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 filed with the written response received on June 27, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim 15 has been amended and claim 4 and 9 were previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Mead fails to teach a rope or pincushion rope configured to hold objects as claimed. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 5B of Mead, and reproduced below, Mead teaches a conventional-style cord that is configured to secure a garment around a user's neck such that the garment front drapes over a user's chest. See Mead, abstract.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that “Mead fails to teach a rope or pincushion rope configured to hold objects as claimed.” Paragraph 0036; Mead specifically discloses a rope and further teaches “The cord 530 may be any suitable material (e.g., silicone, metal, silk, or leather) and may take any suitable form (e.g., a string, a ribbon, a strap, a tie, a line, a rope, a chain, a cable, or a wire). In specific embodiments, the cord 530 is a silicone material. In some embodiments, the cord material stretches ( e.g., by at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 40%, or at least 50%).”)
Additionally, Examiner notes that the rope or cord would be capable of holding objects as claimed. Examiner disagrees that Mead’s cord teaches away from the cord described in the present invention because items stored on a cord would dislodge if a connect cord ”arranged through the channel” is used. Examiner notes that Mead is being relied upon to teach a rope and not the channel and that based on Mead’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz’s rope to include being made of a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, rubber, or combinations thereof, as doing so would provide enhanced flexibility and improved design aesthetics for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one rope for another with the reasonable expectation that one rope would perform equally as well as another.
Applicant further argues “However, the “another embodiment of Kronenberger” also fails to teach back bill edge attached to the crown edge as claimed. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 1 and 2 of Kronenberger, and reproduced below, Kronenberger teaches a typical cap will a front bill edge only; thus, there is no back bill edge that can be attached to the crown.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument in the Remarks filed 08/28/2025, “…another embodiment of Kronenberger” also fails to teach back bill edge attached to the crown edge as claimed. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 1 and 2 of Kronenberger, and reproduced below, Kronenberger teaches a typical cap will a front bill edge only; thus, there is no back bill edge that can be attached to the crown.” It is noted that examiner has opted to use another embodiment of Kronenberger to teach the backside (side that touches the head of the wearer) of the hat which would include the back bill edge that is attached to the crown.
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, Another embodiment of Kronenberger discloses wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border (Figures 1 and 2; Kronenberger, teaching wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border, as doing so would provide enhanced comfort and design aesthetics for the wearer.) Therefore, based on Kronenberger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kronenberger’s hat apparatus to include wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border, as doing so would provide enhanced comfort and design aesthetics for the wearer.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0318886 A1 to QUIROZ (herein after "Quiroz") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0305519 A1 to Mead (herein after "Mead").
As to Claim 1,
Quiroz discloses a hat apparatus for holding objects, comprising (See Figures 1A & 6; Quiroz, teaching a hat (cap 100, cap 600) apparatus that is capable of holding objects): a crown having a crown edge (See Figures 1A & 1C & 6; Quiroz, teaching a crown having a crown edge); a bill having a top bill face and a back bill edge (See Figures 1A & 6; Quiroz, teaching a bill (bill 104) having a top bill face and a back bill edge); wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border (See Figures 1A & 6; Quiroz, teaching wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border);wherein the pincushion rope (See Figures 1A & 6; Quiroz, teaching the pincushion rope (rope 108, strip 602; Quiroz).);
a pincushion rope configured to hold objects on the pincushion rope having a first rope end and a second rope end (See Figures 1A & 6; and para. 0043, Quiroz, teaching a pincushion rope (rope 108, strip 602) having a first rope end and a second rope end. In addition, See paragraphs 0019-0021; Quiroz teaching a poly rope that fit on the bill of the hat and would be capable of holding object including sewing pins on the pincushion rope.), wherein the pincushion rope is placed on the top bill face (See Figures 1A & 6; Quiroz) and wherein the first rope end and the second rope end are attached to the crown near the bill (See Figures 1A & 6, and Paragraph 0019; Quiroz).
Although Quiroz teaches the pincushion rope (rope 108, strip 602; Quiroz). Quiroz fails to further disclose being made of a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, rubber, or combinations thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
896
1554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
798
1257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mead teaches garments having a rope (cord 530; Mead) and discloses being made of a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, rubber, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 0036; Mead, teaching “The cord 530 may be any suitable material (e.g., silicone, metal, silk, or leather) and may take any suitable form (e.g., a string, a ribbon, a strap, a tie, a line, a rope, a chain, a cable, or a wire). In specific embodiments, the cord 530 is a silicone material. In some embodiments, the cord material stretches ( e.g., by at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 30%, at least 40%, or at least 50%).
Therefore, based on Mead’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz’s rope to include being made of a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, rubber, or combinations thereof, as doing so would provide enhanced flexibility and improved design aesthetics for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one rope for another with the reasonable expectation that one rope would perform equally as well as another.
As to Claim 2,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pincushion rope is adjacent to the border (See Figures 1A & 6 and paras. 0042-0043; Quiroz, teaching wherein the pincushion rope is attached to the bill face by an adhesive. Quiroz teaching "A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any other quick hook structures or fixed structure (such as, glued on rope) are within the scope of the present invention.").
As to Claim 3,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pincushion rope is attached to the bill face by an adhesive (See Figure 6 and paras. 0042-0043; Quiroz, teaching wherein the pincushion rope is attached to the bill face by an adhesive. Quiroz teaching "A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any other quick hook structures or fixed structure (such as, glued on rope) are within the scope of the present invention.").
As to Claim 10,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pincushion rope is about 10 inches in length (See Figures 1A & 6 of Quiroz teaching wherein the pincushion rope is about 10 inches in length).
Although the length disclosed by Quiroz/Mead appears to be about 10 inches in length, Quiroz/Mead do not specifically provide commentary on the disclosed length. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the pincushion rope is about 10 inches in length for aesthetic purposes or for the improved support and comfort with the hat wearer.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0318886 A1 to QUIROZ (herein after "Quiroz") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0305519 A1 to Mead (herein after "Mead"), as to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application No. US 2011/0099691 A1 to Duwyn-Zylstra (herein after "Duwyn-Zylstra").
As to Claim 5,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1.
Quiroz/Mead disclose wherein the first rope end and the second rope end (See Figures 1A & 6 and Paragraphs 0019-0020 & 0042; Quiroz.).
However, Quiroz/Mead does not disclose the ends being attached to an inner crown surface of the crown.
Duwyn-Zylstra teaches an adjustable hat comprising a crown having a crown edge; a bill having a top bill face and a back bill edge (See Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra); wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border (See Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra) and discloses a band (band 104, band 208) that is attached to an inner crown (interior 108) surface of the crown (See Paragraph 0029 & 0035-0037 and Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra).
Therefore, based on Duwyn-Zylstra’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz/Mead’s rope ends attached to an inner crown surface of the crown, as doing so would provide a better fit of the fitting system to the hat for the improved comfort of the wearer (See para.0036 Duwyn-Zylstra’s).
PNG
media_image3.png
704
1120
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 6,
Quiroz/Mead/Duwyn-Zylstra disclose the hat apparatus of claim 5, wherein the first rope end and the second rope end of the pincushion rope (See Figures 1A & 6 and Paragraph 0042-0043; Quiroz) are attached to an inner crown surface of the crown by stitching (See Paragraph 0029 & 0035-0037 and Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra).
As to Claim 7,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1, a sweatband (See paragraph 0019; Quiroz, teaching “In some embodiments, the cap 100 comprises a sweatband formed by cotton, which can be 100% cotton in some embodiments.”).
However, Quiroz/Mead do not disclose a sweatband attached to the crown edge.
Duwyn-Zylstra teaches an adjustable hat comprising a crown having a crown edge; a bill having a top bill face and a back bill edge (See Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra); wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border (See Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra) and discloses wherein a sweatband (band 104, band 208) is attached to an inner crown (interior 108) surface of the crown (See Paragraph 0029 & 0035-0037 and Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra).
Therefore, based on Duwyn-Zylstra’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz/Mead’s rope ends wherein a sweatband is attached to the crown edge, as doing so would provide a better fit of the fitting system to the hat for the improved comfort of the wearer (See para.0036 Duwyn-Zylstra’s).
As to Claim 8,
Quiroz/Mead/Duwyn-Zylstra disclose the hat apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first rope end and the second rope end of the pincushion rope (See Figures 1A & 6 and Paragraphs 0019-0020 & 0042; Quiroz.) and the rope ends (See Figures 1A & 6 and Paragraph 0019-0020 & 0042-0043; Quiroz) are attached to an inner crown surface of the crown by stitching (See Paragraph 0029 & 0035-0037 and Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra).
Quiroz/Mead/Duwyn-Zylstra fail to further disclose the rope ends passing between the sweatband and the crown edge of the crown.
Duwyn-Zylstra teaches an adjustable hat comprising a crown having a crown edge; a bill having a top bill face and a back bill edge (See Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra); wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border (See Figure 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra) and discloses a rope (resilient member 210) ends (222,224) passing between the sweatband (band 208) and the crown edge of the crown (See Paragraph 0029 & 0035-0041 and Specifically Paragraph 0042,and Figures 7A; Duwyn-Zylstra).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0318886 A1 to QUIROZ (herein after "Quiroz") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0305519 A1 to Mead (herein after "Mead") as to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application No. US 2006/0225185 A1 to Kronenberger (herein after "Kronenberger").
As to Claim 11,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1.
Quiroz/Mead fail to further disclose wherein the pincushion rope is about 3/16 inches in width.
Kronenberger teaches headwear piece with adjustable head receiving diameter having rope (See Figure 22; Kronenberger) and discloses wherein the pincushion rope is about 3/16 inches in width (See Paragraphs 0018-0020, 0033-0034 Kronenberger teaching wherein the pincushion rope is about 3/16 inches in width).
Therefore, based on Kronenberger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz/Mead’s hat apparatus to include wherein the pincushion rope is about 3/16 inches in width, as doing so would provide a crown defining surface for engaging a wearer's head, so as to maintain the headwear piece in an operative position on the wearer's head.
As to Claim 12,
Quiroz/Mead discloses the hat apparatus of claim 1.
Quiroz/Mead do not disclose wherein the pincushion rope includes one or more indentation on a surface of the pincushion rope.
Kronenberger teaches headwear piece with adjustable head receiving diameter having rope (See Figure 22; Kronenberger) and discloses wherein the pincushion rope includes one or more indentation on a surface of the pincushion rope (See Figure 22; Kronenberger teaching wherein the pincushion rope includes one or more indentation on a surface of the pincushion rope).
Therefore, based on Kronenberger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz/Mead’s hat apparatus to include wherein the pincushion rope includes one or more indentation on a surface of the pincushion rope, as doing so would provide a crown defining surface for engaging a wearer's head, so as to maintain the headwear piece in an operative position on the wearer's head.
As to Claim 13,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1.
Quiroz/Mead fail to further disclose wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first and a second rope.
Kronenberger teaches headwear piece with adjustable head receiving diameter having rope (See Figure 22; Kronenberger) and discloses wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first and a second rope (See paragraphs 0022-0023; Kronenberger teaching wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first and a second rope).
Therefore, based on Kronenberger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz/Mead’s hat apparatus to include wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first and a second rope, as doing so would provide a crown defining surface for engaging a wearer's head, so as to maintain the headwear piece in an operative position on the wearer's head.
As to Claim 14,
Quiroz/Mead disclose the hat apparatus of claim 1.
Quiroz/Mead fail to further disclose wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first rope, a second rope, and a third rope.
Kronenberger teaches headwear piece with adjustable head receiving diameter having rope (See Figure 22; Kronenberger) and discloses wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first rope, a second rope, and a third rope (See paragraphs 0022-0023; Kronenberger teaching wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first rope, a second rope, and a third rope.)
Therefore, based on Kronenberger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Quiroz/Mead’s hat apparatus to include wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first rope, a second rope, and a third ropes, as doing so would provide a crown defining surface for engaging a wearer's head, so as to maintain the headwear piece in an operative position on the wearer's head.
Claims 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0225185 A1 to KRONENBERGER (herein after "Kronenberger").
As to Claim 15,
Kronenberger discloses a hat apparatus for holding objects, comprising: a bill having a top bill face and a back bill edge (See Figure 22; Kronenberger, teaching a bill having a top bill face) (See Figure 22; Kronenberger, teaching a back bill edge); and a pincushion rope configured to hold objects on the pincushion rope wherein the pincushion rope is placed on the top bill face (See Figure 22 ; Kronenberger. Kronenberger further discloses in paragraphs 0071 & 0105; rope 34-345’; teaching a pin cushion rope capable of holding objects on the pincushion rope wherein the pincushion rope is placed on the top bill face.), and wherein the pincushion rope forms a ring above the top bill face and around the crown (See Figure 22; and Paragraphs 0071 & 0105; rope 34-345’; Kronenberger, teaching “FIG. 22 is a view as in FIG. 1 of a baseball-style cap with a rope extending fully around a crown thereon;”).
PNG
media_image4.png
512
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Although Kronenberger discloses a hat apparatus this embodiment fails to explicitly disclose wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border.
Another embodiment of Kronenberger discloses wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border (Figures 1 and 2; Kronenberger, teaching wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border, as doing so would provide enhanced comfort and design aesthetics for the wearer.)
Therefore, based on Kronenberger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kronenberger’s hat apparatus to include wherein the back bill edge is attached to the crown edge forming a border, as doing so would provide enhanced comfort and design aesthetics for the wearer.
PNG
media_image5.png
710
796
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 17,
Kronenberger discloses the hat apparatus of claim 15, wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first and second rope (See Paragraphs 0022-0023 & 0045; Kronenberger teaching wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first and second rope).
As to Claim 18,
Kronenberger discloses the hat apparatus of claim 15, wherein the pincushion rope is fabricated from a first rope, a second rope, and a third rope (Figure 22; Kronenberger, teaching a pincushion rope fabricated from a first rope, a second rope and a third rope.)(See Paragraphs 0022-0023 & 0045 Kronenberger).
As to Claim 19,
Kronenberger discloses the hat apparatus of claim 15, wherein the pincushion rope includes at least one indentation on the surface of the pincushion rope (See Figure 11, and paragraphs 0047 & 0076; Kronenberger teaching wherein the pincushion rope includes at least one indentation on the surface of the pincushion rope. See each of the elongate elements that represent a rope and have different appearances that show the indentations.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0225185 A1 to KRONENBERGER (herein after "Kronenberger"), as to claim 15 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0284887 A1 to Ramos et al. (herein after "Ramos").
Kronenberger discloses the hat apparatus of claim 15, wherein the pincushion rope is attached to the bill by at least one holder (See Figure 6, Kronenberger teaching wherein the pincushion rope is attached to the bill).
Kronenberger fails to further disclose by at least one holder.
Ramos teaches concealment devices for fashion accessory closures and discloses wherein the pincushion rope is attached to the bill by at least one holder (See Figure 4A - 4B, and Paragraph 0039; Ramos teaching a holder (concealment device 165), as doing so provides the wearer with a concealment device over the exposed portion of the closure for improved fashion aesthetics (Ramos 0040).
Therefore, based on Ramos’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kronenberger’s hat apparatus to include wherein the pincushion rope is attached to the bill by at least one holder, as doing so provides the wearer with a concealment device over the exposed portion of the closure for improved fashion aesthetics (Ramos 0040).
PNG
media_image6.png
845
930
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0225185 A1 to KRONENBERGER (herein after "Kronenberger"), as to claim 15 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0318886 A1 to QUIROZ (herein after "Quiroz").
As to Claim 20,
Kronenberger discloses the hat apparatus of claim 15.
Kronenberger does not disclose wherein the bill is a downwards sloping brim.
Quiroz teaches baseball caps with straps along with elongated members comprising a rope and discloses wherein the bill is a downwards sloping brim (See Figure 6; Quiroz).
Therefore, based on Quiroz’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kronenberger’s pincushion rope to include wherein the bill is a downwards sloping, as doing so provides an improved visual effect of the cap for the wearer by contrasting the bill.
PNG
media_image7.png
727
981
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 AKWOKWO REDHEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday7:00 AM to 4:00pm EST.
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, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/AKWOKWO OLABISI REDHEAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732