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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 09/19/2025.
Applicant’s arguments have overcome the previously applied objections to the drawings and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections. See response to arguments below.
Claims 5 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-20 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 2, “and bottom flange” should read ---and the bottom flange---
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erkelenz et al. (US 2018/0104534) and further in view of Yoo (US Pat. 11,007,404).
Regarding independent claim 13, Erkelenz et al. discloses a slat (10) for a belt of an exercise or a therapeutic apparatus (Figs. 1-2), the slat having a longitudinal direction and comprising:
a top portion (carrier 12) configured to support at least a portion of an engagement surface (tread 17 of cover strip 15) of the exercise or therapeutic apparatus;
a bottom flange (bottom of reinforcement 25, annotated Fig. 6),
the bottom flange having a width (see Fig. 6), and
wherein the width substantially proximate first and second ends of the slat is substantially the same as a width of the top portion (annotated Fig. 6, width of bottom flange and top portion/carrier 12 at point of connection proximate first and second ends of the slat 10 is substantially the same).
PNG
media_image1.png
265
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Erkelenz et al. teaches a reinforcement (25) extending between the top portion and the bottom flange (Fig. 6) for increasing a strength of the slat (par. [0026], “the carrier 12 has a reinforcement 25 in the form of a framework construction on its underside in order to minimize deflection of the carrier 12 in the case of burden due to individuals standing on the treadmill belt”), but does not teach a longitudinal rib extending away from the top portion and oriented along the longitudinal direction of the slat between first and second ends of the slat, the bottom flange coupled to the longitudinal rib at or near a vertical bottom of the longitudinal rib such that the longitudinal rib is positioned substantially between the top portion and the bottom flange, the bottom flange extending away from the longitudinal rib on opposing sides of the longitudinal rib. Furthermore, Erkelenz et al. does not teach wherein the bottom flange has a variable width along the longitudinal direction, the variable width being greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat.
Yoo teaches an analogous slat (50) for a belt of an exercise or a therapeutic apparatus (Fig. 1), the slat comprising a top portion (100), and a reinforcement (400, 400A-400G) including a longitudinal rib (200, 200A-200D) extending away from the top portion and oriented along the longitudinal direction of the slat between first and second ends of the slat (see Figs. 5-13) and a bottom flange (second reinforcing portion 300, 300-1, 300A) coupled to the longitudinal rib at or near a vertical bottom of the longitudinal rib such that the longitudinal rib is positioned substantially between the top portion and the bottom flange, the bottom flange extending away from the longitudinal rib on opposing sides of the longitudinal rib (see embodiments of slats 50 and 50A-50G in Figs. 5-13).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
318
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the reinforcement of Erkelenz et al. with the reinforcement of Yoo including a longitudinal rib and a bottom flange as a matter of simple substitution of one known reinforcement for a slat for an exercise or therapeutic apparatus with another known reinforcement in the art for the purpose of achieving the same predictable results of increasing a strength of the slat (Yoo col. 62-64, “a strength reinforcing portion 400, which protrudes from the base portion 100 to reinforce a strength of the base portion 100”).
Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo teaches wherein the width of the bottom flange substantially proximate first and second ends of the slat is substantially the same as a width of the top portion (annotated Fig. 6, width of bottom flange and top portion/carrier 12 at point of connection proximate first and second ends of the slat 10 is substantially the same), but does not teach wherein the bottom flange has a variable width along the longitudinal direction, the variable width being greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom flange of Erkelenz et al. to have a variable width where the variable width is greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension 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 USPQ 232 (1984). Such a modification merely involves a change in size of a component of the invention. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In the instant case, the slat of Erkelenz et al. would not operate differently with the claimed bottom flange having a variable width that is greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat, and applicant places no criticality on the variable width of the bottom flange. A bottom flange having a variable width that is greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat would achieve the same function of providing structural support to the slat. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo further teaches a gusset (ribs 250, 250A of reinforcement 400, 400A-400G of Yoo) extending away from the longitudinal rib such that the gusset is substantially perpendicular to at least one of the top portion and the longitudinal rib (see Yoo embodiment of slats 50C in Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 15, Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo further teaches wherein the longitudinal rib defines in-part a curved longitudinal profile (see curved profile of reinforcement of Erkelenz et al. and curved profile of longitudinal rib 200B of Yoo in Fig. 10A).
Regarding claim 16, Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo further teaches an integral fastener (screws or rivets 13) configured to selectively couple the slat to an element of the exercise apparatus (par. [0026], “For fixation of the carriers 12 on the straps 3 serve two screws or rivets 13 each arranged next to each other”).
Regarding claim 17, Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo further teaches an engagement portion (cover strip 15) molded onto the top portion (see Fig. 4), the engagement portion configured to be contacted by a user of the exercise apparatus such that the top portion supports the portion of the engagement surface by supporting the engagement portion (user contacts tread 17 of cover strip 15 when using the exercise apparatus).
Regarding independent claim 18, Erkelenz et al. teaches a running belt (2), comprising;
a plurality of slats (10), wherein each of the plurality of slats comprises:
first and second ends (i.e., left and right end);
a top portion (carrier 12) intermediate the first and second ends;
a bottom flange (bottom of reinforcement 25, annotated Fig. 6) having a width; and
wherein the width of the bottom flange substantially proximate the first and second ends is substantially the same as a width of the top portion (annotated Fig. 6, width of bottom flange and top portion/carrier 12 at point of connection proximate first and second ends of the slat 10 is substantially the same).
Erkelenz et al. teaches a reinforcement (25) extending between the top portion and the bottom flange (Fig. 6) for increasing a strength of the slat (par. [0026], “the carrier 12 has a reinforcement 25 in the form of a framework construction on its underside in order to minimize deflection of the carrier 12 in the case of burden due to individuals standing on the treadmill belt”), but does not teach a longitudinal rib extending away from the top portion and substantially oriented along a longitudinal direction of the slat between the first and second ends of the slat, the bottom flange coupled to the longitudinal rib at or near a vertical bottom of the longitudinal rib such that the longitudinal rib is positioned substantially between the top portion and the bottom flange, the bottom flange extending away from the longitudinal rib on opposing sides of the longitudinal rib, or a gusset having a width extending substantially away from the longitudinal rib such that the gusset is substantially perpendicular to at least one of the top portion or the longitudinal rib. Furthermore, Erkelenz et al. does not teach wherein the bottom flange has a variable width along the longitudinal direction, the variable width being greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat.
Yoo teaches an analogous slat (50) for a running belt (Fig. 1), the slat comprising a top portion (100), and a reinforcement (400, 400A-400G) including a longitudinal rib (200, 200A-200D) extending away from the top portion and oriented along the longitudinal direction of the slat between first and second ends of the slat (see Figs. 5-13), a bottom flange (second reinforcing portion 300, 300-1, 300A) coupled to the longitudinal rib at or near a vertical bottom of the longitudinal rib such that the longitudinal rib is positioned substantially between the top portion and the bottom flange, the bottom flange extending away from the longitudinal rib on opposing sides of the longitudinal rib (see embodiments of slats 50 and 50A-50G in Figs. 5-13), and a gusset (ribs 250, 250A) having a width extending substantially away from the longitudinal rib such that the gusset is substantially perpendicular to at least one of the top portion or the longitudinal rib (see embodiment of slats 50C, 50D in Figs. 11A-11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the reinforcement of Erkelenz et al. with the reinforcement of Yoo including a longitudinal rib, a bottom flange, and a gusset as a matter of simple substitution of one known reinforcement for a slat for a running belt with another known reinforcement in the art for the purpose of achieving the same predictable results of increasing a strength of the slat (Yoo col. 62-64, “a strength reinforcing portion 400, which protrudes from the base portion 100 to reinforce a strength of the base portion 100”).
Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo teaches wherein the width of the bottom flange substantially proximate first and second ends of the slat is substantially the same as a width of the top portion (annotated Fig. 6, width of bottom flange and top portion/carrier 12 at point of connection proximate first and second ends of the slat 10 is substantially the same), but does not teach wherein the bottom flange has a variable width along the longitudinal direction, the variable width being greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom flange of Erkelenz et al. to have a variable width where the variable width is greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension 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 USPQ 232 (1984). Such a modification merely involves a change in size of a component of the invention. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In the instant case, the slat of Erkelenz et al. would not operate differently with the claimed bottom flange having a variable width that is greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat, and applicant places no criticality on the variable width of the bottom flange. A bottom flange having a variable width that is greatest substantially proximate the first and second ends of the slat would achieve the same function of providing structural support to the slat. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 19, Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo further teaches an endless belt (straps 3), wherein the plurality of slats comprise integral fasteners (screws or rivets 13) coupling the plurality of slats to the endless belt (par. [0026], “For fixation of the carriers 12 on the straps 3 serve two screws or rivets 13 each arranged next to each other”).
Regarding claim 20, Erkelenz et al. as modified by Yoo further teaches wherein the bottom flange is curved, at least in part, along the longitudinal direction of the slat (see curved profile of reinforcement of Erkelenz et al. and curved profile of bottom flange 300A of Yoo in Fig. 10A).
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US Pat. 11,007,404) and further in view of Weinstein et al. (US Pat. 10,010,748).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yoo teaches a treadmill (1), comprising:
a running belt (formed by first belt 41, second belt 42, and plurality of slat 50) rotatable in a direction of motion and comprising a plurality of slats (50 and 50A-50G), wherein at least one slat in the plurality of slats comprises (see embodiments of slats 50 and 50A-50G in Figs. 5-13):
a top portion (base portion 100);
a longitudinal rib (first reinforcing portion 200, 200A-200D) extending away from the top portion and oriented along a longitudinal direction of the at least one slat between first and second ends of the at least one slat (see Figs. 5-13); and
a bottom flange (second reinforcing portion 300, 300-1, 300A) coupled to the longitudinal rib at or near a vertical bottom of the longitudinal rib such that the longitudinal rib is substantially positioned between the top portion and the bottom flange, the bottom flange extending away from the longitudinal rib on opposing sides of the longitudinal rib (see embodiments of slats 50 and 50A-50G in Figs. 5-13).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
318
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yoo does not teach the at least one slat further comprising a crowned portion projecting from the top portion such that the top portion is positioned intermediate the crowned portion and the longitudinal rib, an engagement portion coupled to the top portion, the engagement portion having an engagement surface that is engaged with by a user during use of the treadmill, wherein the crowned portion is positioned beneath the engagement surface and between the engagement surface and the bottom flange.
Weinstein et al. teaches an analogous slat (18, embodiment of Fig. 16) for a treadmill (10) comprising a top portion (slat base 40E), a crowned portion (raised ribs 55) projecting from the top portion (see Fig. 16) such that the top portion is positioned intermediate the crowned portion (212) and a longitudinal rib (42), an engagement portion (cover 50E) coupled to the top portion (via engagement with raised ribs 55), the engagement portion having an engagement surface (i.e., uppermost surface) that is engaged with by a user during use of the treadmill (col. 4 lines 27-28, “The top surface 52 of cover 50 is the portion of the slat that is presented to the runner's foot or footwear”), wherein the crowned portion is positioned beneath the engagement surface and between the engagement surface and the top portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
278
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slat of Yoo to further include a crowned portion protruding from the top portion and an engagement portion coupled to the top portion, as is similarly taught by Weinstein et al, for the purpose of providing a user with a durable surface to contact when running on the treadmill. As modified, the crowned portion will be positioned beneath the engagement surface, as taught by Weinstein et al., and between the engagement surface and the bottom flange of Yoo.
Regarding claim 2, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further teaches a gusset (ribs 250, 250A) extending away from the longitudinal rib such that the gusset is substantially perpendicular to at least one of the top portion and the longitudinal rib (see embodiment of slats 50C, 50D in Figs. 11A-11B).
PNG
media_image5.png
312
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further teaches wherein the gusset (250, 250A) extends from the top portion to the bottom flange (see embodiment of slats 50C, 50D in Figs. 11A-11B).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further teaches wherein the gusset (250, 250A) includes a plurality of gussets, each of the plurality of gussets coupled to the longitudinal rib, extending from the longitudinal rib, and spaced apart from each other (see embodiment of slats 50C, 50D in Figs. 11A-11B; col. 8 lines 18-23, “The rib 250 or 250A protrudes from the base portion 100 and is located between the second reinforcing portion 300 and the base portion 100. The rib 250 or 250A may support the first reinforcing portion 200A. The at least one rib 250 or 250A may be a plurality of ribs 250 or 250A spaced apart from each other in a length direction of the slat 50C or 50D”).
Yoo does not teach wherein at least two of the plurality of gussets have different maximum widths.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of gussets of Yoo to include gussets having different maximum widths since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of the relative dimension 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 USPQ 232 (1984). Such a modification merely involves a change in size of a component of the invention. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In the instant case, the slat of Yoo would not operate differently with the claimed gussets having differing maximum widths, and applicant places no criticality on the widths of the gussets. Gussets of differing maximum widths would achieve the same function of providing additional support to the slat between the top portion and the bottom flange. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further teaches wherein the engagement portion (50E of Weinstein et al.) is over-molded onto the top portion (Weinstein et al. col. 4 lines 32-35, “A cover may be “over-molded”, that is, it may be integrally molded onto or around the base after the base has been formed by molding, machining, or otherwise, in a previous process step.”).
Regarding claim 7, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further teaches wherein a perimeter of the top portion (100 of Yoo) is substantially coextensive with a perimeter of the engagement portion (50E of Weinstein et al..; Weinstein et al. col. 6 lines 42-45, “The covers of FIG. 7-11 are shown in simplified fashion, i.e., as flat sheets, in context it will be understood that covers may have the configurations described in connection with FIG. 14-18”, see coextensive parameters of cover 50 with base portion 40 of Weinstein et al. in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further discloses wherein the longitudinal rib defines a curved longitudinal profile (see embodiment of slats 50A-50G in Figs. 9A-12C, illustrating longitudinal ribs/first reinforcing portions 200A-200D having a curved longitudinal profile).
Regarding claim 9, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further disclose wherein the top portion (100) has a substantially constant width (W1, see Fig. 7A-7B; see embodiments of slats 50 and 50A-50G in Figs. 5-13 showing top portion/base portion 100 having a substantially constant width) and the bottom flange has a variable width, the variable width less than the substantially constant width at a center of the at least one slat (see second reinforcing portions 300-1, 300A of embodiments of slats 50A, 50B in Figs. 9B and 10C showing variable width; col. 7 lines 48-51, “For example, as shown in FIG. 9B, a width of a second reinforcing portion 300-1 may decrease from a central portion toward opposite ends in the length direction”; col. 8 lines 9-12, “For example, as shown in FIG. 10C, a width of the separation region 301-1 may decrease from a central portion toward opposite ends in the length direction”; and col. 6 lines 37-42, “For this, the width W2 of the second reinforcing portion 300 may be less than the width W1 of the base portion 100 in at least some of the slats 50. For example, the width W2 of the second reinforcing portion 300 may be 0.2 times to 0.8 times the width W1 of the base portion 100.”).
Regarding claim 12, Yoo as modified by Weinstein et al. further discloses wherein the top portion (100), the longitudinal rib (200, 200A-200D), and the bottom flange (300, 300-1, 300A) combine to form a cross section which is predominately I-shaped (see Figs. 6-8B, 13).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US Pat. 11,007,404) in view of Weinstein et al. (US Pat. 10,010,748), and further in view of Lo (US Pub. 2020/0009418).
Regarding claim 10, Yoo further teaches an endless belt (either of belts 41, 42), wherein the at least one slat is configured to be fastened to the endless belt (col. 3 lines 54-56, “The first and second belts 41 and 42 and the slats 50 fixedly connected to the first and second belts 41 and 42”), but does not teach wherein the at least one slat further comprises an integral fastener configured to fasten the at least one slat to the endless belt.
Lo teaches an analogous slat (22) for a treadmill (10), wherein the treadmill comprises an endless belt (flexible belt 21, par. 16, “Each of the belts 21 is in the form of a loop”), wherein the slat further comprises an integral fastener (threaded bolts 35) configured to fasten the slat to the endless belt (par. 16, “Each of the slats 22 is connected to the belts 21 by a fastener assembly 23”; par. 18, “Each of the fastener assemblies 23 includes two threaded bolts 35, a washer 36 and two nuts 38. The threaded bolts 35 are inserted in two apertures 28 made in the belt 21 and two apertures 37 made in the washer 36 and engaged with the nuts 38”; see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one slat of Yoo to include an integral fastener, as is similarly taught by Lo, for the purpose of achieving the same predictable result of providing a secure attachment between the endless belt and the slat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the previously applied objections to the drawings and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of previous claims 5-7 have been withdrawn. Applicant has provided sufficient support for an embodiment of the slat comprising a crowned portion as well as an engagement portion in view of paragraphs [0053] and [0064] of the originally filed written disclosure. All elements of the claim have been illustrated and the specification as originally filed discloses combinations of the various illustrated elements.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Weinstein and the rejections of claims 13-15, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an alternate interpretation and embodiment of Weinstein and in view of prior art to Erkelenz et al.
With respect to the previous rejection of independent claim 1, the office agrees that the initial interpretation and relied upon embodiment of Weinstein does not teach the newly added limitation of “wherein the crowned portion is positioned beneath the engagement surface and between the engagement surface and the bottom flange.” However, an alternate embodiment of Weinstein teaches the amended and newly added limitations of independent claim 1 and has been relied upon to modify the prior art of Yoo.
With respect to the previous rejection of independent claims 13 and 18, the office agrees that Yoo does not reasonably teach or suggest the limitation of “wherein the variable width [of the bottom flange] substantially proximate the first and second ends is substantially the same as a width of the top portion.” However, a new rejection has been made in view of prior art to Erkelenz et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784