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
Applicant’s amendments filed on 02/23/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-10 and 12-24 are pending. Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. More specifically, the claim limitation of claim 1 “wherein the lines of weakness comprise discrete cut lines through the first substrate and the second substrate” further changes the scope of the claim.
Though some of the same prior art references are used herein, at least applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 required a change in the grounds of rejection as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramshak (Publication No. US 2006/0241558 A1) in view of Mlinar et al. (Publication No. US 2009/0149827 A1) and Bridges et al. (Patent No. US 5,624,420 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramshak teaches an absorbent article (diaper 21; Figures 6-7; Paragraph 0075) comprising: a chassis (central absorbent assembly 23; Paragraph 0054; Figure 1 and 6-7) comprising a topsheet (bodyside liner 51; Figure 1 and 6-7; Paragraph 0056), a backsheet (outer cover 49; Figure 1 and 6-7; Paragraph 0056), and an absorbent core positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet (absorbent structure 53 between liner 51 and cover 49; Paragraph 0056; Figures 1 and 6-7), the chassis further comprising a first end region and a second end region longitudinally separated from the first end region by a crotch region (central absorbent assembly 23 has a front region 25 and a back region 29, with the crotch region 27 in between the front 25 and back region 29; Figures 1 and 6-7; Paragraph 0054); a first belt connected with the first end region of the chassis (front waist edge 33 is connected to the front region 25; Figure 1 and 6-7; Paragraph 0055); a second belt connected with the second end region of the chassis (rear waist edge 35 is connected to rear region 29; Figures 1 and 6-7; Paragraph 0055), wherein laterally opposing end portions of the second belt are connected with laterally opposing end portions of the first belt to form a waist opening (fastening components 71 and 72 of the front and rear waist edge 35 and 33 are connected to form a waist opening 43; Paragraph 0055 and 0062; Figures 1 and 6-7); wherein the first belt comprises: a proximal edge and a distal edge (front waist edge 33 has a proximal and distal edge; Figures 1 and 6-7); a first substrate and a second substrate; (front waist edge 33 having the liner 51 and cover 49; Figure 6-7) and a first frangible pathway in the first belt extending between the proximal edge and the distal edge (left line of weakness 99 in the front waist edge 35 between the proximal and distal edge; Figures 6-7; Paragraph 0075), the first frangible pathway comprising a line of weakness (left line of weakness 99; Paragraph 0075; Figures 6-7), wherein the lines of weakness comprise discrete cut lines through the first substrate and the second substrate (line of weakness 99 can be slits that cut through liner 51 and cover 49; Paragraph 0069-0070; Figures 6-7). Ramshak does not teach elastic strands positioned between and connected with the first substrate and the second substrate.
However, Mlinar teaches elastic strands positioned between and connected with the first substrate and the second substrate (elastic strands 36 is sandwiched between layers to form a waistband 46; Paragraph 0027 and 0031).
Ramshak and Mlinar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramshak to incorporate the teachings of Mlinar to have the waistband of Ramshak be the waistband of Mlinar with the elastic strands sandwiched between the nonwoven liner and cover layer of Mlinar located at the top of the front waist edge of Ramshak. This allows for the elasticity of the component to be controlled by the number of elastic strands placed in the component for retaining the garment on the user (Mlinar; Paragraph 0027 and 0031).
The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar does not teach the first frangible pathway comprising lines of weakness, wherein all elastic strands extending through the first frangible pathway are cut at the lines of weakness such that a first plurality of the elastic strands are cut only once and such that a second plurality of the elastic strands are cut more than once.
However, Bridges teaches the first frangible pathway comprising lines of weakness (Figure 1G – first line of weakness is on left side and second line is on right side), wherein all elastic strands extending through the first frangible pathway are cut at the lines of weakness such that a first plurality of the elastic strands are cut only once and such that a second plurality of the elastic strands are cut more than once (lines going through top and bottom most bonds are cut once while other lines are cut twice; annotated Figure 1G below).
Bridges and Ramshak in view of Mlinar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramshak in view of Mlinar to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 1G of Bridges to have the first frangible pathway of Ramshak in view of Mlinar to have the pattern of the first and second lines of weakness of Bridges. This allows for the bond patterns to provide a tear line while retaining girth strength (Bridges; Column 7, lines 43-47). Additionally, Ramshak discusses that the line of weakness 99 can have non-linear shapes or configurations (Paragraph 0071).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1G
Regarding claim 2, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches further comprising a second frangible pathway in the first belt laterally separated from the first frangible pathway (Ramshak; second frangible pathway in the front waist edge 33 is the right line of weakness 99; Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 2 The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first end region of the chassis is positioned between the first frangible pathway and the second frangible pathway (Ramshak; central absorbent assembly 23 has a front region 25 that is between the left and right lines of weakness 99; Figures 6-7; Paragraph 0054 and 0075).
Regarding claim 4, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 3. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first end region of the chassis overlaps portions of the first frangible pathway and the second frangible pathway (Ramshak; central absorbent assembly 23 has a front region 25 that overlaps between the left and right lines of weakness 99; Figures 6-7; Paragraph 0054 and 0075).
Regarding claim 5, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 3. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches further comprising a low-stretch zone in the first belt, wherein the first end region of the chassis overlaps the low-stretch zone (Ramshak; central absorbent assembly 23 has a front region 25 that overlaps the front waist edge, where there is a low-stretch zone below the elastic strands in the front waist edge 33; see rejection of claim 1; Ramshak; Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 6, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first frangible pathway comprises a first region and a second region (Ramshak; see annotated Figure 6 above). The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges does not teach wherein a portion of the first substrate is folded onto the second substrate and the first end region of the chassis such that the first region of the first frangible pathway overlaps the second region of the first frangible pathway.
However, the embodiment of Figure 20 of Ramshak teaches wherein a portion of the first substrate is folded onto the second substrate and the first end region of the chassis (foldable portion 383/portion of the first substrate is folded onto the second substrate 393 and front portion of chassis by folding inward and down over the pants within the interior; Figure 20; Column 15, line 63 to Column 16, line 28).
Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 20 of Ramshak and have the fold of Ramshak applied to the first substrate of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges. This allows for the wearer to adjust the desired rise of the waist of the article (Ramshak; Column 15, line 63 to Column 16, line 11).
Regarding claim 12, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first substrate and the second substrate comprise nonwovens and wherein the lines of weakness comprise discrete bonds wherein materials of the nonwovens are fused together (Mlinar; outer cover is a non-woven laminate and bodyside liner is a non-woven material having elastic strands sandwiched inbetween; Paragraph 0027, 0031-0032 and 0038-0039; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first frangible pathway extends for a first frangible pathway total length from an outermost edge of a line of weakness nearest the proximal edge of the first belt to an outermost edge of a line of weakness nearest the distal edge of the first belt (Ramshak; first frangible pathway total length is the left line of weakness 99 from top/distal edge to bottom/proximal edge; Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 14, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 13. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first belt comprises a first belt length defined by a longitudinal distance between the proximal edge and the distal edge and the first frangible pathway total length is equal to or less than the first belt length (Ramshak; first frangible pathway total length is less than the first belt length; see annotated Figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6
Regarding claim 15, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 13. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first belt comprises a first belt length defined by a longitudinal distance between the proximal edge and the distal edge (Ramshak; first belt length; see annotated Figure 6 above). Mlinar does not expressly teach wherein the first frangible pathway total length is greater than the first belt length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first frangible pathway total length is greater than the first belt length since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the frangible pathway of Bridges would not operate differently with the claimed first frangible pathway total length since the absorbent article is constructed with similar components and structure (see disclosed above) and is intended to allow for the user to tear away the article, when desired. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range “may be” within the claimed range (specification; pg. 25, lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 16, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 13. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein lines of weakness extend for a length from a first end to a second end (lines of weakness on left and right side of Bridges from a first end to a second end with the first frangible pathway total length of Ramshak; annotated Figure 6 above – Ramshak; Figure 1G - Bridges), and wherein a sum of the all the lengths of lines of weakness in the first frangible pathway is greater than the first frangible pathway total length (sum of lengths of left and right side of lines of weakness of Bridges, Figure 1G, is double the length of the first frangible pathway total length of Ramshak; see annotated Figure 6 above).
Regarding claim 17, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first frangible pathway comprises a first region and a second region (Ramshak; first region and second region; annotated Figure 6 above), each region comprising individual lines of weakness (Ramshak; each region has lines of weakness of Bridges; annotated Figure 6 above; Bridges – Figure 1G), wherein the lines of weakness in the first region differ from the lines of weakness in the second region by at least one of: type, number, size, shape, number of layers, lateral orientation, and longitudinal orientation (Ramshak; first and second region has differing lateral and longitudinal orientation; annotated Figure 6 above).
Regarding claim 18, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 17. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches further comprising a third region comprising individual lines of weakness (Ramshak; third region with lines of weakness of Bridges; Ramshak; annotated Figure 6 above; Bridges; Figure 1G), wherein the lines of weakness in the third region differ from the lines of weakness in the first and second regions by at least one of: type, number, size, shape, number of layers, lateral orientation, and longitudinal orientation (Ramshak; third region differ from first and second region by differing lateral and longitudinal orientation; annotated Figure 6 above).
Regarding claim 19, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first frangible pathway comprises a first region and a second region (Ramshak; first and second region; annotated Figure 6 above), each region comprising arrays of lines of weakness (Ramshak; each region has lines of weakness of Bridges; annotated Figure 6 above; Bridges – Figure 1G), wherein the arrays in the first region differ from the arrays in the second region by at least one of: type, number, size, shape, number of layers, lateral orientation, and longitudinal orientation (Ramshak; first and second region arrays has differing lateral and longitudinal orientation; annotated Figure 6 above).
Regarding claim 20, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 19. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches further comprising a third region comprising arrays of lines of weakness (Ramshak; third region with the lines of weakness of Bridges – Figure 1G; Ramshak; annotated Figure 6 above), wherein the arrays in the third region differ from the arrays in the first and second regions by at least one of: type, number, size, shape, number of layers, lateral orientation, and longitudinal orientation (Ramshak; third region arrays differ from first and second region by differing lateral and longitudinal orientation; annotated Figure 6 above).
Regarding claim 21, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the first frangible pathway comprises two or more of an initial tear zone, a waist tear zone, a leg edge zone, and a transition zone (Ramshak; first frangible pathway is an initial tear zone at the top and a waist tear zone near the bottom of the first frangible pathway; annotated Figure 6 above).
Regarding claim 22, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein the lines of weakness are arranged in at least one of shingle up pattern and a shingle down pattern (Bridges; Figure 1G – left lines of weakness is a shingle down pattern and right lines of weakness is a shingle up pattern).
Regarding claim 23, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 22. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges further teaches wherein a line of weakness overlaps at least one adjacent line of weakness (Bridges; Figure 1G – bonds overlap the adjacent bond). The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges does not expressly teach wherein a line of weakness overlaps at least one adjacent line of weakness by between about 35% and about 60% of a length of the adjacent line of weakness.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a line of weakness overlaps at least one adjacent line of weakness by between about 35% and about 60% of a length of the adjacent line of weakness since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the frangible pathway of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges would not operate differently with the claimed overlap of the lines of weakness since the absorbent article is constructed with similar components and structure (see disclosed above) and is intended to allow for the user to tear away the article, when desired. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range “may be” within the claimed range (specification; pg. 61, lines 26-28).
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramshak (Publication No. US 2006/0241558 A1) in view of Mlinar et al. (Publication No. US 2009/0149827 A1) and Bridges et al. (Patent No. US 5,624,420 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pozniak (Patent No. US 6,508,797 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges does not teach further comprising a fastener component positioned between the first belt and the backsheet.
However, Pozniak teaches further comprising a fastener component positioned between the first belt and the backsheet (fastener 60 is between the first belt/first side panel 70 and the backsheet 44; Figure 1; Column 6, lines 25-50).
Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges and Pozniak are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges to incorporate the teachings of Pozniak and have fastener of Pozniak attached to the first belt of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges and adjacent the third region of the frangible pathways and have a reciprocal receiving fastener on the outer surface of the chassis of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges. This allows for the wearer to removably attach the fasteners on the diaper and assists in breaking the line of weakness when the article is desired to be disposed (Pozniak; Column 4, lines 11-37).
Regarding claim 8, Ramshak in view of Mlinar, Bridges, and Pozniak teaches the absorbent article of claim 7. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar, Bridges, and Pozniak further teaches wherein the first frangible pathway comprises a first region and a second region longitudinally separated from the first region by a third region (Ramshak; see annotated Figure 6 above), and wherein the fastener component is positioned adjacent the third region of the frangible pathway (fastener of Pozniak is positioned adjacent to the third region of the frangible pathway of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 9, Ramshak in view of Mlinar, Bridges, and Pozniak teaches the absorbent article of claim 8. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar, Bridges, and Pozniak further teaches further comprising a slit in the third region adjacent the fastening component (perforation slits of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges in the third region that is adjacent to the fastener of Pozniak is a slit/opening; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 10, Ramshak in view of Mlinar, Bridges, and Pozniak teaches the absorbent article of claim 7. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar, Bridges, and Pozniak further teaches wherein the fastener component comprises hooks that are refastenably attachable with an outer surface of at least one of the chassis, the first belt, and the second belt (Pozniak; fastener 60 is a hook and loop fastener that is attachable to the outer surface of the chassis; Figure 1; Column 7, lines 3-23; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramshak (Publication No. US 2006/0241558 A1) in view of Mlinar et al. (Publication No. US 2009/0149827 A1) and Bridges et al. (Patent No. US 5,624,420 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roberts (Patent No. US 4,619,649 A).
Regarding claim 24, Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges does not teach wherein the lines of weakness are arranged in a railroad track pattern.
However, Roberts teaches wherein the lines of weakness are arranged in a railroad track pattern (perforated side seam 16 has perforations 20; Figure 4; Column 3, lines 50-59).
Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges and Roberts are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges to incorporate the teachings of Roberts and have the lines of weakness with the railroad patterns of Roberts to be the frangible pathway of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges. This allows for the quick removal of the article from the wearer by pulling of the chain stitching (Roberts; Column 2, 35-39).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the lines of weakness having lengths of less of than about 10 mm, and having a closest distance between adjacent lines of weakness in parallel rows in the range of about 0.1 to about 5 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the frangible pathway of Ramshak in view of Mlinar and Bridges and Roberts would not operate differently with the claimed length of the lines of weakness and distance between adjacent lines since the absorbent article is constructed with similar components and structure (see disclosed above) and is intended to allow for the user to tear away the article, when desired. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range is “about” within the claimed range (Claim 24; Specification; pg. 61, lines 14-20).
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 KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights