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 on 05/19/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application, with Claim 1 being newly amended and Claim 15 being newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-8 AND 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawchuk (US 20160128392) in view of Tuteur (US 2723398).
Regarding Claim 1, Krawchuk teaches an infant sleeping garment (200), comprising: a textile body (130) formed from a basal fabric adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (paragraph [0113], “the swaddling garment 100 shown in FIG. 1A is made of a resilient material with two-way stretch,” wherein resilient material with two-way stretch is considered as equivalent to a basal fabric. While paragraph [0113] is referring to another embodiment, paragraph [0123] teaches that “The features of embodiment 200 are otherwise as described for embodiment 100 illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B,” therein the garment (200) also is made of a basal fabric); a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (fig. 3A shows a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (130)); sleeve openings (180) in the textile body facing opposed directions adjacent the head opening (fig. 3A shows the sleeve openings (180) in the textile body (130) facing opposite directions and being positioned adjacent the head opening (165)); opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant such that each arm receptacle encloses a respective arm (fig. 3A shows the opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening (165); paragraph [0107] teaches “the arm (which is wholly contained within the wing portion 140 in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position)”) , each of the opposed arm receptacles surrounding the respective sleeve opening (fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles (140) being attached and therein surrounding the sleeve openings (180)); a circumferential attachment (185) around an opening of the respective arm receptacle securing each of the arm receptacles to the textile body (paragraph [0121], “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means.”; fig. 3A shows the attachment being a circumferential attachment that extends around an opening of the arm receptacle) around a circumference greater than the respective sleeve opening (fig. 3A shows the attachment (185) being attached to the outer surface of the textile body (130) at the sleeve opening (180), therein necessarily defining a larger circumference than the sleeve opening (180), which is on the inner side of the textile body, and therein has a smaller circumference); and a lowermost region (120) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110) and forming a closed volume configured to encapsulate legs of the infant (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) extending to a portion (135) of the textile body (130) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110); paragraph [0110], “a pouch 135 for enclosing the infant's legs,” therein as the portion is configured to enclose or encapsulate the legs it clearly forms a closed volume, as shown in figs. 3A and 3B).
Krawchuk does not teach wherein the attachment is unaligned with the respective sleeve opening.
Attention is drawn to Tuteur, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Tuteur teaches an infant sleeping garment (fig. 1), comprising: a textile body (2); a head opening (8) at an uppermost region of the textile body (Annotated fig. 1 shows the head opening at the uppermost region of the textile body); opposed arm receptacles (9) flanking the head opening (fig. 1 shows opposed arm receptacles flanking the head opening); and an attachment (12) securing a first portion (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body to a second portion (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body, the attachment unaligned with the opening (10) of the textile body (Annotated figs. 1 and 4 show the attachment (12) positioned back from the edge of the opening on the first portion of the textile body, therein considered as being unaligned with the opening); and a lowermost region (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (Annotated fig. 1 shows the lowermost region of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body (2) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krawchuk to include the teachings of Tuteur such that the attachments are unaligned with the sleeve openings so as to avoid catching the wearer’s skin when fastening the arm receptacles to the sleeve openings and so as to protect the wearer from rubbing against the rough fasteners while wearing the garment.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the arm receptacles (140) define an overlapping region (see annotated Fig.) with the textile body (130) between the attachment (185) and the sleeve opening (180) (annotated fig. 4 shows the overlapping region between the textile body (130) and the arm receptacles (140) where the hook and loop attachment (185) fasten to one another, the hook and loop as taught in paragraph [0121]: “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means.”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the attachment (185) defines a perimeter larger than a perimeter of the sleeve opening (180) (fig. 3A shows the attachment (185) being attached to the outer surface of the textile body (130) at the sleeve opening (180), therein necessarily defining a larger perimeter than the sleeve opening (180), which is on the inner side of the textile body, and therein has a smaller perimeter).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the sleeve openings (180) are discontinuous with the arm receptacles (140) (figs. 3A and 4 shows the sleeve openings (180) extending inside of the arm receptacles (140), therein being discontinuous with the arm receptacles).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the attachment (185) is a detachable closure, the arm receptacles separable from the textile body via the detachable closure (paragraph [0121], “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means,” wherein zippers and hook and loop are clearly detachable closures).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 5, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the detachable closure is a zipper (paragraph [0121], “The detachable wing portions 140 can be fastened to the bodice portion using any suitable fastening means, such as the hook and loop fasteners shown in FIG. 3A labelled item 185 or a zipper means,” wherein the attachment (185) is clearly a detachable closure)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein each arm receptacle (140) forms a closed volume around the sleeve opening (180) (fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles (140) forming a closed volume around the sleeve opening (180); paragraph [0098] teaches “each wing portion 140 is designed to completely surround and retain one of the infant's arms,” therefore as the arm receptacles completely retain the infant’s arm, it clearly forms a closed volume).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches a closure (160) on a front of the textile body (130) extending from the head opening (165) and between the sleeve openings (180) configured to provide entry and exit of the infant from the garment (fig. 3A shows the closure (160) extending on the front of the textile body (130) from the head opening (165) down below the sleeve openings (180); paragraph [0115], “opening 160 to allow insertion of an infant into the garment.”).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the arm receptacles define a first circumference and the circumferential attachment defines a second circumference (annotated fig. 3A shows the arm receptacles and the circumferential attachment defining a first and second circumference, respectively), the second circumference greater than the first circumference (fig. 3A shows the attachment (185) being attached to the outer surface of the textile body (130) at the sleeve opening (180), therein necessarily defining a larger circumference than the sleeve opening (180), which is on the inner side of the textile body, and therein has a smaller circumference).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
362
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
616
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
273
575
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
731
711
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawchuk (US 2016/0128392) in view of Tuteur (US 2723398), and further in view of Kassai et al. (US 2005/0034204).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Krawchuk does not teach an elongated strip forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle, and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric.
Attention is drawn to Kassai et al., which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Kassai et al. teaches an infant sleeping garment (21), comprising: a textile body (see annotated Fig.) formed from a basal fabric (4) adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (annotated fig. 4 shows the textile body made from basal fabric that is adapted to engage a wearer); a head opening (see annotated Fig.) at an uppermost region of the textile body (Annotated fig. 4 shows a head opening at an uppermost region of the textile body); opposed arm receptacles (see annotated Fig.) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant (annotated fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles flanking the head opening and being sized to receive respective arms of the wearer); and a lowermost region (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (annotated fig. 4 shows the lowermost region extending to a portion of the textile body that is longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region). Kassai et al. further teaches an elongated strip (see annotated Fig.) forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle (Annotated fig. 21 shows the elongated strip extending along an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle, therein forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle. Examiner notes that while the elongated strip does not form the entire outer perimeter, this is not required by the claim limitations, and therein the elongated strip forming a portion of the outer perimeter is considered as meeting the claimed limitations), and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric (fig. 4 shows the elongated strip being made of “stretchable mesh material 3” (paragraph [0044]), and as paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant,” the material of the elongated strip is clearly of greater elasticity than the basal fabric, otherwise the stretchable mesh would not need to be inserted to impart stretchability to the garment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Krawchuk such that the garment includes an elongated strip forming an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle, and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric so as to add stretchability and permeability to the arm receptacle, increasing the comfort of the wearer (paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 9, as discussed in the rejections above.
Krawchuk does not teach wherein the elongated strip further comprises an undistorted position and an expanded position, the elongated strip configured to be in the undistorted position when not engaged by the infant, such that the undistorted position disposes the arm receptacle below a horizontal line defined by an uppermost limit of the head opening.
Attention is drawn to Kassai et al., which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Kassai et al. teaches an infant sleeping garment (21), comprising: a textile body (see annotated Fig.) formed from a basal fabric (4) adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (annotated fig. 4 shows the textile body made from basal fabric that is adapted to engage a wearer); a head opening (see annotated Fig.) at an uppermost region of the textile body (Annotated fig. 4 shows a head opening at an uppermost region of the textile body); opposed arm receptacles (see annotated Fig.) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant (annotated fig. 4 shows the arm receptacles flanking the head opening and being sized to receive respective arms of the wearer); and a lowermost region (see annotated Fig.) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (annotated fig. 4 shows the lowermost region extending to a portion of the textile body that is longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region), and an elongated strip (see annotated Fig.) and extending along an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle (Annotated fig. 21 shows the elongated strip extending along an outer perimeter of the arm receptacle), and having greater elasticity than the basal fabric (fig. 4 shows the elongated strip being made of “stretchable mesh material 3” (paragraph [0044]), and as paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant,” the material of the elongated strip is clearly of greater elasticity than the basal fabric, otherwise the stretchable mesh would not need to be inserted to impart stretchability to the garment). Kassai et al. further teaches wherein the elongated strip further comprises an undistorted position and an expanded position, the elongated strip configured to be in the undistorted position when not engaged by the infant (paragraph [0044] teaches the elongated strip being a “stretchable mesh material,” therefore it clearly has an undistorted position when unstretched and not engaging with the infant, and an expanded position when the mesh is stretched), such that the undistorted position disposes the arm receptacle below a horizontal line defined by an uppermost limit of the head opening (Fig. 4 shows the elongated strip in its undistorted position with the arm receptacle disposed below the uppermost limit of the head opening).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Krawchuk such that the elongated strip further comprises an undistorted position and an expanded position, the elongated strip configured to be in the undistorted position when not engaged by the infant, such that the undistorted position disposes the arm receptacle below a horizontal line defined by an uppermost limit of the head opening so as to add stretchability and permeability to the arm receptacle, allowing the wearer to move and comfortably within the arm receptacles, increasing the comfort of the wearer (paragraph [0045] teaches “according to the third embodiment, stretchability and permeability can be provided in the portions of the sides of an infant”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the uppermost limit (see annotated Fig.) of the head opening (165) defines a narrowest width of the textile body (130) (annotated fig. 3A shows the uppermost limit of the head opening (165) defining the narrowest width of the textile body).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Krawchuk further teaches wherein the lowermost region (120) most distal from the neck opening (165) defines a widest width of the textile body (130) (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) that is most distal from the neck opening defining the widest width of the textile body (130))
PNG
media_image6.png
667
877
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawchuk (US 2016/0128392) in view of Tuteur (US 2723398), and further in view of a second embodiment of Krawchuk, hereinafter referred to as Krawchuk2.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Krawchuk further teaches a chest pressure accessory attached to the textile body between the arm receptacles, the chest pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric.
Attention is drawn to Krawchuk2, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Krawchuk2 teaches an infant sleeping garment (600), comprising: a textile body (130) formed from a basal fabric adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (paragraph [0113], “the swaddling garment 100 shown in FIG. 1A is made of a resilient material with two-way stretch,” wherein resilient material with two way stretch is considered as equivalent to a basal fabric. While paragraph [0113] is referring to another embodiment, paragraph [0131] teaches that “The embodiment of FIGS. 6A-6E and 7A-7F has the same features as described in relation to the embodiments of FIGS. 1A and 1B,” therein the garment (200) also is made of a basal fabric); a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (fig. 3A shows a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (130)); opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant such that each arm receptacle encloses a respective arm (fig. 3A shows the opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening (165); paragraph [0107] teaches “the arm (which is wholly contained within the wing portion 140 in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position)”); and a lowermost region (120) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110) and forming a closed volume for encapsulating legs of the infant (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) extending to a portion (135) of the textile body (130) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110); paragraph [0110], “a pouch 135 for enclosing the infant's legs,” therein as the portion encloses the legs it clearly forms a closed volume, as shown in figs. 3A and 3B). Krawchuck2 further teaches a chest pressure accessory (see annotated Fig.) (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E,” wherein the weighted portions form the chest pressure accessory as shown in annotated fig. 6A) attached to the textile body between the arm receptacles (annotated fig. 6A shows the chest pressure accessory being attached to the textile body (130) between the arm receptacles (140)), the chest pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E, 7A-7F, and 8A-8D) have higher thermal weight and/or material weight than the non-weighted portions (the areas not shaded in FIGS. 6A to 8D)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krawchuk to include the teachings of Krawchuk2 such that the garment includes a chest pressure accessory attached to the textile body between the arm receptacles, the chest pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric so as to provide gentle pressure to soothe the wearer (paragraph [0133], “This semi-rigid portion applies gentle pressure to the abdomen areas of an infant within the garment 600.”).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Krawchuk teaches all of the limitations of the garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Krawchuk does not teach one or more abdominal pressure accessories attached to the textile body below the arm receptacles, each abdominal pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric.
Attention is drawn to Krawchuk2, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Krawchuk2 teaches an infant sleeping garment (600), comprising: a textile body (130) formed from a basal fabric adapted to engage an infant wearer of the garment (paragraph [0113], “the swaddling garment 100 shown in FIG. 1A is made of a resilient material with two-way stretch,” wherein resilient material with two way stretch is considered as equivalent to a basal fabric. While paragraph [0113] is referring to another embodiment, paragraph [0131] teaches that “The embodiment of FIGS. 6A-6E and 7A-7F has the same features as described in relation to the embodiments of FIGS. 1A and 1B,” therein the garment (200) also is made of a basal fabric); a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (fig. 3A shows a head opening (165) at an uppermost region (110) of the textile body (130)); opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening and sized for receiving respective arms of the infant such that each arm receptacle encloses a respective arm (fig. 3A shows the opposed arm receptacles (140) flanking the head opening (165); paragraph [0107] teaches “the arm (which is wholly contained within the wing portion 140 in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position)”); and a lowermost region (120) of the textile body extending to a portion of the textile body longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110) and forming a closed volume for encapsulating legs of the infant (fig. 3A shows the lowermost region (120) extending to a portion (135) of the textile body (130) longitudinally opposed from the uppermost region (110);m paragraph [0110], “a pouch 135 for enclosing the infant's legs,” therein as the portion encloses the legs it clearly forms a closed volume, as shown in figs. 3A and 3B). Krawchuck2 further teaches at least one abdomen accessory (see annotated Fig.) (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E,” wherein the weighted portions form the chest pressure accessory) attached to the textile body below the arm receptacles (annotated fig. 6A shows the abdomen pressure accessory being attached to the textile body (130) below the arm receptacles (140)), the at least one abdomen pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric (paragraph [0135] “The weighted portions (cross-hatched areas of FIGS. 6A-6E, 7A-7F, and 8A-8D) have higher thermal weight and/or material weight than the non-weighted portions (the areas not shaded in FIGS. 6A to 8D)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krawchuk to include the teachings of Krawchuk2 such that one or more abdominal pressure accessories attached to the textile body below the arm receptacles, each abdominal pressure accessory having a greater mass than the basal fabric so as to provide gentle pressure to soothe the wearer (paragraph [0133], “This semi-rigid portion applies gentle pressure to the abdomen areas of an infant within the garment 600.”).
PNG
media_image7.png
664
521
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-8 over Krawchuk in view of Tuteur, Applicant submits the instant application is drawn to an attachment having an oversized circumference such that is does not meet the sleeve opening. Applicant further submits that Tuteur does not teach a zipper that is unaligned and circumferential around the larger circumference. Examiner agrees that Tuteur does not teach the attachment being a circumferential attachment that extends around the opening of the respective arm receptacle, however Examiner notes that Tuteur is only being relied upon for teaching the attachment being unaligned from the sleeve opening. Krawchuk, as noted in the rejection above, does teach an attachment that is a circumferential attachment and extends around a circumference that is greater than the respective sleeve opening, therein Tuteur is not required to cure this deficiency. As the attachment is on the outer surface of the sleeve opening, it would necessarily have a larger circumference than the sleeve opening. Given this, Krawchuk modified with the teachings of Tuteur teaches all of the limitations of amended Claim 1. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
Examiner notes that the instant invention’s attachment is offset from the sleeve opening such that the upper portion of the attachment is closer to the sleeve opening than the lower portion of the attachment, which differs from the prior art. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to clarify the specific drop sleeve attachment relationship between the sleeve opening and the attachment.
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 HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached on (571)272-4888. 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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights