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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 11/4/25. As directed by the amendment, claim 11 has been amended; claims 1-10 12-21 and 28 have been cancelled. Claims 11, 22- 27, 29-37 are pending in this application.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case there does not appear to be any means for language in the claims and/or language to be considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 AIA
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26, 29, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swarovski US 20100154103 A1 (herein after Swarovski).
Regarding claim 26, Swarovski discloses an article of footwear (paragraph 0022) comprising a textile (paragraph 0006, 0022, 0023, 0024); and a sequin attached to the textile with a stitch (paragraph 0024), wherein the sequin is a hot melt sequin (paragraph 0012, 0023), and wherein the sequin forms a structural component on the article of footwear (It is noted that the sequin is capable of being attached anywhere on the article of footwear and therefore would form a structural component on the article of footwear wherever the sequin is attached).
Regarding claim 33, Swarovski discloses an article of footwear (paragraph 0022) comprising a textile (paragraph 0006, 0022, 0023, 0024); and a hot melt sequin (paragraph 0012, 0023) attached to the textile with at least one stitch (paragraph 0024), wherein the hot melt sequin forms a structural component on the article of footwear. (It is noted that the sequin is capable of being attached anywhere on the article of footwear and therefore would form a structural component on the article of footwear wherever the sequin is attached).
Regarding claim 29 Swarovski discloses wherein the hot melt sequin is bonded to the textile (paragraphs 0002 and 0003 of Swarovski).
Regarding claim 35, Swarovski discloses wherein the hot melt sequin is bonded to the textile (paragraphs 0002 and 0003 of Swarovski).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 AIA
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 26, 27, 33-34 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labonte WO 2017136942 A1 (herein after Labonte) in view of Swarovski US 20100154103 A1 (herein after Swarovski).
Regarding claim 26, Labonte discloses an article of footwear (as seen in annotated Figure 54) comprising: a textile (page 15, lines 8-15 of Labonte).
However, Labonte does not specifically disclose wherein the sequin is a hot melt sequin, and wherein the sequin forms a structural component on the article of footwear, and wherein the structural component is secured to the textile with a stitch.
Swarovski discloses the sequin is a hot melt sequin (paragraph 0012 and 0023), and wherein the sequin forms a structural component on the article of footwear (paragraph 0022-It is noted that the sequin is capable of being attached anywhere on the article of footwear and therefore would form a structural component on the article of footwear wherever the sequin is attached), and wherein the structural component (as seen in Figures 5b and 7b) is secured to the textile with a stitch (paragraphs 0002 and 0003).
Swarovski is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to the use of circular components applied to articles, including footwear.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the lacing system of Labonte, by making the sequins hot melt sequins, and the structural component being secured to the textile with a stitch, as taught by Swarovski to provide an effective process of attaching the sequins to the material. The modification of the sequins would be a simple modification and would provide a better way of securing the sequins in place, especially around areas that receive a lot of strain, and prevent the sequins from coming off or shifting during wear.
Regarding claim 27, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the structural component is a heel counter (35 of Labonte), a toe cap (32 of Labonte), or a lace cage (48 of Labonte).
Regarding claim 33, Labonte discloses an article of footwear (as seen in annotated Figure 54) comprising: a textile (page 15, lines 8-15 of Labonte).
Labonte does not specifically disclose the sequin secured to the textile, wherein the sequin forms a structural component, the sequin is a hot melt sequin, wherein the sequin is attached by at least one stitch.
Swarovski discloses the sequin secured to the textile (paragraphs 0002, and 0003), wherein the sequin forms a structural component (as seen in Figures 5b and 7b), the sequins being hot melt sequins (paragraph 0012, 0023), wherein the sequin is attached by at least one stitch (paragraphs 0002, and 0003).
Labonte and Swarovski are analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to footwear articles with applied circular components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the lacing system of Labonte, by making the sequin secured to the textile, wherein the sequin forms a structural component, the sequin is a hot melt sequin, wherein the sequin is attached by at least one stitch, as taught by Swarovski to provide an effective process of attaching the sequins to the material and hold them in place. The modification of the sequins would be a simple modification would provide a better way of securing the sequins in place, especially around areas that receive a lot of strain; preventing the sequins from coming off or shifting during wear.
Regarding claim 34, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the structural component is a heel counter (35 of Labonte), a toe cap (32 of Labonte), or a lace cage (48 of Labonte).
Regarding claim 36, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the textile is comprised of a sheet of cotton, wool, silk, leather, foam, or polymer material (page 15, lines 8-15 of Labonte).
Regarding claim 37, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses a lacing system with at least one lace (as seen in annotated Figure 4 of Labonte), wherein the structural component is a lace cage (48 of Labonte), wherein the sequin provides an eye stay (44i, 44ii of Labonte) of the lace cage (48 of Labonte), and wherein the at least one lace (60 of Chung) extends through the eye stay (44i, 44ii of Labonte).
Claims 11, 21-25, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labonte WO 2017136942 A1 (herein after Labonte) in view of Chung US 20060200954 A1 (herein after Chung) and Swarovski US 20100154103 A1 (herein after Swarovski).
Regarding claim 11, Labonte discloses an article of footwear (as seen in annotated Figure 54) comprising: a lacing system (46i, 46) for the article of footwear comprising a lace (46i, 46,48, and 44i, 44ii, as seen in annotated Figure 54).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Toe cap.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Article footwear comprising a lace system.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
718
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Labonte does not specifically disclose a sequin attached to a lacing region of the article of footwear, the sequin including a central opening, such that the sequin serves as an eye stay of the lacing system.
Chung teaches a sequin (10, paragraph 0005, 0006 - Merriam Webster defining a sequin as a small plate of shining metal or plastic used for ornamentation especially on clothing. Chung’s disks being made of aluminum or plastic read on the definition), attached to a lacing region (as seen in annotated Figure 4), of the article of footwear, the sequin (10) including a central opening (as seen in annotated Figure 4), the lace extending through the central opening of the sequin (10, as seen in annotated Figure 4), such that the sequin serves as an eye stay of the lacing system (10, as seen in annotated Figure 4).
[AltContent: textbox (The sequin is one sequin of a plurality of sequins in the lacing region.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lace extending through the central opening.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
711
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Labonte is analogous art to the claimed invention as it relates to footwear having reinforced lace areas.
Chung is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to sequins applied to materials that surrounds the lace aperture and is capable of being melted on to the fabric.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the lacing system and eyelets of Labonte, with the sequins surrounding the lace aperture, as taught by Chung to reinforce/surround the lace apertures. The modification of the lacing system would be a simple modification to provide flexible reinforcement to the lace apertures.
Labonte and Chung do not specifically disclose the sequin is a hot melt sequin, and wherein the sequin is attached by at least one stitch.
Swarovski discloses an article of footwear (paragraph 22) comprising a sequin, wherein the sequin is a hot melt sequin (paragraphs 0012 and 0023), and wherein the sequin is attached by at least one stitch (paragraphs 0002 and 0003).
Swarovski is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to the use of hot melt sequins applied to materials and footwear.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the lacing system of Labonte and Chung by making the sequin is a hot melt sequin, and wherein the sequin is attached by at least one stitch, as taught by Swarovski to provide an effective process of attaching the sequins to the material. The modification of the sequins would be a simple modification to provide a better way of securing the sequins in place, especially around areas that receive a lot of strain and prevent the sequins from coming off or shifting during wear.
Regarding claim 22, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the sequin (10 of Chung) is one sequin of a plurality of sequins in the lacing region of the article of footwear (46i, 46, as seen in annotated Figure 54 of Labonte), each of the plurality of sequins having a central opening (as seen in annotated Figure 4 of Chung), and wherein the lace extends through the central opening in each of the plurality of sequins (as seen in annotated Figure 4 of Chung).
Regarding claim 23, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the sequin is one sequin of a plurality of sequins on the article of footwear (46i, 46, as seen in annotated Figure 54 of Labonte), wherein each sequin forms one of a plurality of structural components on the article of footwear (46i, 46, as seen in annotated Figure 54 of Labonte).
Regarding claim 24, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the plurality of structural components include one or more of a heel counter (35 of Labonte), a toe cap (32 of Labonte), and a lace cage (48 of Labonte).
Regarding claim 25, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the lacing region includes a textile (paragraph 0005, 0007, 0010, 0044 of Chung) and the sequin is bonded to the textile (paragraph 0005, 0007, 0010, 0044 of Chung - the top and bottom are adhered by ultrasonic waves).
Regarding claim 30, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses wherein the textile is comprised of a sheet of cotton, wool, silk, leather, foam, or polymer material (page 15, lines 8-15 of Labonte).
Regarding claim 31, the modified article of footwear of the combined references discloses further comprising a lacing system with at least one lace (60 of Chung), wherein the structural component is a lace cage (48 of Labonte), wherein the sequin (10 of Chung) provides an eye stay (44i, 44ii of Labonte) of the lace cage (48 of Labonte), the eye stay extending through a hole in the textile (31, as seen in annotated Figure 9 of Chung), and wherein the at least one lace (60 of Chung) extends through the eye stay (44i, 44ii as seen in annotated Figure 54 of Labonte).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top cap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Heel counter)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lace cage (48))][AltContent: textbox (Eye stay (44i, 44ii))]
PNG
media_image1.png
718
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The eye stay extending through a hole in the textile.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
398
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chung US 20060200954 A1
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labonte WO 2017136942 A1 (herein after Labonte) in view of Chung US 20060200954 A1 (herein after Chung), Swarovski US 20100154103 A1 (herein after Swarovski) and Yoshikawa JP-2006346134-A (herein after Yoshikawa).
Regarding claim 32, the article of footwear of the combined references discloses all the limitations of claim 32 except they do not disclose wherein the stitch is one of a chain stitch, a buttonhole stitch, a blanket stitch, a running stitch, a satin stitch, or a cross stitch.
Yoshikawa teaches wherein the stitch is one of a chain stitch (Abstract – USE section, as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Yoshikawa), a buttonhole stitch, a blanket stitch, a running stitch (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Yoshikawa), a satin stitch, or a cross stitch.
Yoshikawa is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to articles with applied circular components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the method of attaching the sequins of Labonte Chung and Swarovski by attaching the sequins utilizing a chain stitch as taught by Yoshikawa, in order to add an additional method of attaching the sequin and as such further securing the sequin around the laces. The modification would be a simple modification to provide extra stability to the lace aperture and sequin when under strain by the pulling of the laces.
Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not convincing. In view of Applicant's amendments, the search has been updated, and a rejection on the amended claims is applied above.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Swarovski does not disclose the claimed sequin form a "structural component" on the article of footwear, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Its unclear what the applicant defines as a structural component or not, but Swarovski’s hot melt sequins are indeed structural components as they have structure and mass and are elements used on apparel and footwear items (refer to Merriam Webster Dictionary). Swarovski sequins have holes in the center and/or at the edges as a matter of design choice. They are available in a wide range of sizes, materials, colors, and surfaces, and are commonly known in the art as components for apparel and footwear.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Swarovski teaches the sequins are used to embellish items of clothing or fashion accessories, such as for example ... shoes. It is unclear what is being argued here. Is the applicant arguing a structural element can’t be an embellishment. Color is an embellishment, and as such, anything that is capable of encircling the lace aperture and is colored would be both structural and decorative/embellished/made more attractive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Labonte and Chung do not disclose "the sequin is a hot melt sequin ... attached by at least one stitch.". Chung (10, as seen in annotated Figure 4) discloses the sequin is a hot melt sequin, Yoshikawa teaches the stitch is one of a chain stitch used to attach the sequin (Abstract – USE section, as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Yoshikawa). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combined references teach all the structural limitations as written and as outlined in the annotated figures and rejection above.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Chung teaches an eyelet formed by an upper eyelet body and a lower eyelet body, wherein the lower eyelet body includes a protruded part configured to fit into a through-hole on the upper eyelet body. Again, its unclear what is argued here. Applicant’s claims do not include “consisting of” terminology. Further, applicants own claim language requires and “eye stay Chung (10) the eye stay extending through a hole in the textile (31, as seen in annotated Figure 9 of Chung) Chung also teaches the sequins are melted to attach to the textile (paragraph 0044).
In response to the applicant’s arguments that if the stitching of Swarovski were used in addition to the protruded part (31) of the eyelet body of Chung in order to secure the eyelet body to the textile, the proposed stitches would be counter-productive. Applicant’s argument are confusing. Applicant’s claims 11, 26 and 32 specifically require the use of a stitch to secure the sequin eyelet. The claims do not state where the stich must be located. That said the claim clearly states the use of chainstitching which indeed is used to attach sequins to textiles. If the applicants claims require stitching, but the applicant now argues the use of the effectiveness of the stitch due to friction, it is unclear why the stitch is used by the applicant at all. The examination process is not a referendum for effectiveness for any invention, it only establishes novelty. Attaching flexible sequins to a textile by melting it to a specific location or stitching the sequin in to location is not novel, but very common in the art. Chung, paragraphs 0057 and 0065, specifically disclose the reinforced eyelet of Chung is stronger and prevents the tearing of the fabric around the eyelet with repeated wear. The reinforcement of the lace aperture with the eyelet of Chung would not prevent Labonte from functioning as intended. Including extra stitches to hold the sequin in place would improve and solve the issue of tearing around “traditional” eyelets and would ensure the material around the eyelet would not tear, or the adhesive of the hotmelt sequin would not release when tension is placed on the laces. Applicants claim speaks to the need for at least one stitch and specifically states the use of chain stitches or a running stich to attach the hotmelt sequin. Further, applicant’s claims do not state where or how the sequin is attached. The argument regarding the greater the number of stitches in each eyelet hole, the greater the interference with the eyelet hole contradicts the applicants own claim language.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that if the stitches of Swarovski were used in the arrangement of Chung, such stitches would extend through the through-hole (21) of Chung, and such stitches would tend to interfere with the eyelet passages of Chung, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, applicant’s arguments are unclear. Swarovski discloses a sequin element having a hole in the center. The hole being used to stitch (paragraphs 0002 and 0003) through the center. Swarovski also teaches the sequins being hot melt (paragraphs 0012 and 0023). As stated above the applicant’s claim language requires the use of a stitch and provides an extensive list of possible stitching types including a chain stitch a buttonhole stitch, a blanket stitch, a running stitch (as seen in annotated Figure 5 of Yoshikawa), a satin stitch, or a cross stitch. Applicants claim language does not state the stitching is around the edge, nor does the claim language limit or state where the stich is placed. It is commonly known in the art that chainstitching used to attach sequins does so by engaging the center hole of the sequin. As such, if the applicants claims require stitching, but the applicant now argues the effectiveness of the stitch due to friction, it is unclear why the stitch is used by the applicant at all. The examination process is not a referendum for effectiveness for any invention, it only establishes novelty. Examination of novelty is based off of the claims and whether the claimed device is unique. Attaching flexible sequins to a textile by melting it to a specific location or stitching the sequin in to location or the combination of both is not novel, but very common in the art. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicants claim language merely states “…the stitch is one of a chain stitch, a buttonhole stitch, a blanket stitch, a running stitch, a satin stitch, or a cross stitch…”. Including further stitches to secure the sequin would not be considered novel as it is commonly known in the art as a method of holding sequins, and beads to textiles.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the proposed combination of Swarovski with Chung would render the prior art being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In response to applicant’s arguments that the proposed combination of references would both change the principle of operation of the prior art and/or render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosed examples such as those referenced in Labonte, Chung, Swarovski and Yoshikawa and their preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). In this instant case: each of the references teach a specific part of the limitation.
Labonte is used to teach the article of footwear having the lacing system.
Chung is used to teach the sequin surrounding the lace aperture.
Swarovski is used to teach the sequin/eyelet is a hot-melt material ie) a hotmelt sequin.
Yoshikawa is used to teach that the type of stitch to apply the sequin is one of a chain stitch, or a running stitch.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combined references teach:
Labonte is used to teach the article of footwear having the lacing system.
Chung is used to teach the sequin surrounding the lace aperture.
Swarovski is used to teach the sequin/eyelet is a hot-melt material ie) a hotmelt sequin.
Yoshikawa is used to teach that the type of stitch to apply the sequin is one of a chain stitch, or a running stitch.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M FERREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5916, fax number (571) 270-6916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS, at (571) 272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine M. Ferreira/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights