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
The amendments made to claim 1 in the response filed 2/23/26 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending in the application and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 6 that Geller fails to disclose the newly added limitations regarding the biasing of the pivotable clasp, the releasable retention feature, or the alignment of the u-shaped opening relative to the physical restraint, as well as the non-gripping surface of the arms. However, Geller discloses wherein the pivotable clasp 22 is biased toward the closed position (p. 9-10, passage opening 5 is biased by spring tension in its closed position by locking bracket 22), and wherein the pivotable clasp 22 includes a releasable retention feature 24 that resists opening of the pivotable clasp 22 when the clip 1 is under load (fig. 5a and p. 9-10, attack/slanted edge 24 prevents the locking bar 22 from swinging outward; therefore, slanted edge 24 is a retention feature that keeps bar 22 in place; further, it would be manually releasable if one were to push bar 22 inwards away from the slanted edge 24); wherein the substantially u-shaped opening has a vertically oriented shape (annotated fig. A, the u-shape denoted by the dashed lines having vertically extending arms, giving the u-shaped opening a vertical orientation) that is in substantially parallel alignment with the soft physical restraint 2 when the clip is attached to the railing (annotated fig. A shows the vertical arms of the u-shape extending in the vertical up-down direction, parallel to the substantially vertically extending strap 2; please note the strap 2 is a belt and could thus easily be placed in exact parallel alignment; further, the claim requires the alignment when the clip is attached the railing, indicating that the claim does not actually and actively require this parallel orientation and the railing, as it is a conditional statement depending only on the existence of the railing). Further, new reference Grund teaches a fastener (fig. 2 and col. 1, lines 46-50) wherein opposing inward-facing surfaces of analogous arms 13 comprise a non-gripping surface (fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 11-16, arcuate arms 13 have smooth interior surfaces defining aperture 17 so as to let a rope slide smoothly) configured to permit sliding of the clip vertically away from and towards the railing when the soft physical restraint is under tension (thus, since the inward-facing surfaces of the arms of Grund in view of Klein’s are modified to be smooth and non-gripping, they would make the clip capable of sliding relative to a railing when the soft physical restraint is under tension). Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the substantially u-shaped opening has a vertically oriented shape that is in substantially parallel alignment with the soft physical restraint when the clip is attached to the railing” in lines 18-20 should be deleted from the claim. 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 1-3 and 5-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the substantially u-shaped opening has a vertically oriented shape that is in substantially parallel alignment with the soft physical restraint when the clip is attached to the railing” in lines 13-14. However, the specification does not discuss this feature, and none of the drawings even feature the railing, making it impossible to tell exactly what the relative orientation between the opening and the railing would be. Thus, this subject matter 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 1 further recites “wherein the opposing inward-facing surfaces of the two arms comprise a non-gripping surface configured to permit sliding of the clip vertically away from and towards the railing when the soft physical restraint is under tension” in lines 15-17. This subject matter 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.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-10, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 1-3 and 5-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “releasable retention feature” 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. The closest structure in the specification that can be considered the releasable retention feature is rivet 8; however, there is no clear discussion regarding this feature being a releasable retention feature. 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 1 further recites “the opposing inward-facing surfaces of the two arms” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-10, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Geller DE 202009011443 U1 in view of Klein, Jr. US 5,927,431 further in view of Grund US 2,414,945.
Regarding claim 1, Geller discloses a clip 1 for a soft physical restraint 2 (fig. 5a and abstract, eyelet piece 1 (clip) has an anchoring loop 9, which connects to section 10 and body of extension 2, which may be a belt according to p. 6; this belt is capable of being used as a soft physical restraint), the clip 1 comprising:
a clip body 4/9 comprising a main body 4 with a first end and a second end, and two arms in substantially parallel alignment forming a substantially u-shaped opening within the clip 1, wherein the two arms are substantially the same length (fig. 5a and p. 9-11 of translation, the eyelet 4 and anchoring loop 9 being the clip body, and the main body being eyelet 4; please see annotated fig. A, where the side arms are the left and right vertical portions of the main body 4, and these arms are parallel to each other and are the same length, and they extend between the first upper end and second bottom end of the main body 4; the dotted line shows the u-shaped opening that can be accessed when locking bracket 22 is swung open);
a pivotable clasp 22 contained on the first end of the clip body 4/9 on both arms, wherein the clasp 22 is pivotable away from one arm to allow access into the u-shaped opening, wherein the clasp 22 is substantially perpendicular with the two arms in a closed position (annotated fig. A and p. 9-10, bracket 22 is pivoted into the passage opening 5 to allow access into the u-shaped opening; the annotated figure shows bracket 22 being on the first end and extending between both arms such that it is perpendicular to the arms; the bracket 22 swings into the opening 5, away from the right arm, to allow access into the u-shaped opening), wherein the pivotable clasp 22 is biased toward the closed position (p. 9-10, passage opening 5 is biased by spring tension in its closed position by locking bracket 22), and wherein the pivotable clasp 22 includes a releasable retention feature 24 that resists opening of the pivotable clasp 22 when the clip 1 is under load (fig. 5a and p. 9-10, attack/slanted edge 24 prevents the locking bar 22 from swinging outward; therefore, slanted edge 24 is a retention feature that keeps bar 22 in place; further, it would be manually releasable if one were to push bar 22 inwards away from the slanted edge 24);
wherein the substantially u-shaped opening has a vertically oriented shape (annotated fig. A, the u-shape denoted by the dashed lines having vertically extending arms, giving the u-shaped opening a vertical orientation) that is in substantially parallel alignment with the soft physical restraint 2 when the clip is attached to the railing (annotated fig. A shows the vertical arms of the u-shape extending in the vertical up-down direction, parallel to the substantially vertically extending strap 2; please note the strap 2 is a belt and could thus easily be placed in exact parallel alignment; further, the claim requires the alignment when the clip is attached the railing, indicating that the claim does not actually and actively require this parallel orientation and the railing, as it is a conditional statement depending only on the existence of the railing);
a slot 9 on the second end of the clip body 4/9, where the slot 9 is configured to removably receive a substantially flat strap 10, wherein the flat strap 10 is connected to the soft physical restraint 2 that is configured to be releasably attachable to a patient’s limb (fig. 5a and p. 8, the anchoring loop/eyelet 9 can be attached to portion 10 of flexible extension 2, which can be interpreted as the flat strap, which is in turn connected to the rest of the body of flexible extension 2, which can be interpreted as the soft physical restraint; therefore, the anchoring loop 9 is capable of removably receiving substantially flat strap portion 10; please note however that the claim does not actually require the flat strap or soft physical restraint, as the slot is configured to removably receive the flat strap connected to the soft physical restraint), wherein the clip body 4/9 with the slot 9 comprises one piece (fig. 5a, the slot 9 forms a part of clip body 4/9 and is secured thereto as shown, which forms one piece since everything is connected); and
wherein the clip 1 is configured to be moveable from railing to railing, without removing the soft physical restraint 2 attachable to the patient’s limb during movement of the clip 1 (the passage 5 of the clip 1 would be capable of accepting a railing; thus, the clip 1 is capable of moving from railing to railing without removing the soft physical restraint 2 attachable to a patient’s limb; please note the claim language does not actually require the soft physical restraint, as the claim recites the clip being configured to be moveable from railing to railing… without removing the soft physical restraint).
Geller is silent on wherein the substantially u-shaped opening is configured to fit a railing comprising a cross-section up to three inches in diameter between the two arms; wherein the clip is configured to be moveable from railing to railing comprising the diameter up to three inches.
However, Klein teaches an analogous clip 10 (fig. 3 and col. 1, lines 4-8, snap hooks), wherein the size of the clip can be constructed in various sizes to accommodate its use (col. 5, lines 47-49, the snap hook can be constructed in various sizes to accommodate a wide range of uses). Thus, it is known in the art that the dimensions of a clip can be suitably defined based on its use.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04 IV. A., changes in size/proportion are prima facie obvious: “In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In the instant case, the only difference between the claimed device and Geller’s device is that the clip and its opening is capable of accommodating railings with a circular cross-section and diameter of up to 3”; further, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently from Geller’s device. Lastly, there is no evidence in the specification that the claimed dimensions are critical to the invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the clip of Geller such that the substantially u-shaped opening is configured to fit a railing comprising a cross-section up to three inches in diameter between the two arms; wherein the clip is configured to be moveable from railing to railing comprising the diameter up to three inches, as taught by Klein and further considered prima facie obvious, to enable the clip to be used for a specific purpose, such as for attachment to railings with the claimed diameter.
Geller in view of Klein is silent on wherein the opposing inward-facing surfaces of the two arms comprising a non-gripping surface configured to permit sliding of the clip vertically away from and towards the railing when the soft physical restraint is under tension.
However, Grund teaches a fastener (fig. 2 and col. 1, lines 46-50) wherein opposing inward-facing surfaces of analogous arms 13 comprise a non-gripping surface (fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 11-16, arcuate arms 13 have smooth interior surfaces defining aperture 17 so as to let a rope slide smoothly) configured to permit sliding of the clip vertically away from and towards the railing when the soft physical restraint is under tension (thus, since the inward-facing surfaces of the arms of Grund in view of Klein’s are modified to be smooth and non-gripping, they would make the clip capable of sliding relative to a railing when the soft physical restraint is under tension).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the clip of Geller in view of Klein such that opposing inward-facing surfaces of the two arms comprise a non-gripping surface configured to permit sliding of the clip vertically away from and towards the railing when the soft physical restraint is under tension, as taught by Grund, to prevent anything passing through the clip from catching on the interior surfaces of the clip and hampering use.
PNG
media_image1.png
505
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller further discloses the u-shaped opening being configured to fit over the railing of rails selected from the group consisting of: ambulance stretchers, stair chairs, gurneys, extrication equipment, and hospital stretches (annotated fig. A, the u-shaped opening formed between the arms is capable of accommodating one of the claimed types of railings depending on the diameter of the railing; please note that railings can be made of a variety of materials, including, for example, cable wire railings).
Regarding claim 10, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller discloses the two arms of the clip body 4/9 each containing at least one external tactical gripping surface (annotated fig. A, the outermost surfaces of each arm can be considered an external tactical gripping surface, as each of these surfaces are capable of being tactically gripped by a user when using the clip; please note that the claim does not otherwise structurally differentiate a “tactical gripping surface” from just a “surface” (for example with a specific texture or material), and thus any surface that is capable of being gripped can be considered a tactical gripping surface).
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Geller DE 202009011443 U1 in view of Klein, Jr. US 5,927,431 further in view of Grund US 2,414,945 and McLean et al. US 5,329,675.
Regarding claim 3, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund is silent on the u-shaped opening being four to five inches in height.
However, McLean teaches an analogous clip 4 (fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 14-16, carabiner 4) comprising an analogous opening 8 being four to five inches in height (fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 23-25, where the height of the opening 8 from the lower inside surface 42 to the upper inside surface 38 is about 3.7 inches, which is ~4 inches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the u-shaped opening of Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund to be four to five inches in height, as taught by McLean, to accommodate a range of railing sizes of up to about four inches, allowing the clip to be used across a variety of railings; further, according to MPEP 2144.05 I, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”; in this case, a prima facie case of obviousness exists since an opening height of about 3.7 inches can be considered close to the claimed 4 inches. Lastly, there is no evidence in the specification that the claimed dimensions are critical to the invention.
Regarding claim 5, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund is silent on clip body being four to eight inches in height.
However, McLean teaches an analogous clip 4 (fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 14-16, carabiner 4) comprising an analogous clip body being four to eight inches in height (fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 21-23, the carabiner 4 has a spine height 12 of about 4.5 inches; it can be seen from fig. 2 that the spine 12 extends the full height of the carabiner 4, and thus the body of the carabiner 4 is about 4.5 inches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the clip body of Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund to be four to eight inches in height, as taught by McLean, to accommodate a range of railing sizes of up to about 4.5 inches in one direction, allowing the clip to be used across a variety of railings.
Regarding claim 6, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund is silent on clip body being three to five inches in width.
However, McLean teaches an analogous clip 4 (fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 14-16, carabiner 4) comprising an analogous clip body being three to five inches in width (fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 21-23, the carabiner 4 has a spine height 12 of about 4.5 inches; it can be seen from fig. 2 that the spine 12 extends the full height of the carabiner 4, and thus the body of the carabiner 4 is about 4.5 inches; for the purposes of this rejection, the spine “height” is interpreted to be the “width” of the carabiner, since there is no other limiting orientation required by the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the clip body of Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund to be three to five inches in width, as taught by McLean, to accommodate a range of railing sizes of up to about 4.5 inches in one direction, allowing the clip to be used across a variety of railings.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geller DE 202009011443 U1 in view of Klein, Jr. US 5,927,431 further in view of Grund US 2,414,945 and Harris et al. US 5,517,949.
Regarding claim 7, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund is silent on the clip body being 0.2 to one inch in thickness.
However, Harris teaches an analogous clip body (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 46-49) being 0.2 to one inch in thickness (col. 4, lines 5-9, the snap links can have a thickness of 1/4 to 3/8 inches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the clip body of Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund to be 0.2 to one inch in thickness, as taught by Harris, to provide a light but sturdy clip body; further, according to MPEP 2144.05 I., “[i] n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Lastly, there is no evidence in the specification that the claimed dimensions are critical to the invention.
Regarding claim 8, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund is silent on the clip body being composed of aluminum.
However, Harris teaches an analogous clip body (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 46-49) being composed of aluminum (col. 4, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the clip body of Gellerin view of Klein further in view of Grund to be composed of aluminum, as taught by Harris, “which combines the attributes of strength, light weight, and corrosion resistance” (col. 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund is silent on the strap comprising a material selected from the group consisting of: nylon webbing, leather, rubber, soft vinyl, and fabrics.
However, Harris teaches an analogous clip body for use with a removable strap (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 27-35), the strap comprising a material selected from the group consisting of: nylon webbing, leather, rubber, soft vinyl, and fabrics (col. 1, lines 39-40, woven nylon or strapping leather).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the strap of Geller in view of Klein further in view of Grund to comprise a material selected from the group consisting of: nylon webbing, leather, rubber, soft vinyl, and fabrics, as taught by Harris, because nylon and leather are strong and durable materials well known in the art for use in straps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miguchi US 3,358,340
Spinosa et al. US 4,074,401
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 MICHELLE J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7303. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, ALIREZA NIA can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/MICHELLE J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786