DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 30 September 2025.
Claims 1-9 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims
1-9.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a remote control” as described in the specification. The specification admits of “a remote control”; “a wireless module” and “a wireless remote controller” in at least paragraphs [0033]-[0035] and it is not clear if each of these are different structures or different ways of describing the same structure. For instance, “wireless module” is referenced as “514” in three instances, and “mobile device” listed as “516” in three instances, but “wireless remote” and “remote control” do not have corresponding references characters. It is suggested that either each of the aforementioned are shown in the Drawings, and/or the terminology for each component in the Specification is used consistently throughout.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the renumbering of some of the amended paragraphs appears to be incorrect; at least “[00245]”; “[0334]” and “[00345]” appear to be incorrect.
In paragraph [0053], “-functions -of” should be corrected, and apparently read --functions of--.
The amendment filed 30 September 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the specification at [0027] has been amended to recite a plurality of modes for vibration “may be selectable by the user through a control element comprising a switch on the glove, a wireless remote, or a mobile application on a mobile device 516 in communication with the wireless module 514”. The specification as originally filed only appears to have support for the plurality of modes for vibration being selectable through the wireless module.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) (“illuminating means”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wireless module” in claim 1; and “wireless remote” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2 of claim 1, “at palm region” should apparently read –at a palm region--; at line 13 of claim 1, “wrist portion” should apparently read –a wrist portion--; at line 15 of claim 1, “mood” should apparently read –a mood--; at line 3 of claim 2, “back portion” should apparently read --a back portion--; and at line 1 of claim 6, “wherein-in” should apparently read –wherein--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 6 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 2 has been amended to recite that the battery is removably positioned in a back portion of the elastic glove. While the specification has support for the battery being removably positioned within a palm region of the glove, the specification does not have support for the battery being removably positioned in a back portion of the elastic glove, nor do the drawings reflect such a battery.
Claim 6 has been amended to recite that “the plurality of vibration modes are selectable by the user via a switch”. While the specification has support for the plurality of vibration modes being selectable via a remote control/mobile device with a software application, the specification does not have support for the plurality of vibration modes being selectable via a switch.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, limitation “wireless module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0036] of the specification appears to equate a “mobile device 516 with a software application” to the equivalent structure for performing the speed of vibration and changing of the color of the lighting, however “wireless module” has now been labeled as reference character 514 upon the current filing (see at least paragraph [0034]), so it is unclear what the equivalent structure of “wireless module” is for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In claim 6, limitation “wireless remote” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (construed as a wireless remote allowing selection in accordance with a preference or mood of the user). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0035] of the specification appears to equate a “mobile device 516 with a software application” to the equivalent structure for performing the function of “allowing selection in accordance with a preference or mood of the user,” however this conflicts with the interpretation of the aforementioned “wireless module,” so it is unclear what the equivalent structure of “wireless remote” is for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 recites “the rugged surfaces are distributed on fingertips and thumbs.” It is unclear if “fingertips and thumbs” are intended to refer to portions of the elastic glove as at line 3 of claim 1 (“plurality of finger tip portions”) or that of the actual finger tips or thumbs of the user, which would encompass human subject matter. It is suggested to amend the claim such that it refers to finger tip portions or thumb portions of the glove.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the mobile application". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0216207) in view of Giacometti et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0092802). Regarding claims 1, 3 and 5, Tsai discloses a vibrating glove comprising:
an elastic glove 10 comprising a textured surface at the palm region and a plurality of finger tips portions having rugged surfaces (via grip dots) (Figs. 1-4, [0008], [0028] and [0029]);
a plurality of vibration motors 23 (Fig. 1 and [0027]);
an illuminating means 21e (Figs. 1-2A and [0027]-[0028]);
a control module 21 operably connected to the plurality of vibration motors 23 and the illuminating means 21e (Figs. 1-2A and [0027]-[0028]); and
a rechargeable battery 21g present at a wrist portion (Figs. 1-2; [0014]-[0015] and [0031]); wherein the plurality of vibration motors 23 and the rechargeable battery 21g are positioned within the elastic glove under an outer cover (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2; also the vibration device 23 is enclosed inside the glove as described at [0027] and [0036] and under an “outer cover” of tubular housing 24 [0032]; and the battery 21g is under an outer cover of the panel 21 of the glove [0027] and [0008]) (also see Abstract, [0012], [0036] and claim 1),
wherein the module is configured to control a plurality of vibration modes and the illuminating means ([0027] discloses “button 21c is further provided with a forward and a backward function key indicated that the frequency of vibrators can be adjusted higher or lower than a default frequency by pressing the forward or backward function key, for example, the button 21c may be combined with a sliding variable resistor which permits the speed of a motor and hence the frequency of the vibrations generated by eccentric mass to be controlled, once pressing on the function key comes to a halt, that is a "broken circuit" happened to the button 21c. User can adjust the frequency anew by pressing one of the function keys or both. The power switch 21d is to switch on or off the power source…A number of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 21e are responsive to the operations of the buttons and switch”) depending upon a mood of a user, to enjoy simulation of a body part ([0028]: “All the buttons and switch can be operated according to user's preference”).
However, Tsai fails to disclose explicitly that the control module is wireless. Giacometti et al. (hereinafter Giacometti) discloses a vibrating glove wherein vibration motors 110 and LEDs 122 on the fingers provide visual and haptic feedback ([0110] and [0125]) which can be varied [0126] by a controller [0113], as likewise disclosed by Tsai. Giacometti further discloses that the glove-connected controller 128c (Fig. 3), as likewise disclosed by Tsai, can comprise a wired/wireless control module [0115]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a control module as taught by Tsai, to comprise a wireless connection as suggested by Giacometti as a wireless coupling, in addition to the wired coupling, enables transmission of signals/information external to a handworn glove ([0115] of Giacometti), and it is well-known that wireless connections reduce bulk of body-worn devices.
However, Tsai fails to disclose explicitly that a rechargeable port is connected to the rechargeable battery, wherein the rechargeable port is present at the wrist portion outside of the vibrating glove. Giacometti teaches that a battery powering the vibrating glove may be located in the housing and can be non-removable or non-rechargeable, and that a battery in the external control module may be rechargeable via a USB cord, or “port” [0150]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control module comprising the rechargeable battery and present at the wrist portion as taught by Tsai, to comprise a rechargeable port as Tsai indicates that the battery is rechargeable [0014]-[0015] and [0031]) and Giacometti discloses that a rechargeable battery can be connected to an external source of power for recharging, such as a USB port.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai discloses that the battery 21g is removably positioned at the back portion of the glove/user hand (Figs. 1 and 2; [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsai discloses that the plurality of vibration motors provide haptic feedback and vibrations at multiple intensities ([0008], [0028] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai discloses that the plurality of vibration modes can be selected by the user via a switch, a wireless remote, or a mobile application, based on a preference or mood of the user [0028].
Regarding claim 7 and in view of its indefinite nature, Tsai discloses that the rugged surfaces are distributed on fingertips and thumbs of the glove ([0028], [0033]; and Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, while Tsai does not disclose explicitly that the illuminating means provides illuminations of different colors and intensities, Tsai makes such obvious as Tsai discloses that the LEDs 21e indicate the operation of various buttons/switches [0028] and as such, it would be obvious that LEDs of different colors/intensities would facilitate the indication of the operation of the multitude of buttons/switches disclosed by Tsai.
Regarding claim 9, while Tsai discloses that the control module controls the intensities of the illumination [0028], Tsai does not disclose explicitly that such control can be enabled via a mobile application. Giacometti further discloses that the glove-connected controller, as likewise disclosed by Tsai, can comprise a wired/wireless control module [0115], wherein the wireless capability enables communication with mobile applications such as external smartphones, watches, PDAs, etc. [0142]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a control module as taught by Tsai, to comprise a wireless connection to a mobile application/device as suggested by Giacometti as a wireless coupling, in addition to the wired coupling, enables transmission of signals/information external to a handworn glove ([0115] of Giacometti), and it is well-known that wireless connections reduce bulk of body-worn devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 September 2025 with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds are presented above in light of the most recent filing.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 September 2025 with respect to the objections to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds are presented above in light of the most recent filing.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds are presented above in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds are presented above in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Tsai in view of Giacometti have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant contends that neither Tsai nor Giacometti teach or suggest a rechargeable port located at the wrist portion outside of the vibrating glove as Tsai’s battery is entirely concealed within the glove and Giacometti’s rechargeable port is associated only with an external controller housing. However, this argument is not persuasive. Giacometti’s controller 128c is positioned in a proximal end of the glove, “near the acute care provider’s wrist” as disclosed at [0115].
Applicant further contends that neither reference discloses a plurality of discrete vibration motors positioned under the outer cover at both palm and fingertip regions. However, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the plurality of vibration motors being positioned “at both palm and fingertip regions”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the vibration device of Tsai is enclosed inside the glove as described at [0036] and [0027]; and under an “outer cover” of tubular housing 24 [0032].
Applicant further contends that neither reference teaches the claimed mood-dependent coordinated vibration and illumination modes. It is noted that “coordinated vibration” and “illuminated modes” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Moreover, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. However, Tsai is capable of meeting the requirements of claim 1 as a user can choose/adjust various modes/speeds based on their preference, via a plurality of buttons/sliding mechanisms as disclosed at [0028].
Applicant further contends that the examiner’s rationale to combine lacks a persuasive motivation as Tsai seeks to conceal electronics under fabric, whereas Giacometti teaches a separate controller housing and relocating Giacometti’s external controller into Tsai’s glove wrist is not a mere design choice and would not be suggested in the art. While it is unclear which limitations/claims are being referenced in this general argument, the rejections (and rationales) set forth above do not present any rationales depending on mere design choice. To address what is previously presented, as noted above, Giacometti’s controller 128c is positioned in a proximal end of the glove, “near the acute care provider’s wrist” as disclosed at [0115] and therefore would not be regarded as an “external controller”.
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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791