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 the Application
2. Claims 1—21 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final rejection in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1—5, 11—14, 16—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt (Rugfelt hereafter) in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers (Essers hereafter).
As per claim 1, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches:
A device for supporting and/or stabilizing a living being (1—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]), in, the device comprising- a base element (2—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]), having an evacuable and/or inflatable interior (Claim 2), and a support section arranged on or in the base element for supporting the living being (3—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]), the base element and the support section are joined to one another in a non-detachable manner (2 & 3—Fig.1; pg.3 para [0001]).
Rugfelt does not teach, the support section having a compressive strength different from a compressive strength of the base element, and the support section including at least two textile fabrics, joined to one another and spaced apart from one another by a plurality of threads.
Essers teaches, the support section having a compressive strength different from a compressive strength of the base element (pg.3 para [0003]: different compression hardnesses), and the support section including at least two textile fabrics (12 & 13—Fig.2 ; pg.6 para [0004]), joined to one another and spaced apart from one another by a plurality of threads (14—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0004]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 2, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach , wherein the at least one support section is formed as a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section is a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric (claim 3: at least one spacer knitted fabric).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 3, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the threads form a woven layer, between the at least two textile fabrics.
Essers (as modified) teaches: wherein the threads form a woven layer, between the at least two textile fabrics (14—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0004]: woven layer formed between two fabrics 12 & 13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 4, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from a plastic, preferably from polyester.
Essers (as modified) teaches, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from a plastic (pg.5 para [0004]: fabrics 12 & 13 may be made of polyester).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 5, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the base element and the support section are formed integral with one another.
Essers (as modified) teaches, wherein the base element and the support section are formed integral with one another (19, 12, 13 & 5—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0004]: base element 5 and support section 12 & 13 formed integral with one another via element 19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 7, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1 wherein the interior of the base element is inflatable and only filled with air (Claim 2).
As per claim 11, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach , wherein one support section has a thickness in a range of between 2 mm and 40 mm.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section has a thickness in a range of between 2 mm and 40 mm (pg.5 para [0004] support section 12 thickness between 2 to 100mm).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 12, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the support section includes at least four textile fabrics joined to one another in pairs by a plurality of threads.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section includes at least four textile fabrics (claim 3: three piles spacer knitted fabric 12, 12a 23 & 12b) joined to one another in pairs by a plurality of threads (14—Fig.2; pg.5 para [0004]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 13, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach wherein the support section comprises at least two plies of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric.
Essers teaches wherein the support section comprises at least two plies of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric (claim 3: at least one spacer knitted fabric).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 14, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 13
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein at least two of the at least two plies have different compressive strengths from each another.
Essers teaches, wherein at least two of the at least two plies have different compressive strengths from each another (claim 3: at least one spacer knitted fabric).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 16, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the support section comprises at least three plies of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric.
Essers teaches, wherein the support section comprises at least three plies (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones) of knitted spacer fabric or woven spacer fabric (claim 3: three piles spacer knitted fabric 12, 12a 23 & 12b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 17, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 16
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein a first ply and a second ply of the at least three plies have a first compressive strength and a third ply of the at least three plies has a second compressive strength different than the first compressive strength.
Essers teaches, wherein a first ply and a second ply of the at least three plies have a first compressive strength (pg.6 para [0006]) and a third ply of the at least three plies has a second compressive strength different than the first compressive strength (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 18 Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 17.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least three plies are arranged such that the third ply with the second compressive strength follows the first ply with the first compressive strength, and the second ply with the first compressive strength follows the third ply with the second compressive strength.
Essers teaches, wherein the at least three plies are arranged such that the third ply with the second compressive strength (claim 3: three piles spacer knitted fabric 12, 12a 23 & 12b; pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses) follows the first ply with the first compressive strength (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses), and the second ply with the first compressive strength follows the third ply with the second compressive strength (pg.5 para [0006]: support section divided into several zones different compressive hardnesses).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide spacer fabrics that are elastic and fluid permeable as taught in Essers (pg.6 para [0009]).
As per claim 19 Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 3.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the threads form a pile layer between the at least two textile fabrics.
Essers, wherein the threads form a pile layer between the at least two textile fabrics (pg.5 para [0004]: fabrics 12 & 13 may be made of polyester).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
As per claim 20 Rugfelt (as modified) teaches The device according to claim 4.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from polyester.
Essers, wherein the at least two textile fabrics and/or the threads are made from polyester (pg.5 para [0004]: fabrics 12 & 13 may be made of polyester).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to the support section having a compressive strength different from a base element) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to connect two substantially parallel layers as taught in Essers (pg.5 para [0004]).
Claim(s) 6—8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers in view of U.S Patent Application 2003/0084511 A1 Salvatini (Salvatini hereafter).
As per claim 6, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the at least one support section is fluidically isolated.
Salvatini teaches wherein the at least one support section is fluidically isolated (149—Fig.9; para [0052]: inflatable chamber with at least one support section fluidically isolated).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a body with an inflatable interior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide support to a patient positioned thereon and protection to lower cushion as taught in Salvanti (para [0052]).
As per claim 8, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the interior of the base is evacuable and at least one of a granular material and an insertion body is arranged in the interior.
Salvatini teaches wherein the interior of the base is evacuable and at least one of a granular material and an insertion body is arranged in the interior (132—Fig.9; para [0052]: interior is an evacuable inflatable chamber with insertion arranged in the interior).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber with insertion arranged in the interior) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a body with an inflatable interior with insertion arranged in the interior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide support to a patient positioned thereon and protection to lower cushion as taught in Salvanti (para [0052]).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers in view of U.S Patent Application 2003/0084511 A1 Salvatini in view of GB 2502867 A to Anand et al. (Anand hereafter).
As per claim 9, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 8.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the insertion body arranged in the interior and is a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric.
Anand teaches, wherein the insertion body arranged in the interior and is a knitted spacer fabric or a woven spacer fabric (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
As per claim 10, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 1.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein the support section has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 60 kPa.
Anand teaches, wherein the support section has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 60 kPa (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
As per claim 15, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 14.
Rugfelt does not teach, wherein a first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 35 kPa and 60 kPa, and a second one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 55 kPa, preferably between 40 kPa and 50 kPa, particularly preferably 43 kPa
Anand teaches, wherein a first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 35 kPa and 60 kPa (claim) and a second at least one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 30 kPa and 55 kPa, preferably between 40 kPa and 50 kPa, particularly preferably 43 kPa (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
As per claim 21, Rugfelt (as modified) teaches: The device according to claim 15.
Rugfelt does not teach , wherein the first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 45 kPa and 55 kPa, and the second one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 40 kPa and 50 kPa.
Anand teaches, wherein the first one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 45 kPa and 55 kPa (claim 3), and the second one of the at least two plies has a compressive strength in a range of between 40 kPa and 50 kPa (claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Rugfelt (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Essers (directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section) and Salvatini (directed to base element with an inflatable chamber) and Anand (directed to a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength) and arrived at a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section including a knitted spacer fabric with a compression strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to prevent pressure sores on an immobile patient or animal as taught in Anand (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1—4, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt (Rugfelt hereafter) in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers (Essers hereafter).
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 07/16/2025, the Applicant argues,
Regarding Independent claim 1, The primary Essers reference is directed to a mattress and mattress support including a lower layer 3 and an upper layer 4 enveloped within an outer shell 17. As shown in Fig. 2, the lower layer 3 includes a molded body 5 made of foam. On page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserted that this molded body 5 corresponds to the claimed base element of claim 1, while a spacer fabric 12 having cover layers 13 corresponds to the claimed support structure. More particularly, the Examiner asserted that "the base element and the at least one support section are joined to one another non-detachably," and referred to page 5, paragraph [0004] as supporting this position noting "12 & 13 joined together by thread."
Indeed, the paragraph of the machine translation of the Essers reference cited by the
Examiner does indeed appear to suggest that the cover layers 13 of the spacer fabric are joined to each other non-detachably by threads 14: "The spacer fabric 12 has two mutually substantially parallel cover layers 13 on, by spacer threads 14 connected to each other."
However, this paragraph - and the remainder of the Essers reference - does not even suggest that the base element (molded body 5) and the support section (spacer fabric 12 with cover layers 13) are joined to one another in a non-detachable manner, as required by independent claim 1. In fact, the paragraph cited by the Examiner does not even mention the molded body 5. To quite the contrary, the Essers reference teaches or very strongly suggests that the base element (molded body 5) and the support section (spacer fabric 12 with cover layers 13) are detachable to allow cleaning. In particular, the second paragraph on page 6 of the English translation states, in part: "... Regardless, the shaped body 5 by opening the zipper 7 be replaced or cleaned. The spacer fabric 12, the material situation 16 and the outer shell 17 can be cleaned separately...." Thus, the base element (molded body 5) and the support section (spacer fabric 12 with cover layers 13) must be separable (detachable) to be cleaned or replaced separately
2) In addition to the important distinction noted above, claim 1 is further distinguishable from the prior art due to the base element having an evacuable and or inflatable interior. In particular, as noted above, the base element (molded body 5) of the primary Essers reference is foam (solid), rather than having an evacuable and or inflatable interior as required by independent claim 1. The Examiner therefore applied the secondary Salvatini reference as teaching a "base element" (inflatable sleep surface 122, shown in Fig. 9) that is evacuable and/or inflatable. The Examiner then asserted that one skilled in the art would be motivated to replace the foam (solid) molded body 5 of the Essers reference with the inflatable sleep surface 122 of the Salvatini reference to obtain the device of independent claim 1. The Applicant disagrees.
Firstly, there is no suggestion or hint in the primary Essers reference about possibly forming the molded body 5 to have an evacuable and/or inflatable interior, nor is there any reason to do so. Secondly, while the sleep surface 122 forms the top layer on which the person rests and therefore must provide comfort, the molded body 5 forms part of the lower layer 3 (i.e., base layer) and, as such, must support the upper layer 4 while not needing to provide direct support and comfort to the person resting thereon. Making the molded body 5 of the lower layer 3 of the Essers reference evacuable and/or inflatable would not necessarily provide the required support for the upper layer 4, thereby deterring one skilled in the art from even considering such a modification. Thus, for this additional reason, it is submitted that independent claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom are clearly patentable over the prior art of record.
Examiner's Response to Arguments:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons:
1) Regarding independent claim 1 the examiner relies on the teachings of WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt in view of Patent Application DE 102010002572 A1 to Essers as modified by to form the basis of the rejection. The examiner highlights that Rugfelt is directed to a device for supporting a patient provided with a support section and a base element having an evacuable and or inflatable interior. The examiner further submits that Rugfelt teaches “the base element and the at least one support section are joined to one another non-detachably” as shown above.
2) Dependent claims 2—21 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Document 2007/128020 A1 to Rugfelt as modified above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm 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, 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 1/13/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673