DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. According to the Amendment, filed 10 March 2026, the status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 are currently amended;
Claims 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-16 are as originally filed;
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn, currently amended;
Claims 21-23 are new; and
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 18 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pp. 7-9, filed 10 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170224357 A1 (“Whalen”), in view of Van Bonn et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0063206 A1 (“Van Bonn”), the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen in view of Van Bonn, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lin, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0041476 A1 (“Lin”), and the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen in view of Van Bonn, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gavriely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0262535 A1 (“Gavriely”), have been fully considered, and are persuasive in view of the Amendment, filed 10 March 2026. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant’s request for rejoinder of claims 19 and 20 because the claims are directed to a nonelected invention require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Since the claims are not allowable for the reasons provided below, the request for rejoinder of claims 19 and 20 is denied. Claims 19 and 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “a surface of the constricting belt” lacks proper antecedent basis, and should be amended to “the [[a ]]surface of the constricting belt”.
Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “which unit” lacks proper antecedent basis, and should be amended to “the at least one of a transmitting unit and a receiving .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 5, 15, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 5, the limitation “wherein the constricting belt is made of an elastic material with a closed surface”. However, base claim 1 for which claim 5 depends on, limits the claim to have “the constricting belt consists of a textile-free material…”, and thus, the consisting belt cannot have the “elastic material” as an additional material due to the phrase “consists of” in base claim 1.
As to claim 15, the limitation “wherein the constricting comprises a material with a smooth surface”. However, base claim 1 for which claim 15 depends on, limits the claim to have “the constricting belt consists of a textile-free material…”, and thus, the consisting belt cannot have the “material” as an additional material due to the phrase “consists of” in base claim 1.
As to claim 17, the limitation “an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination” in line 9 is not clear as to whether there is one anti-friction coating or two anti-friction coatings in the claim (see “an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination” in lines 2-3).
As to claim 17, the limitation “wherein the lock comprises a first lock element which … comprises a material with a smooth surface” in lines 7-8 and “a surface of the lock” in line 9 is not clear as to whether there are two different surfaces for the lock.
As to claim 21, the limitation “an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination” in lines 2-3 is not clear as to whether there is one anti-friction coating or two anti-friction coatings in the claim (see “an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination” in base claim 1, lines 2-3).
As to claim 22, the limitation “wherein the first lock element is magnetically connectable to the second lock element” is indefinite because it is not clear what structural elements performs this function, and the limitation does not further define any of the claimed structural elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esposito, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0062842 A1 (“Esposito”), in view of Van Bonn et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0063206 A1 (“Van Bonn”).
As to Claim 1, Esposito teaches the following:
A constricting belt (“outer sleeve”) 14 for a hygienic device (“tourniquet”) 10 for constricting vessels (see “The present invention relates to a novel flow restriction device, and more particularly, to a novel tourniquet device for restricting the flow of blood.” in para. [0002]; and see figs. 1A and 1B),
wherein the constricting belt 14 consists of a textile-free material (“nylon”) (see “Referring still to FIG. 4, the inner strap 18 is shown between the first panel 42 and the second panel 46 of the outer sleeve 14. In accordance with at least one embodiment of the present invention, the inner strap 18 comprises a length of nylon binding strap (also known as nylon binding tape) that extends from first end 30 of the outer sleeve 14 to the buckle 38 and returns to the first end 30 such that the inner strap 18 comprises a loop.” in para. [0049]) with an anti-friction coating (“a powder or other lubricant”, not labeled) (see “Although not required, depending upon the types of materials used to form the outer sleeve 14 and the inner strap 18, the interior space 44 of the outer sleeve 14 may optionally include a substance, such as a powder or other lubricant, to assist with the frictional characteristics between the surfaces of the inner strap 18 and the interior space 44 of the outer sleeve 14.” in para. [0049]) …, wherein the surface includes a first surface portion (inner surface, not labeled, of “outer sleeve 14”) facing a user (see fig. 3) and the anti-friction coating (“a powder or other lubricant”, not labeled) is present on the first surface portion for application (inner surface, not labeled, of “outer sleeve 14”) to skin of the user (see para. [0049]); and
a first lock element (“buckle”) 38 is arranged movably on the constricting belt 14 (see “The outer sleeve 14 comprises a longitudinally extensive material having a first end 30 and a second end 34. In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the second end 34 includes a restraining mechanism comprising a buckle 38. When the tourniquet 10 is applied to a limb, such as leg L shown in FIG. 1, the first end 30 is looped through the buckle 38 and pulled tight around the appendage, thus providing a means for circumferentially surrounding or encircling the limb. FIG. 3 depicts the tourniquet 10 after the first end 30 has been looped through the buckle 38.” in para. [0045]).
Esposito does not teach the following:
an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination of a surface of the constricting belt, …
However, Van Bonn teaches the following:
an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination of a surface of the constricting belt (see “It is an object of the invention to provide a method and an apparatus for the fluorination of surfaces of plastics, which manage with apparatus which is less complicated than known methods and apparatuses and, inter alia, permit the fluorination of pressure-sensitive plastic parts, such as plastic foams, plastic granules, closed honeycomb-like surface structures of plastics.” in para. [0033]; and see “This object is achieved by a method of the type described at the outset in that the gas-phase fluorination is carried out at atmospheric pressure in the reaction chamber.” in para. [0034]).
Thus, since both Esposito and Van Bonn are directed to ways of reducing surface friction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute one known surface reducing mechanism for another, to achieve the predictable result of lowering the coefficient of friction for the surface (see Van Bonn, para. [0002] and [0008]).
As to Claim 2, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the anti-friction seals a surface of the constricting belt 14 (see “Although not required, depending upon the types of materials used to form the outer sleeve 14 and the inner strap 18, the interior space 44 of the outer sleeve 14 may optionally include a substance, such as a powder or other lubricant, to assist with the frictional characteristics between the surfaces of the inner strap 18 and the interior space 44 of the outer sleeve 14.” in para. [0049]).
As to Claim 5, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the constricting belt 14 is made of an elastic material with a closed surface (see “In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the securing mechanism 26 may comprise a securing strap positioned transversely to a longitudinal axis L-L of the outer sleeve 14. As for example, a transversely oriented strap having hook and loop fastening portions, or an elastic band engaging a hook or button may be provided to secure the windlass 74 in its wound position.” in para. [0059]).
As to Claim 7, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the constricting belt 14 is provided with a surface relief (“first end 30 is looped through the buckle 38”) 30 (see “The outer sleeve 14 comprises a longitudinally extensive material having a first end 30 and a second end 34. In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the second end 34 includes a restraining mechanism comprising a buckle 38. When the tourniquet 10 is applied to a limb, such as leg L shown in FIG. 1, the first end 30 is looped through the buckle 38 and pulled tight around the appendage, thus providing a means for circumferentially surrounding or encircling the limb. FIG. 3 depicts the tourniquet 10 after the first end 30 has been looped through the buckle 38.” in para. [0045]).
As to Claim 8, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein a locking device (“first tooth set”) 134 is arranged within the lock element 38 (see “Referring now to FIG. 17, and in accordance with another embodiment of the buckle 38, only a first tooth set 134 is provided on the buckle. Such an arrangement would be advantageous to simplify manufacturing of the buckle in addition to facilitating tightening and loosening movement of the outer sleeve 14 within the buckle 38.” in para. [0065]),
wherein the locking device 134 comprises a surface relief (“first sidewall”) 110 corresponding to the surface relief 30 of the constricting belt 14 (see “Referring now to FIGS. 9, 13 and 14, the first port 126 includes a first tooth set 134 mounted to the first sidewall 110, and the second port 130 includes a second tooth set 138 mounted to the second sidewall 114 of the intermediate bar 98 for inhibiting movement of the outer sleeve 14 with respect to the buckle 38.” in para. [0062]).
As to Claim 9, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the constricting belt 14 has a first end (“first end”) 30 and a second end (“second end”) 34, and is adapted to be connected to a closed circular belt 14 (see “The outer sleeve 14 comprises a longitudinally extensive material having a first end 30 and a second end 34.” in para. [0045]; and see fig. 3).
As to Claim 10, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the constricting belt 14 has a first end (“first end”) 30, and wherein the first end 30 is fixedly connected to a second lock element (“second tooth set”) 138 (see “Referring still to FIGS. 13 and 14, a more detailed view illustrating the interaction between the first tooth set 134 and second tooth set 138 and the outer sleeve 14 is shown. More specifically, once the first end 30 of the outer sleeve 14 has been fed through the first port 126 and second 130 ports, the projections 150 of the first tool set 134 and second tooth set 138 of the first port 126 and second port 130 engage with the hooks and loops on the outer surface 50 of the outer sleeve 14.” in para. [0063]; and see figs. 9 and 11).
As to Claim 11, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the first end 30 of the constricting belt 300 is threaded into the first lock element 38 and secured thereto (see “Referring still to FIGS. 13 and 14, a more detailed view illustrating the interaction between the first tooth set 134 and second tooth set 138 and the outer sleeve 14 is shown. More specifically, once the first end 30 of the outer sleeve 14 has been fed through the first port 126 and second 130 ports, the projections 150 of the first tool set 134 and second tooth set 138 of the first port 126 and second port 130 engage with the hooks and loops on the outer surface 50 of the outer sleeve 14.” in para. [0063]; and see figs. 9 and 11).
As to Claim 13, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein a sensor system (“windlass”) 74 for determining at least one of vital parameters and a cleaning condition is integrated into the constricting belt 14 (see “Referring now to FIG. 6, a cross sectional view of the second end 34 of tourniquet 10 is shown with the windlass 74 in a wound position. In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, after the windlass 74 has been sufficiently tightened to restrict the arterial blood flow in the appendage, the windlass 74 may be secured using securing mechanism 26. The securing mechanism 26 provides a means for securing or preventing the windlass 74 from unwinding. Thus, the securing mechanism 26 maintains the wound position of the windlass 74, and thereby maintains the tension in the inner strap 18.” in para. [0057]).
As to Claim 15, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the constricting belt 14 comprises a material with a smooth surface (see “In accordance with at least one embodiment of the present invention, the inner strap 18 comprises a length of nylon binding strap (also known as nylon binding tape) that extends from first end 30 of the outer sleeve 14 to the buckle 38 and returns to the first end 30 such that the inner strap 18 comprises a loop.” in para. [0049]).
As to Claim 16, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein one end of the constricting belt 14 is delimited by a stop mechanism (“hooked catches”) 82 (see “In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, and as best seen in FIGS. 1, 7, and 8, the securing mechanism 26 preferably comprises a pair of opposing hooked catches 82 set substantially transverse to the longitudinal axis L-L of the tourniquet 10. More particularly, the hooked catches 82 are preferably sized to cup or hold the windlass, or a portion thereof, and prevent it from unwinding. Accordingly, the hooked catches 82 are sufficiently stiff to provide adequate resistance against the tensile force within the inner strap 18, as transferred to the hooked catches by the windlass 74.” in para. [0058]).
As to Claim 17, Esposito teaches the following:
A constricting belt (“outer sleeve”) 14 for a hygienic device (“tourniquet”) 10 for constricting vessels (see “The present invention relates to a novel flow restriction device, and more particularly, to a novel tourniquet device for restricting the flow of blood.” in para. [0002]; and see figs. 1A and 1B),
wherein the constricting belt 14 consists of a textile-free material (“nylon”) (see “Referring still to FIG. 4, the inner strap 18 is shown between the first panel 42 and the second panel 46 of the outer sleeve 14. In accordance with at least one embodiment of the present invention, the inner strap 18 comprises a length of nylon binding strap (also known as nylon binding tape) that extends from first end 30 of the outer sleeve 14 to the buckle 38 and returns to the first end 30 such that the inner strap 18 comprises a loop.” in para. [0049]) with an anti-friction coating (“a powder or other lubricant”, not labeled) (see “Although not required, depending upon the types of materials used to form the outer sleeve 14 and the inner strap 18, the interior space 44 of the outer sleeve 14 may optionally include a substance, such as a powder or other lubricant, to assist with the frictional characteristics between the surfaces of the inner strap 18 and the interior space 44 of the outer sleeve 14.” in para. [0049]) …, wherein the surface includes a first surface portion (inner surface, not labeled, of “outer sleeve 14”) facing a user (see fig. 3) and the anti-friction coating (“a powder or other lubricant”, not labeled) is present on the first surface portion for application (inner surface, not labeled, of “outer sleeve 14”) to skin of the user (see para. [0049]); and
wherein the constricting belt 14 further comprises a lock (“buckle”) 38 for connecting the constricting belt 14 to form a closed circular belt (see fig. 3), wherein the lock 38 comprises a first lock element (“first tooth set”) 134 which is arranged movably on the constricting belt 14 (see “Referring now to FIGS. 9, 13 and 14, the first port 126 includes a first tooth set 134 mounted to the first sidewall 110, and the second port 130 includes a second tooth set 138 mounted to the second sidewall 114 of the intermediate bar 98 for inhibiting movement of the outer sleeve 14 with respect to the buckle 38.” in para. [0045]) and comprises a material with a smooth surface (“first sidewall”) 110 …
Esposito does not teach the following:
an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination of a surface of the constricting belt, …
wherein the lock … and further comprises an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination of a surface of the lock.
However, Van Bonn teaches the following:
an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination of a surface of the constricting belt, and a surface of the lock (see “It is an object of the invention to provide a method and an apparatus for the fluorination of surfaces of plastics, which manage with apparatus which is less complicated than known methods and apparatuses and, inter alia, permit the fluorination of pressure-sensitive plastic parts, such as plastic foams, plastic granules, closed honeycomb-like surface structures of plastics.” in para. [0033]; and see “This object is achieved by a method of the type described at the outset in that the gas-phase fluorination is carried out at atmospheric pressure in the reaction chamber.” in para. [0034]).
Thus, since both Esposito and Van Bonn are directed to ways of reducing surface friction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute one known surface reducing mechanism for another, to achieve the predictable result of lowering the coefficient of friction for the surfaces (see Van Bonn, para. [0002] and [0008]).
As to Claim 21, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the first lock element 38 comprises a material with a smooth surface (“first sidewall”) 110 …
Esposito does not teach the following:
… and further comprises an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination of a surface of the first lock element.
However, Van Bonn teaches the following:
an anti-friction coating resulting from fluorination of a surface of the first lock element (see “It is an object of the invention to provide a method and an apparatus for the fluorination of surfaces of plastics, which manage with apparatus which is less complicated than known methods and apparatuses and, inter alia, permit the fluorination of pressure-sensitive plastic parts, such as plastic foams, plastic granules, closed honeycomb-like surface structures of plastics.” in para. [0033]; and see “This object is achieved by a method of the type described at the outset in that the gas-phase fluorination is carried out at atmospheric pressure in the reaction chamber.” in para. [0034]).
Thus, since both Esposito and Van Bonn are directed to ways of reducing surface friction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute one known surface reducing mechanism for another, to achieve the predictable result of lowering the coefficient of friction for the surfaces (see Van Bonn, para. [0002] and [0008]).
As to Claim 22, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein the first lock element 134 is magnetically connectable to the second lock element 138 (see para. [0063]; and see figs. 11 and 12).
As to Claim 23, Esposito teaches the following:
wherein one of the first and second lock elements 134 is provided on at least one external edge (“intermediate bar”) 98 with a chamfer (“first sidewall”) 110 and groove (“first port”) 126 and the other lock element 138 is provided on at least one external edge 98 with a web (“second sidewall”) 114 and tongue (“second port”) 130, wherein the chamfer 110 corresponds with the web114 and the groove 126 corresponds with the tongue 130 (see “Referring still to FIGS. 13 and 14, a more detailed view illustrating the interaction between the first tooth set 134 and second tooth set 138 and the outer sleeve 14 is shown. More specifically, once the first end 30 of the outer sleeve 14 has been fed through the first port 126 and second 130 ports, the projections 150 of the first tool set 134 and second tooth set 138 of the first port 126 and second port 130 engage with the hooks and loops on the outer surface 50 of the outer sleeve 14. This increases the drag on the outer sleeve 14, thus providing resistance to the free movement of the outer sleeve 14 relative to the buckle 38. This drag is especially useful in situations when the hook and loop fastener on the bottom surface of the first end 30 of the outer sleeve 14 accidentally detaches from the hook and loop fastener on the outer surface 50 of the remainder of the outer sleeve 14. Thus, the one or more teeth provide an extra safety mechanism to prevent inadvertent disengagement of the first end 30 of the sleeve 14 from the buckle 38 when, for instance, a patient utilizing the tourniquet 10 is moved, dragged, crawls, etc. Further, those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate how the inclined surface 146 of the first tooth set 134 facilitates movement of the outer sleeve 14 in a tightening direction of travel 154 while the inclined surface 146 of the second tooth set 138 facilitates movement of the outer sleeve 14 in a loosening direction of travel 158.” in para. [0063]; and see figs. 13 and 14).
13. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esposito in view of Van Bonn, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lin, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0041476 A1 (“Lin”).
As to Claim 6, Esposito in view of Van Bonn teaches the subject matter of claim 5 above. Esposito in view of Van Bonn does not teach the following:
wherein the constricting belt is made of silicone or latex.
However, Lin teaches the following:
a constricting belt (“tourniquet”) are conventionally made of latex (see “However, for a conventional latex tourniquet, a latex tube or an elastic band will be used to tie up a body part for the hemostasis, which can only conduct the single-state hemostasis and cannot perform local depressurization or pressurization during the hemostasis.” in para. [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the present application was effectively filed to modify Esposito’s constricting belt 14 to be made of latex because latex is conventionally used as a material for constricting belts, i.e. tourniquets.
14. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esposito in view of Van Bonn, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gavriely et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0262535 A1 (“Gavriely”).
As to Claim 14, Esposito in view of Van Bonn teaches the subject matter of claim 5 above. Esposito in view of Van Bonn does not teach the following:
wherein at least one of a transmitting unit and a receiving unit is integrated into the constricting belt, which unit enables information to be forwarded.
However, Gavriely teaches the following:
wherein at least one of a transmitting unit and a receiving unit (transmitting unit and receiving unit are combined as a “communication unit”, not labeled) is integrated into the constricting belt 102, which unit enables information to be forwarded (see “Optionally, the tension unit 110 comprises a communication unit for sending and/or receiving information from a remote computing unit, such as a laptop and/or a personal digital assistant (PDA) that hosts a pressure-applying module. The communication unit allows sending the measurements of the sensor to the remote computing unit. Optionally, the communication unit comprises a short-range radio interface, such as a Bluetooth.TM. transceiver, which is defined according to IEEE 802.15.1 specification that is incorporated herein by reference, optionally utilizing a Bluetooth.TM. enhanced data rate (EDR) chip that is defined according to Bluetooth.TM. core specification version 2.0+EDR of the Bluetooth.TM. special interest group (SIG), which is incorporated herein by reference, or a Wibree.RTM. transceiver. In such an embodiment, the communication unit may transmit the measurements which are accumulated by the pressure sensors 116 to the remote computing unit.” in para. [0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the present application was effectively filed to modify Esposito’s constricting belt 14 to have a transmitting unit and a receiving unit integrated into Esposito’s constricting belt 14 in order to allow sending and receiving of information to a remote computing unit (see Gavriely, para. [0086]).
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAVIN NATNITHITHADHA whose telephone number is (571)272-4732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Jason M Sims can be reached on 571-272-7540. 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.
/NAVIN NATNITHITHADHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 03/23/2026