is selectively removeable from the body. Where eminently demonstrated between FIGS. 1-2B, the swaddle wrap (200; FIGS. 2A/2B) is secured to the rear of the torso/body (correspondent 100/110; FIGS. 1) through a hook and loop fastening system (138; FIGS. 2A/2B; “hook and loop fastener system 138” [0022]).
Regarding claim 34, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses (Boxer: FIG. 1, Abstract; Blacker: FIGS. 1 and 3A-3B) the infant garment of claim 1, wherein the first sleeve fastener and second sleeve fastener are configured to directly couple to each other at a location spaced from the body. Where as illustrated in FIG. 1 of Boxer, and in correspondence with the proposed combination in claim 1 in Blacker (FIGS. 3A-3B) the fasteners would be away from the body 110; FIG. 3A/3B and 1), and would be directly coupling as Boxer considers (Abstract: “so that the pile and hooks of one…may be joined to the hook and pile of another”).
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer in further view of Jarrett, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8302230); hereafter “Jarrett”.
Regarding claim 7, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses the infant garment of claim 1, comprising accessory fasteners (234; FIG. 6A) positioned on a rear exterior surface of the swaddle wrap (as illustrated in FIG. 6B; [0037]: “exterior surface 214”).
However, Blacker does not explicitly disclose wherein the accessory fasteners couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of a base assembly, a back support, or a stabilizer wing.
Regardless, Jarrett teaches (FIGS. 1, 2, and 11) an infant garment comprising a swaddling component (as illustrated in FIG. 1 correspondent to 55/20) that comprises accessory fasteners (24/25/45/46; FIG. 2), wherein the accessory fasteners couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of a base assembly (15; FIG. 11), a back support (15; FIG. 11), or a stabilizer wing (48; FIG. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the attachment of the base assembly/back support or stabilizer wing through the accessory fasteners available as Jarrett demonstrates (in FIGS. 1, 2, and 11), into and in concordance with the present accessory fasteners of Blacker (234; FIG. 6A). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blacker and Jarrett use hook and loop fastener assemblies to attach components thereto, and furthermore Jarrett acknowledges “The fastener strips 17, 18, 19 of FIG. 3 which are connected to fastener strips 23, 24, 25 respectively of FIG. 2 provide an anti-roll, anti-shifting connection between the sling 20 and the base/mattress 11. To provide an additional safety against rolling in a lateral direction, blocks (such as foam blocks or the like) are provided, each having a fastener strip that enables a connection to be formed between the block and the sling 20 at provided fastener strips 45, 46.” [Col. 3, lines 58-Col. 4, lines 4].
Regarding claim 9, Blacker in view of Boxer and Jarrett discloses (Blacker: FIGS. 6B; Jarrett: FIGS. 1, 2, and 11) the infant garment of claim 7, wherein the back support is configured to be coupled to the infant garment (as illustrated in FIG. 2 and 11), and place an infant's back on an angular plane that encourages an infant's head to a side position. It is respectfully considered that the accessory of Blacker is located upon the rear back surface (as previously set forth in claim 7), and that the attachment thereof would dispose the infant’s back on an angular plane of the combination Jarrett’s base assembly/back support, and furthermore the infants head would be encouraged to a side facing position as similarly shown in Jarrett FIG. 11. Furthermore, Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), similarly, an infant’s head would be free and inherently able to turn to the left or right dependent on the stabilizer wing/body support used (as illustrated in FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Blacker in view of Boxer and Jarrett discloses (Jarrett: FIGS. 1, 2, 11) the infant garment of claim 7, wherein: the base assembly comprises a sleeping surface (As illustrated in FIG. 11) and the stabilizer wing (48 as illustrated in FIG. 11); and the accessory fasteners couple to at least one of the base assembly or the sleeping surface (as illustrated in FIGS. 11 and 2).
In the alternate, Claim(s) 7 alongside 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer in further view of Bowman (U.S. Pat. No. 54369008).
Regarding claim 7, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses the infant garment of claim 1, comprising accessory fasteners (234; FIG. 6A) positioned on a rear exterior surface of the swaddle wrap (as illustrated in FIG. 6B; [0037]: “exterior surface 214”).
However, Blacker does not explicitly disclose wherein the accessory fasteners couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of a base assembly, a back support, or a stabilizer wing.
Regardless, Bowman teaches (FIGS. 1-8), a base assembly, a back support (20; FIGS. 8), and stabilizer wings (51/52; FIG. 8) that are secured to an infant garment (60; FIG. 5; through 66-67; FIG. 2) through accessory fasteners thereof (As illustrated between FIGS. 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the base assembly, back support (20; FIG. 2) and the stabilizer wings (51/52; FIG. 8) and the accordant fasteners thereof of Bowman into the swaddle wrap and garment system of Blacker (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, and 11). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blacker and Bowman use hook and loop fastener assemblies to attach components thereto, and furthermore Bowman acknowledges “These type fasteners enable the reflux sling member 60 to be easily and flexibly adjusted (see FIGS. 2 and 6) on the wedge-shaped support member 21 while also providing safe and secure positioning of an infant I thereon” [Col. 6, lines 3-14].
Regarding claim 10, Blacker in view of Boxer and Bowman discloses (Bowman: FIGS. 1 and 3) the infant garment of claim 7, wherein the base assembly is selectively coupled to at least one selected from the group consisting of a swing, a cradle, a rocker, a bassinette, or a play yard. Where noticeably Bowman particularly attaches to a crib (As through fasteners 28/29; FIG. 3) that may also operate as either a bassinette or a cradle, or even a play yard. Where particularly, a “crib” may be known as “a cradle” (The Britannica Dictionary “crib”) Furthermore, Bowman notes “The size of the wedge-shaped support member 21 is such that it may readily be transported to various locations within the home or physician's office” [Col. 4, lines 3-6], and wherein Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986), where particularly Blacker in view of Bowman avails a base assembly/back support/stabilizer wings with an infant garment securement that is highly modular and may be coupled (or otherwise “joined” (Cambridge Dictionary: “coupled”) by abutment/friction/placement, not necessitating fastening as applicant separately claims and delineates fastening)
Regarding claim 13, Blacker in view of Boxer and Bowman discloses (Bowman: FIG. 1 and 2) the infant garment of claim 7, wherein the base assembly comprises a positioning insert (40; FIG. 1) wherein there is a positioning element (40) that the infants head may insert and settle into.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer in further view of Blackburn et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190069609); hereafter “Blackburn”.
Regarding claim 14, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses the infant garment of claim 1.
However, Blacker does not explicitly disclose comprising: a first leg fastener disposed on a first leg of the infant garment; a second leg fastener disposed on a second leg of the infant garment; and wherein the first leg fastener is configured to couple to the second leg fastener to restrict movement of the first leg and the second leg.
Regardless, Blackburn teaches an infant garment, comprising: a first leg fastener (342; FIG. 21) disposed on a first leg of the infant garment (as illustrated in FIG. 21); a second leg fastener (344; FIG. 21) disposed on a second leg of the infant garment (as illustrated in FIG. 21); and wherein the first leg fastener is configured to couple to the second leg fastener to restrict movement of the first leg and the second leg (through the system 346, as illustrated in FIG. 21, and further elucidated in [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the leg fasteners and system of attachment thereof of Blackburn (as illustrated in FIG. 21) into Blacker (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4B). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blackburn and Blacker are concerned with infant garments/swaddling with fastener systems. And where advantageously as Blackburn acknowledges “The securing feature in this example is a button 342 and corresponding elastic loop 344 which may be fastened together to secure/bind an infant's legs so as to restrict movement and simulate a full swaddle/wrap” [0048], thereby enabling further configurations to accommodate a great number of positions for the occupant/wearer’s comfort.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer in further view of Alperin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9204673); hereafter “Alperin”.
Regarding claim 15, Blacker in view of Boxer discloses the infant garment of claim 1,
However, Blacker does not explicitly disclose the infant garment further comprising a pouch region for receiving legs of an infant.
Regardless, Alperin teaches (FIGS. 5 and 7) an infant garment (As illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 7), further comprising a pouch region (correspondent the bottom of 12/14/18; FIG. 5) for receiving legs of an infant (As illustrated between FIGS. 5 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated the pouch region of Alperin (12/14/18; FIGS. 5 and 7) into the body assembly of Blacker (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4A). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blacker and Alperin are concerned with infant swaddling/garment arrangement. And where advantageously, the use of a pouch is acknowledged in Alperin that such a pouch avails “the perimeter opening 18 provides an easier method of dressing an infant. When the perimeter opening 18 is selectively open and the first shoulder 28 is selectively open, it is appreciably easier to place the infant inside the garment 44, even when the active infant squirms and kicks” [5: 1-14], whereby handling of the infant would be easier and less cumbersome/discomforting for both the infant and caretaker.
Claim(s) 16 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer and Paperno (U.S. Pat. No. 9237771).
Regarding claim 16, Blacker discloses (FIGS. 1-4A) an infant garment (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4A), comprising: a body (correspondent 100/110; FIGS. 1) for receiving the arms, legs, and torso of an infant (as conveyed through FIGS. 1-4A); the body comprising: a first sleeve fastener (252; FIG. 3A) that projects from the first sleeve (As illustrated in FIG. 3A); a second sleeve fastener (262; FIGS. 3A) that projects from the second sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 3A) and a body fastener (140; FIG. 3B) disposed on a body of the infant garment (As illustrated in FIG. 3B); a swaddle wrap (200; FIGS. 1-2B), the swaddle wrap comprising: a first fastener (138; FIG. 2A/2B) that engages with the fastener of the infant garment (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4A) thereby coupling the swaddle wrap to the infant garment (As conveyed through FIGS. 1-2B) a plurality of second fasteners disposed on an interior surface of the swaddle wrap (as illustrated in FIG. 6A, [0030]: “interior surface 210”); wherein the first sleeve fastener and the second sleeve fastener are configured to couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of each other and the plurality of second fasteners to restrict movement of the first sleeve and the second sleeve. However, although Blacker demonstrates two fasteners upon the sleeves (252/260; FIGS. 4A-5B); Blacker does not explicitly disclose a first tab that projects from the first sleeve, the fastener being disposed on the first tab; a second tab that projects from the second sleeve a second sleeve fastener being disposed on the second tab.
Regardless, Boxer teaches (FIGS. 3-6) a hoop shaped garment element (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-6; clarified in [5:47-61]: “After hook-and-pile pairs are formed of the type created by cutting along lines… adheres these to clothing by steam-pressing the sock or glove or other garment material for a period long enough to melt the plastic 56 so that it is embedded in the backing strip 52 and into the texture of the sock, glove, or other garment”), and provides a first tab (24-27a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the first sleeve (correspondent 22; as illustrated in FIG. 3-4), a first sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 24/27; FIG. 3-6) being disposed on the first tab (As illustrated in FIG. 3-6); a second tab (26-28a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the second sleeve (correspondent 23; FIG. 3-4), a second sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 26/28; FIGS. 3-6) being disposed on the second tab (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated or substituted the tabs with the fasteners thereon as demonstrated in Boxer (FIGS. 3-6) into/for the fasteners of the sleeves in Blacker (as illustrated in FIG. 4A-5B). Where the results would have been predictable as both Boxer and Blacker are concerned with garments and fastener assemblies therewith. Where Blacker would continue to facilitate some form of fastening it’s sleeves with the other, and likewise the fasteners of Boxer would continue to associate two garment elements together. Where further advantageously, Boxer considers that the two elements (socks/gloves/etc.) “can then be laundered and after laundering and drying will still be joined together” [4:40-50]. Where similar benefit would provide the sleeves from becoming tangled in the laundering cycle, making the invention easier to use by not having to untangle the clothes as substantially and avail the means to mitigate fastening other units of the garment by being able to close the fasteners as Boxer provides.
However, Blacker still does not explicitly disclose an upper edge; a first side edge; a second side edge; a lower region; a first attachment point disposed on the first side edge; a second attachment point disposed on the second side edge; a third attachment point disposed in the lower region; and wherein the first attachment point, the second attachment point, and the third attachment point are selectively coupled to each other to swaddle an infant wearing the infant garment.
Regardless, Paperno teaches (FIGS. 8 and 23-24) a swaddling blanket (as illustrated in FIG. 23-24) that comprises an upper edge (about 226’; FIGS. 23/24); a first side edge (nearest 220’; FIGS. 23/24); a second side edge (opposite 220’; FIGS. 23/24); a lower region (nearest reference numeral 620; FIGS. 23/24); a first attachment point (eminently demonstrated correspondent the side edge nearest 220’; FIGS. 23/24) disposed on the first side edge (as illustrated in FIGS. 23/24); a second attachment point (eminently demonstrated correspondent the side edge opposite 220’; FIGS. 23/24) disposed on the second side edge (As illustrated in FIGS. 23/24); a third attachment point (eminently demonstrated about the lower perimeter nearest reference numeral 620; FIGS. 23/24) disposed in the lower region (As illustrated in FIGS. 23/24); and wherein the first attachment point, the second attachment point, and the third attachment point are selectively coupled to each other to swaddle an infant wearing the infant garment (as conveyed in FIG. 8). Where [12: 36-49] elucidates “the blanket body 220’ can have fasteners (e.g. hoop and loop fasteners) along its periphery to facilitate holding the blanket body in a swaddling arrangement over the baby or infant”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated the first side edge, the second side edge, and the lower region of the swaddling blanket alongside the first, second, and third attachment points Paperno demonstrates (As illustrated in FIGS. 23/24) into Blacker’s swaddling blanket (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2B). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blacker and Paperno are concerned with infant swaddling devices that utilizes hook and loop fasteners to hold a torso/body holding portion (As illustrated in FIGS. 23-24, Paperno; FIGS. 1-3A-3B, Blacker). Where, Paperno acknowledges “fasteners (e.g., hoop and loop fasteners) along its periphery to facilitate folding the blanket body 220″ in a swaddling arrangement over the baby or infant” [12:36-49], which would ultimately better secure the infant than loosely folding, and would avail greater coverage over the infant, reducing chill to the lower regions with purely Blacker’s swaddling blanket.
Regarding claim 36, Blacker in view of Boxer and Paperno discloses (Paperno: FIGS. 8 and 23-24; Blacker: FIG. 1) the infant garment of claim 16, wherein the first, second, and third attachment points are disposed on a soft, flexible swaddle wrap configured to fold around the infant. As illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 23-24 of Paperno, where there is provided the requisite attachments; where [12: 36-49] elucidates “the blanket body 220’ can have fasteners (e.g. hoop and loop fasteners) along its periphery to facilitate holding the blanket body in a swaddling arrangement over the baby or infant”; and where FIG. 8 eminently demonstrates the flexible swaddle wrap folded around the infant.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer and Paperno in further view of Jarrett.
Regarding claim 18, Blacker in view of Boxer and Paperno discloses the infant garment of claim 16, wherein the swaddle wrap comprises an accessory fasteners (234; FIG. 6A) positioned on a rear exterior surface of the swaddle wrap (as illustrated in FIG. 6B; [0037]: “exterior surface 214”).
However, Blacker does not explicitly disclose wherein the accessory fasteners couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of a base assembly, a back support, or a stabilizer wing.
Regardless, Jarrett teaches (FIGS. 1, 2, and 11) an infant garment comprising a swaddling component (as illustrated in FIG. 1 correspondent to 55/20) that comprises accessory fasteners (24/25/45/46; FIG. 2), wherein the accessory fasteners couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of a base assembly (15; FIG. 11), a back support (15; FIG. 11), or a stabilizer wing (48; FIG. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the attachment of the base assembly/back support or stabilizer wing through the accessory fasteners available as Jarrett demonstrates (in FIGS. 1, 2, and 11), into and in concordance with the present accessory fasteners of Blacker (234; FIG. 6A). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blacker and Jarrett use hook and loop fastener assemblies to attach components thereto, and furthermore Jarrett acknowledges “The fastener strips 17, 18, 19 of FIG. 3 which are connected to fastener strips 23, 24, 25 respectively of FIG. 2 provide an anti-roll, anti-shifting connection between the sling 20 and the base/mattress 11. To provide an additional safety against rolling in a lateral direction, blocks (such as foam blocks or the like) are provided, each having a fastener strip that enables a connection to be formed between the block and the sling 20 at provided fastener strips 45, 46.” [Col. 3, lines 58-Col. 4, lines 4].
Regarding claim 19, Blacker in view of Jarrett discloses (Jarrett: FIGS. 1, 2, 11) the infant garment of claim 18, wherein: the base assembly comprises a sleeping surface (As illustrated in FIG. 11) and the stabilizer wing (48 as illustrated in FIG. 11); and the accessory fasteners couple to at least one of the base assembly or the sleeping surface (as illustrated in FIGS. 11 and 2).
In the alternate, Claim(s) 18 alongside 20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer and Paperno in further view of Bowman (U.S. Pat. No. 54369008).
Regarding claim 18, Blacker in view of Boxer and Paperno discloses the infant garment of claim 16, comprising accessory fasteners (234; FIG. 6A) positioned on a rear exterior surface of the swaddle wrap (as illustrated in FIG. 6B; [0037]: “exterior surface 214”).
However, Blacker does not explicitly disclose wherein the accessory fasteners couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of a base assembly, a back support, or a stabilizer wing.
Regardless, Bowman teaches (FIGS. 1-8), a base assembly, a back support (20; FIGS. 8), and stabilizer wings (51/52; FIG. 8) that are secured to an infant garment (60; FIG. 5; through 66-67; FIG. 2) through accessory fasteners thereof (As illustrated between FIGS. 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the base assembly, back support (20; FIG. 2) and the stabilizer wings (51/52; FIG. 8) and the accordant fasteners thereof of Bowman into the swaddle wrap and garment system of Blacker (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, and 11). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blacker and Bowman use hook and loop fastener assemblies to attach components thereto, and furthermore Bowman acknowledges “These type fasteners enable the reflux sling member 60 to be easily and flexibly adjusted (see FIGS. 2 and 6) on the wedge-shaped support member 21 while also providing safe and secure positioning of an infant I thereon” [Col. 6, lines 3-14].
Regarding claim 20, Blacker in view of Boxer, Paperno and Bowman discloses (Bowman: FIGS. 8) the infant garment of claim 18, wherein the base assembly comprises the stabilizer wing (51/52; FIG. 8) that is extendable from the base assembly (as illustrated in FIG. 9) and selectively removable from the base assembly (As conveyed through FIG. 9 through hook and loop fasteners 31-34; FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 23, Blacker in view of Boxer, Paperno and Bowman discloses (Bowman: FIG. 1 and 2) the infant garment of claim 18 wherein the base assembly comprises a positioning insert (40; FIG. 1) wherein there is a positioning element (40) that the infants head may insert and settle into.
Regarding claim 24, Blacker in view of Boxer, Paperno and Bowman discloses (Bowman: FIG. 8) the infant garment of claim 23, wherein the base assembly comprises a shoulder rest (either 51 or 52 eminently operable as a shoulder rest as illustrated in FIG. 8).
Claim(s) 26 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blacker in view of Boxer and Goutevenier (U.S. Pat. No. 8127385).
Regarding claim 26, Blacker discloses (FIGS. 1-4A) an infant positioning system (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4A), comprising: a garment (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-4A; FIGS. 1) having a body (correspondent 100/110; FIG. 1) adapted to surround a torso of an infant (As conveyed through FIGS. 1-4A), the garment further comprising: a first sleeve (correspondent fastener 252; FIG. 3A/3B) coupled to the body (As illustrated in FIGS. 3A/3B); a second sleeve (correspondent fastener 262; FIGS. 3A/3B) coupled to the body (as illustrated in FIGS. 3A/3B); a first sleeve fastener (252; FIG. 3A/3B) that projects from the first sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 3A/3B); a second sleeve fastener (262; FIG. 3A/3B) that projects from the second sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 3A/3B); a swaddle wrap (200; FIGS. 1-2B) coupled to the body (through 140/138; as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2B) and that, when in use, compresses the first sleeve and the second sleeve to the body and restricts movement (As eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 2A/2B); a plurality of fasteners disposed on an interior surface of the swaddle wrap (as illustrated in FIG. 6A, [0030]: “interior surface 210”); wherein the first sleeve fastener and the second sleeve fastener are configured to couple to at least one selected from the group consisting of each other and the plurality of fasteners to restrict movement of the first sleeve and the second sleeve.
However, although Blacker demonstrates two fasteners upon the sleeves (252/260; FIGS. 4A-5B); Blacker does not explicitly disclose a first tab that projects from the first sleeve, the fastener being disposed on the first tab; a second tab that projects from the second sleeve a second sleeve fastener being disposed on the second tab.
Regardless, Boxer teaches (FIGS. 3-6) a hoop shaped garment element (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-6; clarified in [5:47-61]: “After hook-and-pile pairs are formed of the type created by cutting along lines… adheres these to clothing by steam-pressing the sock or glove or other garment material for a period long enough to melt the plastic 56 so that it is embedded in the backing strip 52 and into the texture of the sock, glove, or other garment”), and provides a first tab (24-27a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the first sleeve (correspondent 22; as illustrated in FIG. 3-4), a first sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 24/27; FIG. 3-6) being disposed on the first tab (As illustrated in FIG. 3-6); a second tab (26-28a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the second sleeve (correspondent 23; FIG. 3-4), a second sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 26/28; FIGS. 3-6) being disposed on the second tab (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated or substituted the tabs with the fasteners thereon as demonstrated in Boxer (FIGS. 3-6) into/for the fasteners of the sleeves in Blacker (as illustrated in FIG. 4A-5B). Where the results would have been predictable as both Boxer and Blacker are concerned with garments and fastener assemblies therewith. Where Blacker would continue to facilitate some form of fastening it’s sleeves with the other, and likewise the fasteners of Boxer would continue to associate two garment elements together. Where further advantageously, Boxer considers that the two elements (socks/gloves/etc.) “can then be laundered and after laundering and drying will still be joined together” [4:40-50]. Where similar benefit would provide the sleeves from becoming tangled in the laundering cycle, making the invention easier to use by not having to untangle the clothes as substantially and avail the means to mitigate fastening other units of the garment by being able to close the fasteners as Boxer provides.
However, Blacker still does not explicitly disclose a modular base assembly having an angular sleeping surface for securement of the garment thereon with the infant therein.
Regardless, Goutevenier teaches (FIGS. 1-2) an infant positioning system (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2), an infant garment (20/22/26; FIGS. 1-2), and a modular base assembly (correspondent to 12 and 16; FIGS. 1 and 2) having an angular sleeping surface (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-2) for securement of the garment thereon with the infant therein (As illustrated between FIGS. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated the modular base assembly of Goutevenier (12/16; FIGS. 1-2) into the assembly of Blacker (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-4A). Where the results would have been predictable as both Blacker and Goutevenier are concerned with infant swaddling/resting devices. Where Goutevenier acknowledges such an angular base the “wrap in a gently angled position (20.degree.-40.degree.)…child can then rest or digest after eating without suffering from acid reflux or flowing back of foods. Also, the child can rest more comfortably when suffering from upper respiratory, head and sinus congestion” [1: 7-24], thereby ensuring comfort for the infant occupant and reducing stress thereon or other common infant ailments as Goutevenier acknowledges resolved by such an angular modular support.
Regarding claim 35, Blacker in view of Boxer and Goutenevier discloses (Boxer: FIG. 1, Abstract; Blacker: FIGS. 1 and 3A-3B) the infant positioning system of claim 26, wherein the first sleeve fastener and second sleeve fastener are configured to directly couple to each other at a location spaced from the body. Where as illustrated in FIG. 1 of Boxer, and in correspondence with the proposed combination in claim 1 in Blacker (FIGS. 3A-3B) the fasteners would be away from the body 110; FIG. 3A/3B and 1), and would be directly coupling as Boxer considers (Abstract: “so that the pile and hooks of one…may be joined to the hook and pile of another”).
Claim(s) 28 and 31-33, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardesty (U.S. Pub. No. 20110277210) in view of Boxer.
Regarding claim 28, Hardesty discloses (FIGS. 1, 7, 12, and 27-28) an infant garment, comprising: a body (6; FIG. 1) adapted to surround a torso of an infant (as illustrated in FIG. 1); a first sleeve (967; FIG. 27) coupled to the body (as illustrated in FIG. 27); a first sleeve fastener (through 995/996/999; FIG. 27) that projects from the first sleeve (As illustrated in FIG. 27); a second sleeve (987; FIG. 27) coupled to the body (as illustrated in FIG. 27); a second sleeve fastener (991/992/993; FIG. 27) that projects from the second sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 27), the first sleeve fastener and the second sleeve fastener being configured to couple to each other to restrict movement of the first sleeve and the second sleeve (as illustrated in FIG. 28); and an accessory fastener (504; FIG. 7, elucidated in [0062]) positioned on the body, wherein the accessory fasteners couple to a back support (808/840; FIG. 12); and wherein the back support is configured to place an infant's back on an angular plane that encourages the infant's head to a side position (where as illustrated in FIG. 12, the back supports (at least 840) being triangular supports beneath the infant would encourage the infant’s head to a side position). Where it is understood that the fastener (being hook and loop type) would project from the sleeve surface and therefore respectfully anticipate the claimed subject matter.
However, although Hardesty demonstrates two fasteners upon the sleeves (995/996/999 and 991/992/993; FIG.27-28); Hardesty does not explicitly disclose a first tab that projects from the first sleeve, the fastener being disposed on the first tab; a second tab that projects from the second sleeve a second sleeve fastener being disposed on the second tab.
Regardless, Boxer teaches (FIGS. 3-6) a hoop shaped garment element (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-6; clarified in [5:47-61]: “After hook-and-pile pairs are formed of the type created by cutting along lines… adheres these to clothing by steam-pressing the sock or glove or other garment material for a period long enough to melt the plastic 56 so that it is embedded in the backing strip 52 and into the texture of the sock, glove, or other garment”), and provides a first tab (24-27a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the first sleeve (correspondent 22; as illustrated in FIG. 3-4), a first sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 24/27; FIG. 3-6) being disposed on the first tab (As illustrated in FIG. 3-6); a second tab (26-28a; FIG. 3-4) that projects from the second sleeve (correspondent 23; FIG. 3-4), a second sleeve fastener (hook/piles of 26/28; FIGS. 3-6) being disposed on the second tab (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated or substituted the tabs with the fasteners thereon as demonstrated in Boxer (FIGS. 3-6) into/for the fasteners of the sleeves in Hardesty (as illustrated in FIG. 27-28). Where the results would have been predictable as both Boxer and Hardesty are concerned with garments and fastener assemblies therewith. Where Hardesty would continue to facilitate some form of fastening it’s sleeves with the other, and likewise the fasteners of Boxer would continue to associate two garment elements together. Where further advantageously, Boxer considers that the two elements (socks/gloves/etc.) “can then be laundered and after laundering and drying will still be joined together” [4:40-50]. Where similar benefit would provide the sleeves from becoming tangled in the laundering cycle, making the invention easier to use by not having to untangle the clothes as substantially and avail the means to mitigate fastening other units of the garment by being able to close the fasteners as Boxer provides.
Regarding claim 31, Hardesty in view of Boxer discloses (FIGS. 1, 7, 12, and 27) the infant garment of claim 33, wherein: the base assembly comprises a sleeping surface (correspondent808/806; FIG. 12) and the stabilizer wing (840); and the accessory fasteners couple to at least one of the base assembly and the sleeping surface (through 504; FIG. 7, as elucidated in [0062] “External releasable female landing area 504 is selectively engageable in releasable mating engagement with an exterior releasable male landing area 808”).
Regarding claim 32, Hardesty in view of Boxer discloses (FIGS. 1, 7, 12, and 27) the infant garment of claim 28, wherein the back support is configured to place the infant's back on an angular plane (as illustrated in FIG. 12) such that a first shoulder is elevated above a second shoulder of the infant(as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 12 with regards to 840)
Regarding claim 33, Hardesty in view of Boxer discloses (FIGS. 1,7, 12, and 27) the infant garment of claim 28, wherein the back support is selectively coupled to at least one of a base assembly or a stabilizer wing. AS illustrated in FIG. 12, the back support may comprise at least either or both 808 and 840, and particularly if 840 is treated as a back support while 808 is treated as a base assembly, the back support is eminently selectively coupled to 808 through hook and loop fasteners as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 12. The back support may alternatively be considered as 808 where 840 may be considered as the stabilizer wings to which the stabilizer wings 840 are eminently selectively coupled to the back support (808) in the alternate.
Regarding claim 37, Hardesty in view of Boxer (Hardesty: FIGS. 1, 7, 12, and 27-28) the infant garment of claim 28, wherein the first sleeve fastener and second sleeve fastener directly couple to each other. As illustrated between FIGS. 1, 7, 12, and particularly 27-28 wherein the first and second fasteners as previously ascribed in claim 28 (with correspondence to Boxer’s direct couplings, [Abstract]), would achieve directly coupling to each other and appears demonstrated in operation in Hardesty in FIGS. 27-28.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardesty in view of Boxer in further view of Karp (U.S. Pub. No. 20170245555).
Regarding claim 30, Hardesty in view of Boxer discloses (FIGS. 1, 7, 12, and 27) the infant garment of claim 28.
However, Hardesty does not explicitly disclose wherein the base assembly is selectively coupled to at least one selected from the group consisting of a swing, a cradle, a rocker, a bassinette, and a play yard.
Regardless, Karp teaches (FIGS. 1-3) an infant garment (26; FIGS. 1-3) t that is coupled to a base assembly (15; FIG. 2), wherein the base assembly is coupled to a swing, cradle, rocker, and bassinette and playard (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3 (a bassinette/cradle), and elucidated in [0112] “rocking”, [0152] “swing”, [0201] “playpen”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have used the attachments and add-ons for a base assembly as elucidated in Karp (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3 (a bassinette/cradle), and elucidated in [0112] “rocking”, [0152] “swing”, [0201] “playpen”) with the base assembly of Hardesty (as illustrated in FIG. 7 and 12). Where the result would have been obvious as both Karp and Hardesty are concerned with an infant swaddle with a base assembly therewith, and where advantageously, the use of the add ons such as the rockers “provide a motion that varies from slow smooth rocking (0.5-1.5 cps) to keep babies calm- and promote sleep” [0153] as Karp explains, and the use of a bassinette/cradle/playpen better secures the infant and shields/protects from outside elements as is eminently known to the art of infant receptacles
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicant alleges (Remarks: 8-11) that Blacker in view of Boxer is insufficient. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). And further In response to applicant's argument that either Blacker is insufficient for the attachment of both fastener together, or that Boxer is insufficient to address attaching like elements to each other, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Particularly, Blacker provides an infant swaddle device with arms and fasteners thereon, while Boxer provides two like elements with fasteners thereon (FIGS. 1-5). The rejection necessitates the teachings of both, with Blacker as the primary reference and Boxer providing a first and second fastener on a first and second tubular worn element, analogous to the two arms of the infant swaddle, where Blacker already possesses a fastener on each arm. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to have incorporated the fastener associative elements of two arms together as Boxer does into Blacker, where particularly Examiner identifies that Boxer identifies such an operation is useful to laundering to prevent lose or tangling, and such would make laundry handling of the infant pajamas easier by securing the arms together rather than potentially tangling up.
Furthermore, it is considered that although applicant alleges that there is no forward thinking rationale for combination, Examiner has provided one that is not supplied by applicant. Applicant’s invention is provided for arresting the movement of an infant, whereas Boxer’s fasteners are provided and associate like elements to each other to render laundering easier, which for infant clothing would pose such a ‘forward thinking’ improvement that applicant’s have not identified and therefore cannot form the basis for impermissible hindsight bias respectfully.
Therefore, Examiner is not respectfully persuaded at the present time that Blacker in view of Boxer (among others) fails to avail the claimed combination of features and the rejections thereof are respectfully maintained.
Similarly, applicant alleges (Remarks: pages 11-13) that Hardesty in view of Boxer does not avail the claimed features of applicants invention for similar grounds as those previously set forth, and applicant appears to allege bodily incorporating the references and piecemeal analysis of the references. However, for analogous reasons and rationales, and with expoundment of Boxer provided herein, Examiner is respectfully likewise not persuaded that Hardesty in view of Boxer fails to avail the claimed features of applicants invention and the rejections of record are respectfully maintained.
Respectfully therefore, the rejections of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, 23-24, 26, and 28, and 30-33 are maintained and claims 34-37 are newly rejected under both 112(a) as outlined in the pertinent section and rejected under 103 with construing as necessitated by the 112(a) Rejection under Blacker in view of Boxer among others and Hardesty in view of Boxer.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Justin Mikowksi can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673