DETAILED ACTION
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 December 10th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) s 1, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Conejo Castano et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210316964); hereafter “Conejo”.
Regarding claim 1, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) a sling bar (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), comprising: a top surface that connects to an attachment mechanism (as eminently illustrated in connection 1202; FIG. 12); a first bar portion (correspondent 1216; FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) that extends in a first longitudinal direction (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the first bar portion having a first upper surface (correspondent surface 1217 along the longitudinal length; FIGS. 13C; As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) extending from a top the top surface (where the curved surfaces appear to be continuous and thereby extending from the top surface in FIG. 12); a first receiving aperture (correspondent 1238/1240; FIGS. 12-13C, and similarly illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2) disposed within the first bar portion (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C); a first strap guide slot (correspondent ingress/egress surfaces 1217/1226/1224/1302 into and out of aperture as illustrated in FIGS. 13A-13C) disposed within the first bar portion and extending from the first upper surface to the first receiving aperture (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the first strap guide slot defined by a first lower slot surface and a first upper slot surface (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C); and a first retention spring (correspondent 1304/1306/1234; FIGS. 13B), disposed within the first strap guide slot and moveable between a closed position and an open position (As illustrated between FIGS. 12-13C), wherein: the first retention spring is extended toward the first upper slot surface when in the closed position (as illustrated in FIGS. 13A-13B) and is retracted toward the first lower slot surface when in the open position (as illustrated in FIGS. 13C); and the first retention spring is biased to the closed position (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 13B).
Regarding claim 8, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 1, wherein the first strap guide slot has a top opening (correspondent surfaces 1302 and 1224 that form smaller opening surface to the right of 1226; FIG. 13B) and a bottom opening (correspondent surfaces 1226 that form larger lower located opening surface to the left of 1226; FIG. 13B), wherein the top opening is larger than the bottom opening (As illustrated in FIGS. 13B).
Regarding claim 9, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 10, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the first lower slot surface is oriented at an angle to at least a portion of the first upper slot surface (as illustrated eminently in FIG. 13B).
Regarding claim 10, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 1, wherein the first retention spring has a bulb shape (as illustrated through 1306; FIG. 13B; comprising a bulb shape that comprises a cylinder and a screw like a common bulb/light bulb).
Regarding claim 11, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 1, wherein: the first strap guide slot has a top opening (correspondent surfaces 1302; FIG. 13B) disposed at the first upper surface, a bottom opening (correspondent surfaces 1226; FIG. 13B) disposed at the first receiving aperture, and a middle portion correspondent abutment/fillet portion of 1224; FIG. 13B) disposed between the top opening and the bottom opening (AS illustrated in FIGS. 13B where ‘between’ may be construed as ‘amongst’; Dictionary.com: “between”; or otherwise the opening aperture distance therebetween; as illustrated in FIG. 13B); and the middle portion is wider than the top opening and the bottom opening (as the corresponding larger space in between..
Regarding claim 12, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 13A-13C) the sling bar of claim 1, wherein the first receiving aperture defines an undercut pocket (correspondent the recessive notch that accommodates 1220; FIGS. 13A-13C; the recessive notch therein).
Regarding claim 13, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 1, further comprising: a second bar portion that extends in a second longitudinal direction (correspondent 1218; FIGS. 13A-13C), the second bar portion having a second upper surface; a second receiving aperture disposed within the second bar portion; a second strap guide slot disposed within the second bar portion and extending from the second upper surface to the second receiving aperture (the features disclosed as mirrors within the embodiments as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the second strap guide slot defined by a second lower slot surface and a second upper slot surface (the features disclosed as mirrors within the embodiments as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C); and a second retention spring disposed within the second strap guide slot (the features disclosed as mirrors within the embodiments as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the second retention spring moveable between a closed position of the second retention spring and an open position of the second retention spring (as illustrated between FIGS. 13A-13B), wherein the second retention spring is extended toward the second upper slot surface when in the closed position (as illustrated in FIGS. 12-13B) and is retracted toward the second lower slot surface when in the open position (as illustrated in FIGS. 13C or FIGS. 12); and the second retention spring is biased toward the closed position of the second retention spring as conveyed through FIGS. 12-13C).
Regarding claim 14, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) a lift system comprising: a subject lift (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-2, and 12) including a sling bar (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), comprising: a top surface that connects to an attachement mechanism (as illustrated in correspondence to component 1202; FIG. 12); a first bar portion (correspondent 1216; FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) that extends in a first longitudinal direction (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the first bar portion having a first upper surface (correspondent surface 1217 along the longitudinal extend of the first bar portion; FIGS. 13C; As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) extending from the top surface (where the surfaces of the body appear to be continuous and thereby extending from the top surface; a first receiving aperture (correspondent 1238/1240; FIGS. 12-13C, and similarly illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13B) disposed within the first bar portion (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C); a first strap guide slot (correspondent ingress/egress surfaces of aperture 1240 as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) disposed within the first bar portion and extending from the first upper surface to the first receiving aperture (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the first strap guide slot defined by a first lower slot surface and a first upper slot surface (As illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C); and a first retention spring (correspondent 1234/1304/1306; FIGS. 13B), disposed within the first strap guide slot and moveable between a closed position and an open position (As illustrated between FIGS. 12-13C), wherein: the first retention spring is extended toward the first upper slot surface when in the closed position (as illustrated in FIGS. 13A-13B) and is retracted toward the first lower slot surface when in the open position (as illustrated in FIGS. 13C); and the first retention spring is biased to the closed position (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 13B).
Regarding claim 15, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 14, wherein the first strap guide slot has a top opening (correspondent surfaces 1306; FIG. 13B) and a bottom opening (correspondent surfaces 1226; FIG. 13B), wherein the top opening is larger than the bottom opening (As illustrated in FIGS. 13B).
Regarding claim 16, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 14, wherein at least a portion of the first lower slot surface is oriented at an angle to at least a portion of the first upper slot surface (as illustrated eminently in FIG. 13B).
Regarding claim 17, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 14, wherein the first lower slot surface has a first portion and a second portion oriented at an angle to the first portion (as illustrated eminently in FIG. 13B)
Regarding claim 18, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C) the sling bar of claim 14, wherein the sling bar further comprises: a second bar portion that extends in a second longitudinal direction (correspondent 1218; FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the second bar portion having a second upper surface; a second receiving aperture disposed within the second bar portion; a second strap guide slot disposed within the second bar portion and extending from the second upper surface to the second receiving aperture (the features disclosed as mirrors within the embodiments as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the second strap guide slot defined by a second lower slot surface and a second upper slot surface (the features disclosed as mirrors within the embodiments as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C); and a second retention spring disposed within the second strap guide slot (the features disclosed as mirrors within the embodiments as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 12-13C), the second retention spring moveable between a closed position of the second retention spring and an open position of the second retention spring (as illustrated between FIGS. 13A-13B), wherein the second retention spring is extended toward the second upper slot surface when in the closed position (as illustrated in FIGS. 12-13B) and is retracted toward the second lower slot surface when in the open position (as illustrated in FIGS. 13C or FIGS. 12); and the second retention spring is biased toward the closed position of the second retention spring as conveyed through FIGS. 12-13C).
Regarding claim 19, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 11A-14) a method of attaching a subject sling to a sling bar (As illustrated between FIGS. 1, 2, 12-14), the method comprising: connecting a top surface of the sling bar to an attachment mechanism(as illustrated in FIG. 12/13) positioning a sling loop associated with the subject sling into a first strap guide slot (correspondent surfaces of aperture as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 11A-13C and 14) on the sling bar, wherein the first strap guide slot extends from a first upper surface to a first receiving aperture (as illustrated in FIG. 12 and 12A-13B), the first strap guide slot defined by a first lower slot surface and a first upper slot surface (as illustrated in FIG. 12); applying a first threshold opening force via the sling loop to a first retention spring disposed within the first strap guide slot (As demonstrated in FIGS. 13C), thereby moving the first retention spring from a closed position of the first retention spring to an open position of the first retention spring (As demonstrated in FIGS. 13C), wherein the first retention spring is moveable between the closed position of the first retention spring and the open position of the first retention spring (AS illustrated between FIGS. 11A-14), the first retention spring is extended toward the first upper slot surface when in the closed position and is retracted toward the first lower slot surface when in the open position (as illustrated in FIGS. 13A-13B) and is biased toward the closed position of the first retention spring by a first spring force (through springs 1100; FIG. 11B or 1304; FIG. 113B); and positioning the sling loop (1233(1) or 1233(2); FIG. 14 or 1033; FIG. 11A) in a first receiving aperture disposed within the sling bar and adjoining the first strap guide slot (As portrayed through FIGS. 11A and 14).
It is considered under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where particularly in the ordinary use of the invention a certain amount of force is necessary to engage and disengage the spring and thereafter placing a sling loop through the aperture to achieve the configuration of FIGS. 11A and 14).
Regarding claim 20, Conejo discloses (FIGS. 1, 2, 11A-16B) the method of claim 19, further comprising: positioning an additional sling loop into a second strap guide slot on the sling bar (as set forth in 16A; “second”); applying a second threshold force via the additional sling loop to a second retention spring disposed within the second strap guide slot (as set forth in 16A; “second”), thereby moving the second retention spring from a closed position of the second retention spring to an open position of the second retention spring (as set forth in 16A; “second”), wherein the second retention spring is moveable between the closed position of the second retention spring and the open position of the second retention spring (as conveyed through 16A-16B and illustrated in FIGS. 11A and 13C) and is biased toward the closed position of the second retention spring with a second spring force (as is understood between FIGS. 16A-16B And demonstrated through the springs of FIGS. 11B and 13B); and positioning the additional sling loop into a second receiving aperture disposed within the sling bar and adjoining the second strap guide slot (demonstrated in FIGS. 16A-16B).
It is similarly considered under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where particularly in the ordinary use of the invention a certain amount of force is necessary to engage and disengage the spring and thereafter placing a sling loop through the aperture to achieve the configuration of FIGS. 11A and 14).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conejo (secondary embodiment; FIG. 15) in view of Tsai (U.S. Pat. No. 6079598).
Regarding claim 1, Conejo discloses (FIG. 15) a sling bar (As illustrated in FIGS. 15), comprising: a top surface that connects to an attachment mechanism (about upper surface 1528; FIG. 15) a first bar portion (correspondent 1518; FIG. 15) that extends in a first longitudinal direction (As illustrated in FIGS. 15), the first bar portion having a first upper surface (correspondent surface 1528; FIG. 15) extending from the top surface (as illustrated in FIG. 15); a first receiving aperture (correspondent 1540; FIG. 15) disposed within the first bar portion (As illustrated in FIG. 15); a first strap guide slot (correspondent ingress/egress surfaces 1530/1582/15851586/1529/1584; as illustrated in FIG. 15) disposed within the first bar portion and extending from the first upper surface to the first receiving aperture (As illustrated in FIG. 15), the first strap guide slot defined by a first lower slot surface (correspondent lower interior surface of 1584; FIG. 15) and a first upper slot surface (correspondent combinate upper located surfaces of 1530/1582/1529/1584; as illustrated in FIG. 15).
However, Conejo’s secondary embodiment (correspondent FIG. 15 exclusively), does not explicitly disclose a first retention spring, disposed within the first strap guide slot and moveable between a closed position and an open position, wherein: the first retention spring is extended toward the first upper slot surface when in the closed position and is retracted toward the first lower slot surface when in the open position; and the first retention spring is biased to the closed position.
Regardless, Tsai teaches (FIGS. 5-7) a fabric suspending/holstering device with a first bar portion (correspondent body 10 and arms 11/12; FIG. 5-7) that extends in a longitudinal direction, the first bar has an upper surface (either surfaces of 11 or 15; FIG. 7), a first receiving aperture (correspondent space about 45; FIG. 5 and distal rectilinear end of the interior 11/12; FIG. 7) disposed with the first bar portion, a strap guide slot (correspondent the interior spanning length of 11/12; as illustrated in FIG. 5/7) disposed within the first bar portion and extending from the first upper surface to the first receiving aperture (as eminently demonstrated in FIG. 5/7), the first strap guide slot defined by a first lower slot surface (inner surface of 12; FIG. 5/7) and a first slot upper surface (inner surface of 11; FIG. 5/7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the first retention spring of Tsai into the first strap guide slot of Conejo. Where the results would have been predictable as both Conejo and Tsai are concerned with holstering and holding fabric elements thereon (Conejo: sling loops 1233; FIG. 14; Tsai: [Abstract]/[3:66-4:15]. Where advantageously, Tsai acknowledges that by using the bulge-spring construction as that depicted in claim 6 avails “The flat metal springs provide a greater surface area of contact against the garment, which permits more evenly-distributed pressure, which reduces the likelihood of damage to a garment due to stretching and pulling of the fabric. Secondly, the flat metal springs may be cheaper to produce due to fewer steps in manufacturing” [2:59-67]. Therefore, the incorporation of a flat bulge spring of the type provided would improve handling the flexible sling loops of Conejo and improve longevity thereof by reducing damage thereto.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conejo in view of Lapugean (EP. Pub. No. EP3260725A1).
Regarding claim 2, Conejo discloses the sling bar of claim 1.
However, Conejo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first retention spring comprises a first end, a second end, and a middle portion extending between the first end and the second end, wherein the first end and the second end are each disposed within the first lower slot surface and the middle portion comprises an arcuate shape extending into the first strap guide slot.
Regardless, Lapugean teaches (FIGS. 1-4) wherein a first retention spring (10; FIGS. 2-4) isa single leaf spring (FIGS. 1-4) that comprises a first end (1b; FIGS. 2-4), a second end (1a; FIGS. 2-4), and a middle portion (1c; FIGS. 2-4) extending between the first end and the second end (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-4), wherein the first end and the second end are each disposed within the first lower slot surface and the middle portion comprises an arcuate shape extending into the first strap guide slot (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and substituted the leaf spring and accommodational divets /sliding surfaces thereof as Lapugean portrays (FIGS. 1-4) for the conical spring with the divet thereof of Conejo (As illustrated in FIGS. 13A-13C). Where the results would have been predictable as both are concerning spring loaded closure and securement mechanisms and Lapugean is one such securement mechanism, where further, it is understood a common conical spring is held to the constant of Hooke’s law, while Lapugean denotes that by allowing traversal of one end with the leaf spring design provided “In this way, the displacement of the loading region is not solely a result of deformation…In other words…along at least a part of the guide surface, the force required for the same displacement of the loading region of the leaf spring member is reduced” [0008]. It is considered such ease of use would retain the capability to bias close the closure of Conejo, the biasing features of Lapugean, while availing further ease of use by dynamically altering the force required to engage as Lapugean ascribes ([0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Conejo in view of Lapugean discloses (Conejo: FIGS. 10-15; Lapugean: FIGS. 2-4) the sling bar of claim 2, wherein the first lower slot surface comprises a first receiving channel (as set forth by Lapugean for the sliding surface thereof as portrayed in FIGS. 2-4), wherein the first end of the first retention spring is disposed within the first receiving channel (As set forth by Lapugean in FIGS. 2-4 in concordance with the slot surface and biasing mechanisms of Conejo in FIGS. 10-15).
Regarding claim 4, Conejo in view of Lapugean discloses (Lapugean: FIGS. 2-4) the sling bar of claim 3, wherein: the first end of the first retention spring is slidable within the first receiving channel (As set forth by Lapugean in the combination set forth in claim 2 in concordance with FIGS. 2-4); and sliding the first end of the first retention spring within the first receiving channel moves the first retention spring between the open position and the closed position of the first retention spring (Lapugean: as illustrated in FIGS. 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Conejo in view of Lapugean discloses (Lapugean: FIGS. 2-4) the sling bar of claim 3 wherein the first receiving channel is oriented at an angle to the first lower slot surface (as conveyed through FIGS. 2-4).
Regarding claim 6, Conejo in view of Lapugean discloses (Lapugean: FIG. 1) the sling bar of claim 3, wherein the first receiving channel is oriented substantially parallel to the first lower slot surface (Lapugean: As illustrated in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Conejo discloses the sling bar of claim 1.
However, Conejo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first retention spring is a single leaf spring.
Regardless, Lapugean teaches (FIGS. 2-4) wherein a first retention spring (10; FIGS. 1-4) is a single leaf spring (FIGS. 1-4) and comprises a first end (1b; FIGS. 2-4), a second end (1a; FIGS. 2-4), and a middle portion (1c; FIGS. 2-4) extending between the first end and the second end (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-4), wherein the first end and the second end are each disposed within the first lower slot surface and the middle portion comprises an arcuate shape extending into the first strap guide slot (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated and substituted the leaf spring and accommodational divets/sliding surfaces thereof as Lapugean portrays (FIGS. 1-4) for the conical spring with the divet thereof of Conejo (As illustrated in FIGS. 13A-13C). Where the results would have been predictable as both are concerning spring loaded closure and securement mechanisms and Lapugean is one such securement mechanism, where further, it is understood a common conical spring is held to the constant of Hooke’s law, while Lapugean denotes that by allowing traversal of one end with the leaf spring design provided “In this way, the displacement of the loading region is not solely a result of deformation…In other words…along at least a part of the guide surface, the force required for the same displacement of the loading region of the leaf spring member is reduced” [0008]. It is considered such ease of use would retain the capability to bias close the closure of Conejo, the biasing features of Lapugean, while availing further ease of use by dynamically altering the force required to engage as Lapugean ascribes ([0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is respectfully considered that Conejo demonstrates a biasing member within the confines that define the first strap guide slot as the biasing member must block the first strap guide slow to open and close as illustrated in FIGS. 11-14A. Where such consideration is taken that the ‘upper surface is particularly ‘extending from the top surface’, which Conejo does seem to achieve by making it’s arcuate surfaces seemingly continuous respectively, and it has respectfully therefore been considered at the present time that the orientations provide the requisite claimed relationships applicant’s invention provides.
With respect to arguments concerning Tsai, examiner is respectfully not convinced at the present time that Tsai does not have relation or commonality with Conejo. As both particularly are concerned with holding fabric looped elements up and suspending them, and therefore would appear to be relevant art with respect to the manner the biasing member can be provided to the invention, where Tsai concerns an extent with a spring therein and Conejo similary concerns an extent with a spring therein, therefore there is a reasonable amount of commonality with what their technology concerns and with analogous structures therebetween.
Therefore claims 1-20 respectfully remain rejected for reasons and rational as set forth in the pertinent sections and as explained herein.
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.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571--272-8525. 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673