DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11-15, and 17. Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20150099251 A1) in view of Jordan (US 20030146044 A1) in further view of Matte (US 9,446,295 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a child snowboarding training and safety device (Abstract: A ski training harness comprising: (a) an adjustable, releasable waist strap; (b) a pair of retractable leashes connected to the waist strap at a left-side and right-side location relative to a child) comprising:
a waist strap for circumscribing a waist of a child, (waist strap 20 for circumscribing a waist of the child in ¶ 25: which allows waist strap 20 to be secured around the waist of a child),
a rear leg strap for circumscribing a thigh of the child (¶ 28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs),
an adjustable length leash for attaching at a first end of the leash to said strap (¶25: Leash rings 24 allow a user to clip retractable leashes 75 to waist strap 20),
and said leash includes a handle at a second terminal end of the leash for grasping by a trainer (Fig. 3 shows leash handle 70, also shows leash 78, located at terminal portion of retractable leash 75, see ¶31)
Anderson discloses connecting waist and rear leg strap together (¶ 25) does but not specifically teach a connecting strap for connecting the waist strap and rear leg strap. Jordan discloses an adjustable length connecting strap for connecting said waist strap and said rear leg strap (Rear straps, 28a and 28b, a pair of adjustable rear straps connecting the leg straps to the waist strap).
Anderson discloses placing connection points for the leash at various locations (¶ 25: Leash rings 24 are provided at the front, left-side, right-side and back portions of waist strap 20) and thus modifying Anderson in view of Jordan to have a connection point for the leash on the connecting strap would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Jordan to include an adjustable connecting strap for the waist strap and rear leg strap because it allows for greater for flexibility in positioning the straps for the comfort of the user (¶39 of Jordan).
Anderson in view of Jordan lack in disclosing wherein the first end of the leash comprises a clamp connectable to a clip on the connecting strap. Anderson teaches being able to place the leash rings, i.e. clips for attaching a leash to different parts of the harness (¶ 25) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified Anderson to teach placing a leash ring, i.e. clip on the connecting strap as taught by Jordan (¶ 39) since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
Matte teaches of a tethered training harness in which the tether, i.e. leash, comprises a clamp connectable to a clip on a connecting strap (Matte col. 6 lines 8-19, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any type of conventional coupling means such as a clamp to secure the leash to the leash rings #24, i.e. clip, in Anderson. Matte teaches that all of these coupling means are conventional and can be selected based on convenience and flexibility.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 1, wherein Anderson further discloses said waist strap is adjustable in length (¶25: waist strap 20 is adjustable and has buckle-type fastener 22, which allows waist strap 20 to be secured around the waist of a child).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 2, wherein Anderson further discloses said a strap with a handle (Back strap handle (55) in ¶ 26: Back strap handle 55 allows an adult to grasp the shoulder strap and lift a child into a standing position or to stabilize a standing child).
Anderson is silent on the waist handle specifically being on the waist strap. But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Anderson to put a handle on the waist strap since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 3, wherein Anderson further discloses said rear leg strap is adjustable in length. (Leg straps (30) in ¶ 28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs. Leg straps 30 are adjustable).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 4, wherein Anderson further discloses the rear leg strap (¶28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs). Anderson is silent on the rear leg strap having a width from 5 cm to about 15 cm.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to adjust the leg strap of the width from 5 cm to 15 cm because it is a routine engineering design choice. The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of leg strap size, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the rear leg strap size as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 5, wherein Anderson further discloses said waist strap and rear leg strap (Fig 6, waist strap 20, Fig 7 leg strap, 30, Fig 1.). Anderson is silent on the waist strap where the width is greater than the rear leg strap width.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to have the waist strap of greater width than the leg strap because it is a routine engineering design choice. The applicant' s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of waist strap and leg strap sizes, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the waist strap and rear leg strap sizes as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 5, wherein Anderson further discloses said leash. Anderson teaches retractable leash handles adjustable in length (Fig 1, element 70), but is silent on the waist strap where the leash is adjustable in length from 100 cm to 500 cm.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to have the leash be adjustable in length from 100 cm to 500 cm. The applicant' s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of leash adjustability range in size, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the leash adjustability range in size as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 8, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 7, wherein Anderson further discloses said leash is retractable in length (¶ 13: a pair of retractable leashes connected to the waist strap at a left-side and right-side location relative to a child; ¶ 31: FIG. 3 shows a side view of leash handle 70 having retractable leash 75 in a partially extended position and thumb actuated brake 76).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 8, wherein Anderson further discloses said handle includes a reel to selectively retract and extend said leash (Claim 8: wherein each of said leash handles comprises a rotational spool mounted within said leash handle and wherein said retractable leash is wound around said spool).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 9, wherein Anderson further discloses said leash is expandable in length. (¶ 13: a portion of each of said leashes extending from each of said handles; ¶ 31: FIG. 3 shows a side view of leash handle 70 having retractable leash 75 in a partially extended position and thumb actuated brake 76).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses a child snowboarding training and safety device (Abstract: A ski training harness comprising: (a) an adjustable, releasable waist strap; (b) a pair of retractable leashes connected to the waist strap at a left-side and right-side location relative to a child) comprising:
a waist strap for circumscribing a waist of a child (waist strap 20 for circumscribing a waist of the child in ¶ 25: which allows waist strap 20 to be secured around the waist of a child),
wherein said waist strap is adjustable in length (¶13: an adjustable, releasable waist strap extending horizontally around the waist of a child),
a first rear leg strap for circumscribing a thigh of the child (¶ 28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs),
wherein said first rear leg strap is adjustable in length (¶ 28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs. Leg straps 30 are adjustable, and are attached to waist strap 20 with buckle-type fasteners 32; ¶ 13: wherein each of the leg straps is adapted to enclose a child's leg),
an adjustable length leash for selectively attaching at a first end of the leash to said strap (¶25: Leash rings 24 allow a user to clip retractable leashes 75 to waist strap 20),
and said leash includes a handle at a second terminal end of the leash for grasping by a trainer (¶ 31: Thumb actuated brake 76 allows leash 75 to be locked at fixed extension lengths relative to leash handle 70. FIG. 3 also shows leash clip 78, which is located at the terminal portion of retractable leash 75),
wherein said handle includes a reel to selectively retract and extend said leash (Claim 8: wherein each of said leash handles comprises a rotational spool mounted within said leash handle and wherein said retractable leash is wound around said spool).
Anderson discloses an adjustable length leash (¶ 25: Leash rings 24 allow a user to clip retractable leashes 75 to waist strap 20), but is silent on the length from 100 cm to 500 cm.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson’s retractable leash to have the length adjustable from 100 cm to 500 cm because it is a routine engineering design choice. The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of the leash length, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the adjustable leash size as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Anderson teaches a connecting waist and rear leg strap together (¶ 25) does but not specifically teach an adjustable connecting strap for connecting the waist strap and rear leg strap. Anderson discloses an adjustable length leash (¶ 25: Leash rings 24 allow a user to clip retractable leashes 75 to waist strap 20) but is silent on the leash connecting to a connecting strap. Jordan discloses an adjustable length first connecting strap for connecting said waist strap and said selectively removable rear leg strap; (Rear straps, 28a and 28b, a pair of adjustable rear straps connecting the leg straps to the waist strap).
Anderson teaches placing connection points for the leash at various locations (¶ 25: leash rings 24 are provided at the front, left-side, right-side and back portions of waist strap 20) and thus modifying Anderson in view of Jordan to have a connection point for the leash on the connecting strap would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C). In addition, it would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Jordan to include an adjustable connecting strap for the waist strap and rear leg strap because it allows for greater for flexibility in positioning the straps for the comfort of the user (¶39 of Jordan).
Anderson in view of Jordan further discloses wherein the first end of the leash comprises a hook connectable to a clip on the connecting strap (Anderson Fig. 3 #78 is hook shaped). Anderson teaches being able to place the leash rings, i.e. clips for attaching a leash to different parts of the harness (¶ 25) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified Anderson to teach placing a leash ring, i.e. clip on the connecting strap as taught by Jordan (¶ 39) since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
However, if one determines #78 of Anderson is not a hook, Matte teaches wherein the first end of a leash comprises a hook, i.e. snap hook, connectable to a clip on the connecting strap (Matte col. 6 lines 8-19, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any type of conventional coupling means such as a hook to secure the leash to the leash rings, i.e. clip, in Anderson. Matte teaches that all of these coupling means are conventional and can be selected based on convenience and flexibility.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 11, wherein Anderson further discloses a waist strap (¶ 25: which allows waist strap 20 to be secured around the waist of a child). Anderson is silent on the waist strap having a width from about 5 cm to 15 cm.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to adjust the waist strap of the width from 5 cm to 15 cm because it is a routine engineering design choice. The applicant' s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of waist strap size, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the waist strap size as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 12, wherein Anderson further discloses a first rear leg strap (¶28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs). Anderson is silent on the rear leg strap having a width from 5 cm to 15 cm.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to adjust the leg strap of the width from 5 cm to 15 cm because it is a routine engineering design choice. The applicant' s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of the leg strap size, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the leg strap size as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 14, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the child snowboarding training and safety device of claim 11, wherein Anderson further discloses a second rear leg strap for circumscribing another thigh of the child (¶13: wherein each of the leg straps is adapted to enclose a child's leg), wherein said second rear leg strap is adjustable in length (¶ 28: leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs. Leg straps 30 are adjustable),
Anderson is silent on an adjustable length second connecting strap but teaches waist strap and said second rear leg strap (waist strap in Fig. 6, leg strap in Fig. 7). However, Anderson teaches to leg straps that are attached to the waist strap being adjustable through buckle-type fastener (¶28 Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs. Leg straps 30 are adjustable, and are attached to waist strap 20 with buckle-type fasteners 32 at the front portion and with leg straps ring 26 (see FIG. 4). Moreover, Jordan teaches an adjustable length second connecting strap for connecting said waist strap and said second rear leg strap (Rear straps, 28a and 28b, a pair of adjustable rear straps connecting the leg straps to the waist strap).
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Jordan to include an adjustable connecting strap for the waist strap and rear leg strap because it allows for greater for flexibility in positioning the straps for the comfort of the user (¶39 of Jordan).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson discloses a snowboarding training and safety device (Abstract: A ski training harness comprising: (a) an adjustable, releasable waist strap; (b) a pair of retractable leashes connected to the waist strap at a left-side and right-side location relative to a child) comprising:
a waist strap for circumscribing a waist of a child (waist strap 20 for circumscribing a waist of the child in ¶ 25: which allows waist strap 20 to be secured around the waist of a child),
wherein said waist strap includes a waist loop length adjuster to adjust a length of said waist strap (¶ 25: FIG. 1. Waist strap 20 is adjustable and has buckle-type fastener 22),
a selectively removable rear leg strap for circumscribing a thigh of the child, wherein said selectively removable rear leg strap includes a rear leg loop length adjuster to adjust a length of said selectively removable rear leg strap (Fig. 7, buckle type fasteners 32;¶ 28: leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs. Leg straps 30 are adjustable),
an adjustable length leash for attaching at a first end of the adjustable leash to said strap (¶25: Leash rings 24 allow a user to clip retractable leashes 75 to waist strap 20),
said leash includes a handle at a second terminal end of the leash for grasping by a trainer (¶ 31: FIG. 3 shows a side view of leash handle 70 having retractable leash 75 in a partially extended position and thumb actuated brake 76).
Anderson discloses leash is adjustable in length (retractable leash handles Fig 1, element 70), but is silent on the waist strap where the leash is adjustable in length from 100 cm to 500 cm.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to have the leash be adjustable in length from 100 cm to 500 cm. The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of leash adjustability range in size, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the leash adjustability range in size as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Anderson discloses waist strap and said selectively removable rear leg strap (¶28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs. Leg straps 30 are adjustable, and are attached to waist strap 20 with buckle-type fasteners 32 at the front portion and with leg straps ring 26 (see FIG. 4); buckle type fasteners 32 which allow removal of the leg straps) but is silent on an adjustable length connecting strap for connecting said waist strap and said selectively removable rear leg strap. Jordan discloses an adjustable length connecting strap for connecting said waist strap and said selectively removable rear leg strap (Rear straps, 28a and 28b, a pair of adjustable rear straps connecting the leg straps to the waist strap).
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Jordan to include an adjustable connecting strap for the waist strap and rear leg strap because it allows for greater for flexibility in positioning the straps for the comfort of the user (¶39 of Jordan).
Anderson discloses an adjustable length leash (¶ 25: Leash rings 24 allow a user to clip retractable leashes 75 to waist strap 20) but is silent on said connecting strap.
Jordan discloses a connecting strap (Rear straps, 28a and 28b, a pair of adjustable rear straps connecting the leg straps to the waist strap).
Anderson teaches placing connection points for the leash at various locations (¶ 25: Leash rings 24 are provided at the front, left-side, right-side and back portions of waist strap 20.) and thus modifying Anderson in view of Jordan to have a connection point for the leash on the connecting strap would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
Modified Anderson in view of Jordan discloses wherein the first end of the adjustable leash is attachable via a quick-release connection (Anderson Fig. 3 #78 is a quick-release connection). As stated above, it is obvious to have a connection point for the leash on the connecting strap; therefore, Anderson’s quick-release connection #78 from the leash can be attachable to the connecting strap as a mere rearrangement of parts. However, if one determines #78 of Anderson is not a quick-release connection, Matte teaches wherein the first end of a leash comprises a quick-release connection (Matte col. 6 lines 8-19, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any type of conventional coupling means such as a quick-release connection to secure the leash to the modified embodiment of Anderson and Joran, thereby attaching the quick release connection to the connecting strap of the harness. Matte teaches that all of these coupling means are conventional and can be selected based on convenience and flexibility.
Regarding claim 16, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the snowboarding training and safety device of claim 15, wherein Anderson further discloses said a strap with a handle (Back strap handle (55) in ¶ 26: Back strap handle 55 allows an adult to grasp the shoulder strap and lift a child into a standing position or to stabilize a standing child). Anderson is silent on the waist handle specifically being on the waist strap. But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Anderson to put a handle on the waist strap since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI-C).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson in view of Jordan disclose the snowboarding training and safety device of claim 16, wherein Anderson further discloses a removable leg strap (¶28: Leg straps 30 fit around the upper portion of a child's legs, Fig 7, buckle type fasteners 32 which allow removal of the leg straps). Anderson is silent on the rear leg strip having a width from 5 cm to 15 cm.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to adjust the leg strap of the width from 5 cm to 15 cm because it is a routine engineering design choice. The applicant' s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of leg strap size, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the rear leg strap size as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the snowboarding training and safety device of claim 17, wherein Anderson further discloses removable rear leg strap (Fig 7, buckle type fasteners 32 which allow removal of the leg straps). Anderson is silent wherein said waist strap width is greater than said selectively removable rear leg strap width.
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date in the claimed invention to have the waist strap width greater than the leg strap because it is a routine engineering design choice. The applicant' s specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the width of the waist strap being greater than the leg strap, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the waist strap width greater than the leg strap as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 19, Anderson in view of Jordan and Matte disclose the snowboarding training and safety device of claim 18, wherein Anderson further discloses said handle includes a reel to selectively retract and extend said leash (Claim 8: wherein each of said leash handles comprises a rotational spool mounted within said leash handle and wherein said retractable leash is wound around said spool).
Relevant Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,881,082 to Mills, US 4,019463 to Kitchen and US 5,375,561 to Gundersen all disclose various coupling/connection mechanisms for leashes including clips, hooks, clamps and quick-release connections. Note these are all conventional connections within the art.
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 JULIE K BROCKETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-0206. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/JULIE K BROCKETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700