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 .
Response to Argument/s
This is a FINAL Rejection to Amendments and Arguments filed by Applicant on 04/29/2026. Claims 1, 7, and 11 have been amended. Claims 23-26 have been added. Currently pending for review are Claims 1-3, and 5-26.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections made in the Office Action filed on 12/29/2025. Amendments/Remarks & Arguments filed by Applicant on 08/12/2026 correct the rejection and/or are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections made in the Office Action filed on 12/29/2025 has been withdrawn unless otherwise indicated below.
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 11-15 and 25 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.
Claim 11 recites “fabric mesh”, however this limitation is not present in the original disclosure and therefore is considered new matter. The specifications indicate in paragraph [006]:” In one embodiment, mesh spacer 130 has less elasticity and more durability than foam pad 128, e.g., by being made from a durable, low-stretch material such as nylon or polyester.”, however the limitation of “fabric” encompasses embodiments not previously disclosed. In order to proceed, Applicant may overcome the rejection by clearly pointing to support for the limitation, amending, or canceling the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storms, JR et al (US 20110023207) in view of Blauer et al (US 20180160744 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Storms teaches a weight plate carrier vest comprising: a first panel 120 and a second panel 110 defining a torso cavity therebetween configured to receive a torso of a user (Refer to Fig. 1), the first panel 120 comprising a first layer 124 and a second layer 121 secured to the first layer, the first layer 124 and the second layer 121 defining a pocket 282 therebetween configured to receive a weight plate (Refer to Fig. 15 Paragraph [0115]:” the first layer 121 of the back panel 120 comprises a back internal pocket 282, which is accessible when the back panel flap portion 124' of the second layer 124 is opened.”..The Office takes the position that the pocket holds a armor plate 199 which is considered a weight plate), each of the first layer 124 and the second layer 121 having an interior surface facing the pocket 282 and an exterior surface facing away from the pocket, wherein the second layer 121 is not secured to the first layer 124 along at least a portion of a bottom of the first panel 120 to define an opening at a bottom of the first panel providing access to the pocket, and wherein the first 124 panel further comprises a flap 124’ extending downward at a bottom edge of the first layer 124, the flap 124’ being connected to the first layer at a top end thereof and having free lateral edges (Refer to annotated Fig. 15 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
364
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
such that the flap is configured to be moveable between a closed position, where the flap is removably connected to an exterior surface of the second layer 121 to at least partially cover the opening 282 and hold the weight plate within the pocket, and an open position, where the flap is disconnected from the exterior surface of the second layer and is folded downward away from the second layer and configured to permit insertion of the weight plate 199 into the pocket or removal of the weight plate 199 from the pocket through the opening; and (Refer to Fig. 15 Paragraph [0115]:” the first layer 121 of the back panel 120 comprises a back internal pocket 282, which is accessible when the back panel flap portion 124' of the second layer 124 is opened.”); a pair of shoulder straps 112 extending between the first panel 120 and the second panel 110. Storms fails to teach wherein the flap extending downward at a bottom edge of the first layer, is configured to be removably connected to the interior surface of the second layer. Blauer et al teaches a vest comprising a first panel 60 and second panel 62, wherein first panel comprises a first and second layer 17,19 forming an opening at the bottom for insertion of a plate 40 and a flap 19 extending downward at a bottom edge of the first layer 17, is configured to be removably connected to the interior surface of the second layer 19 (Refer to Blauer et al annotated Fig. 7 below Paragraph [0027] FIG. 7 is a side cross-sectional view of the bottom opening for installing the armor carrier;”).
PNG
media_image2.png
327
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Blauer et al is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach vest for comprising pockets for insertion of a weighted plate and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the flap 124’ of Storms et al to be attachable to the interior surface of the second layer 121 since Blauer et al shows that such configuration is known in the art to be suitable for attached a flap of a pocket to close the pocket and would provide the benefit of reducing accidental removable of the flap. Storms in view of Blauer et al teach wherein the first layer comprises an inner layer facing the torso cavity, and discloses a mesh or cushioning layer (Refer to Storms Paragraph [0055]:” In various exemplary embodiments, the back panel 120 may also comprise an additional layer of material 122, which provides an additional cushioning or airflow layer to the back panel 120.”) but fails to teach wherein the first layer further comprises an inner layer facing the torso cavity, an outer layer, and a foam pad and a mesh spacer positioned between the inner and outer layers. Kerr teaches a protective garmet comprising a pocket for housing a bladder 110 (Refer to Fig. 3) having a first layer, wherein the first layer further comprises an inner layer 105 facing the torso cavity, an outer layer 105, and a foam pad 106 and a mesh spacer 108 positioned between the inner and outer layers 105 (Refer to Cols 1-2 Lines 63-16). Kerr is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach a garmet for wearing on a user comprising a pocket and mesh/cushion material and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the first layer of Storms to be in view of Kerr such that it comprises an inner layer 105 facing the torso cavity, an outer layer 105, and a foam pad 106,107 and a mesh spacer 108 positioned between the inner and outer layers 105 since Kerr teaches that such layering is known in the art for providing a suitable layer for cushioning and breathability of the garment, and since such foam padding and mesh materials within fabric layers are known in the art such combination would have been a matter of obvious design choice to produce expected results.
Regarding Claim 2, Storms in view of Blauer et al continues to teach further comprising a first flap fastener 79 connected to the exterior surface of the first layer 124 and releasably connectable to a second flap fastener 79 connected to the interior surface of the second layer 121 (Refer to Figs. 7 of Blauer et al Paragraph [0060]:” The edges 77, 78 are closed by a zipper, a hook and loop fastener, or other openable fastener 79.” as modified).
Regarding Claim 3, Storms in view of Blauer et al teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to teach wherein the first layer is an interior layer confronting the torso cavity, and the second layer is an exterior layer located outward of the interior layer. The Office takes the position that Applicant does not provide criticality to such arrangement and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the first layer to be an interior layer confronting the torso cavity, and the second layer is an exterior layer located outward of the interior layer since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding Claim 5, Storms in view of Blauer et al continues to teach wherein the flap 124’ is integral with the first layer 124.
Regarding Claim 6, Storms in view of Blauer et al continues to teach wherein the foam pad 106,107 (as modified by Kerr) extends into the flap 124’ (The Office takes the position that the entire first layer comprises the inner and outer layers 105, foam pad 106,107, and mesh 108 as modified).
Regarding Claim 8, Storms in view of Blauer et al continues to teach wherein the flap 124’ has a lateral width at all locations that is smaller than a lateral width of the bottom of the first panel 120 (Refer to Storms Figs. 7,8,&15).
Regarding Claim 9, Storms in view of Blauer et al continues to teach wherein each shoulder strap comprises: a first strap support having a first end secured to the first panel and a second end, the first strap support having a tapered width such that the first end is wider than the second end (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 below in so much as Applicant has shown);
PNG
media_image3.png
574
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a second strap support having a first end secured to the second panel and a second end, the second strap support having a tapered width such that the first end is wider than the second end; and a fastening strap 112 adjustably secured to the first and second strap supports (Refer to Paragraph [0047]:” [0047] The front shoulder strap attachment openings 113 allow the release loop 160 to pass through the front shoulder strap elements 112 (as discussed below). In various exemplary embodiments, a single attachment opening 113 may be included on each front shoulder strap element 112. However, a plurality of attachment openings 113 may be included to allow a user to select a single attachment opening 113 to pass the release loop 160 through, thereby providing a measure of adjustment to the effective length of the front shoulder strap elements 112 and the overall fit of the releasable vest 100.”).
Claim(s) 11, 14, 15, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storms, JR et al (US 20110023207) in view of Blauer et al (US 20180160744 A1) and Kerr (US 6681399 B1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 25, Storms teaches a weight plate carrier vest comprising: a first panel 120 and a second panel 110 defining a torso cavity therebetween configured to receive a torso of a user, the first panel comprising: an interior layer 124; an exterior layer 121 secured to the interior layer 124, the interior layer and the exterior layer defining a pocket 282 therebetween configured to receive a weight plate, wherein the outer layer of the interior layer faces the pocket (Refer to Fig. 15 Paragraph [0115]:” the first layer 121 of the back panel 120 comprises a back internal pocket 282, which is accessible when the back panel flap portion 124' of the second layer 124 is opened.”..The Office takes the position that the pocket holds a armor plate 199 which is considered a weight plate); a pair of shoulder straps 112 extending between the first panel 120 and the second panel 110; and a waist strap 140 configured to secure the first panel and the second panel to the torso of the user at a bottom of the weight plate carrier vest. Storms teaches wherein the first layer comprises an inner layer facing the torso cavity, and discloses a mesh or cushioning layer (Refer to Storms Paragraph [0055]:” In various exemplary embodiments, the back panel 120 may also comprise an additional layer of material 122, which provides an additional cushioning or airflow layer to the back panel 120.”) but fails to expressly disclose that the mesh layer 122 is fabric. Blauer et al teaches a vest device for carrying a weight plate (carrier plate having weight. Refer to Fig. 7), wherein a mesh layer is made of fabric (Refer to Paragraph [0057] The liner 19 is composed of a knit or woven material that may be wicking or non-wicking in performance. Typically, the majority of the liner 19 is a heavyweight polyester mesh.”). Blauer et al is from the same field of endeavor as Applicant invention in that they both teach weighted vest with mesh/airflow layer and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the airflow layer 122 of Storm to be a fabric mesh in view of Blauer et al since Blauer et al teaches such materials are known in the art and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts. Storm in view of Blauer et al fails to teach the interior layer comprising, in layered order, an inner layer facing the torso cavity, a foam pad adjacent to the inner layer, a fabric mesh spacer adjacent to the foam pad, and an outer layer adjacent to the fabric mesh spacer, wherein the inner layer, the foam pad, the mesh spacer, and the outer layer are secured together. Kerr teaches a protective garment comprising a pocket for housing a bladder 110 (Refer to Fig. 3) having a first layer, wherein the first layer further comprises an inner layer 105 facing the torso cavity, an outer layer 105, and a foam pad 106 and a mesh spacer 108 positioned between the inner and outer layers 105 (Refer to Cols 1-2 Lines 63-16). Kerr is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach a garment for wearing on a user comprising a pocket and mesh/cushion material and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the first layer of Storms to be in view of Kerr such that it comprises an inner layer 105 facing the torso cavity, an outer layer 105, and a foam pad 106,107 and a mesh spacer 108 positioned between the inner and outer layers 105 since Kerr teaches that such layering is known in the art for providing a suitable layer for cushioning and breathability of the garment, and since such foam padding and mesh materials within fabric layers are known in the art such combination would have been a matter of obvious design choice to produce expected results. The Office takes the position that such layering would have been a matter of obvious design choice since Applicant does not provide criticality of the order of the layering such modification would have produce the same expected results and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Regarding Claim 14, Storms in view of Blauer et al and Kerr continues to teach wherein the outer layer 105 of the interior layer is formed of nylon, and the exterior layer is formed of nylon (Refer to Col 1 Lines 63-64:” The vest comprises layers of material 105 such as Nylon”).
Regarding Claim 15, Storms in view of Blauer et al and Kerr continues to teach wherein the exterior layer comprises an inner exterior layer and an outer exterior layer, wherein the pocket is defined between the outer layer of the interior layer and the inner exterior layer (Refer to Kerr Fig. 3 Cols 1-2 Lines 63-16..The Office takes the position that the modification would apply to the interior and exterior layer).
Claim(s) 7, 21, 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storms, JR et al (US 20110023207) in view of Blauer et al (US 20180160744 A1), further in view of Kerr (US 6681399 B1).
Regarding Claims 21 and 23, Storms teaches a weight plate carrier vest comprising: a first panel 120 and a second panel 110 defining a torso cavity therebetween configured to receive a torso of a user (Refer to Fig. 1), the first panel 120 comprising a first layer 124 and a second layer 121 secured to the first layer, the first layer 124 and the second layer 121 defining a pocket 282 therebetween configured to receive a weight plate (Refer to Fig. 15 Paragraph [0115]:” the first layer 121 of the back panel 120 comprises a back internal pocket 282, which is accessible when the back panel flap portion 124' of the second layer 124 is opened.”..The Office takes the position that the pocket holds a armor plate 199 which is considered a weight plate), each of the first layer 124 and the second layer 121 having an interior surface facing the pocket 282 and an exterior surface facing away from the pocket, wherein the second layer 121 is not secured to the first layer 124 along at least a portion of a bottom of the first panel 120 to define an opening at a bottom of the first panel providing access to the pocket, and wherein the first panel further comprises a flap 124’ extending downward at a bottom edge of the first layer 124, the flap configured to be removably connected to an exterior surface of the second layer 121 to at least partially cover the opening 282 and hold the weight plate within the pocket (Refer to Fig. 15 Paragraph [0115]:” the first layer 121 of the back panel 120 comprises a back internal pocket 282, which is accessible when the back panel flap portion 124' of the second layer 124 is opened.”); a pair of shoulder straps 112 extending between the first panel 120 and the second panel 110; and a waist strap 140 configured to secure the first panel 120 and the second panel 110 to the torso of the user at a bottom portion of the weight plate carrier vest 100 (Refer to Fig. 1 Paragraph [0056]:”The waist belt elements 140 and 140' serve to attach or couple the front panel 110 to the back panel 120”). Storms teaches wherein the first layer comprises an inner layer facing the torso cavity, and discloses a mesh or cushioning layer (Refer to Storms Paragraph [0055]:” In various exemplary embodiments, the back panel 120 may also comprise an additional layer of material 122, which provides an additional cushioning or airflow layer to the back panel 120.”) but fails to expressly disclose that the mesh layer 122 is fabric. Blauer et al teaches a vest device for carrying a weight plate (carrier plate having weight. Refer to Fig. 7), wherein a mesh layer is made of fabric (Refer to Paragraph [0057] The liner 19 is composed of a knit or woven material that may be wicking or non-wicking in performance. Typically, the majority of the liner 19 is a heavyweight polyester mesh.”). Blauer et al is from the same field of endeavor as Applicant invention in that they both teach weighted vest with mesh/airflow layer and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the airflow layer 122 of Storm to be a fabric mesh in view of Blauer et al since Blauer et al teaches such materials are known in the art and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts. Storm in view of Blauer et al fails to teach wherein the flap extending downward at a bottom edge of the first layer, is configured to be removably connected to the interior surface of the second layer. Blauer et al teaches a vest comprising a first panel 60 and second panel 62, wherein first panel comprises a first and second layer 17,19 forming an opening at the bottom for insertion of a plate 40 and a flap 19 extending downward at a bottom edge of the first layer 17, is configured to be removably connected to the interior surface of the second layer 19 (Refer to Blauer et al annotated Fig. 7 below Paragraph [0027] FIG. 7 is a side cross-sectional view of the bottom opening for installing the armor carrier;”).
PNG
media_image2.png
327
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Blauer et al is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach vest for comprising pockets for insertion of a weighted plate and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the flap 124’ of Storms et al to be attachable to the interior surface of the second layer 121 since Blauer et al shows that such configuration is known in the art to be suitable for attached a flap of a pocket to close the pocket and would provide the benefit of reducing accidental removable of the flap. Storms in view of Blauer et al teach wherein the first layer comprises an inner layer facing the torso cavity, and discloses a mesh or cushioning layer (Refer to Storms Paragraph [0055]:” In various exemplary embodiments, the back panel 120 may also comprise an additional layer of material 122, which provides an additional cushioning or airflow layer to the back panel 120.”) but fails to teach wherein the first layer further comprises an inner layer facing the torso cavity, an outer layer, and a foam pad and a mesh spacer positioned between the inner and outer layers. Kerr teaches a protective garmet comprising a pocket for housing a bladder 110 (Refer to Fig. 3) having a first layer, wherein the first layer further comprises an inner layer 105 facing the torso cavity, an outer layer 105, and a foam pad 106 and a mesh spacer 108 positioned between the inner and outer layers 105 (Refer to Cols 1-2 Lines 63-16). Kerr is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach a garmet for wearing on a user comprising a pocket and mesh/cushion material and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the first layer of Storms to be in view of Kerr such that it comprises an inner layer 105 facing the torso cavity, an outer layer 105, and a foam pad 106,107 and a mesh spacer 108 positioned between the inner and outer layers 105 since Kerr teaches that such layering is known in the art for providing a suitable layer for cushioning and breathability of the garment, and since such foam padding and mesh materials within fabric layers are known in the art such combination would have been a matter of obvious design choice to produce expected results.
Regarding Claim 7, Storms in view of Blauer et al and Kerr teaches the claimed invention comprising inner and out layers 105, foam pad 106,107, and mesh spaced 108 however, although Kerr does not expressly disclose wherein the foam pad is adjacent and secured to the inner layer, the mesh spacer is adjacent and secured to the foam pad, and the outer layer is adjacent and secured to the mesh spacer, and wherein the inner layer, the foam pad, the mesh spacer, and the outer layer extend into the flap. The Office takes the position that such layering would have been a matter of obvious design choice since Applicant does not provide criticality of the order of the layering such modification would have produce the same expected results and therefore does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts.
Regarding Claim 24, Storms in view of Blauer et al and Kerr continues to teach a waist strap 140 configured to secure the first panel 120 and the second panel 110 to the torso of the user at a bottom portion of the weight plate carrier vest 100 (Refer to Fig. 1 Paragraph [0056]:”The waist belt elements 140 and 140' serve to attach or couple the front panel 110 to the back panel 120”).
Regarding Claim 26, Storms in view of Blauer et al and Kerr continues to teach wherein the fabric mesh spacer is formed of nylon or polyester (Refer to Paragraph [0057] The liner 19 is composed of a knit or woven material that may be wicking or non-wicking in performance. Typically, the majority of the liner 19 is a heavyweight polyester mesh.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are 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 the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Storms in view of Blauer et al and Kerr are the closest combination to the claimed invention but fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole further comprising each shoulder strap comprises: a first strap support having a first end secured to the first panel and a second end; a second strap support having a first end secured to the second panel and a second end; a D-ring secured to the second strap support; and a fastening strap extending through the D-ring and having a first end secured to the second end of the first strap support and a second free end, a first portion extending from the first end of the fastening strap to the D-ring, a second portion extending from the D-ring to the second free end of the fastening strap, a first shoulder strap fastener secured to a first surface of the fastening strap along the first portion, and a second shoulder strap fastener secured to the first surface of the fastening strap along the first portion and configured to be releasably secured to the first shoulder strap fastener, wherein the outer layer of the interior layer of the first panel has opposed sides that are free from other portions of the interior and exterior layers, and/or wherein the inner layer of the interior layer has greater elasticity than the outer layer of the interior layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/29/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Blauer does not disclose a flap or an opening at the bottom of the panel.”. However referring to Fig. 7 it is clear that Blauer et al teaches a flap that is removable between the first and second panel 17 & 19 (Refer to annotated Fig. 7 below and Paragraph [0060]:” In one configuration, the waist attachments 33, 34 are zippers, hook and loop fasteners, or other openable fasteners that facilitate inserting the armor panel carriers 40, 42 into the pockets 44, 46 from the bottom. In another configuration, the lateral opening 76 is formed by overlapping edges 77, 78 of the liner 19, as in FIG. 8. The edges 77, 78 are closed by a zipper, a hook and loop fastener, or other openable fastener 79.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
364
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Storms is used to teach a flap on the bottom comprising lateral edges and Blauer et al is merely added to teach that the connection of the flap being made on an interior surface of the second layer is known in the art and therefore does not patentably distinguish over the prior arts. Further amendments to Claims 1, 11, and 21 changes the scope of the claims and a new grounds of rejection has been disclosed above.
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 NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Loan Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights