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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. As to claim 9, the liner being removably disposed at the interior surface of the headwear, folded over and covering a bottom edge of the headwear from the exterior surface wherein the liner is removably attached to the interior surface via a fastener, is not shown in the drawings. More specifically, the liner being positioned at the interior surface, folded over the bottom edge of the headwear, and being attached to the interior surface using a fastener is not illustrated. This feature, recited in claim 9 (as dependent upon claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification (Abstract)
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its first sentence is a statement which can be implied (“The present disclosure discloses a headwear.”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 10 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Applicant recites “wherein the fastener comprises one or more of a hook and loop fastener, double-sided tape, and snap lock fastener” (claim 3) and “wherein the fastener comprises at least two of the hook and loop fastener, the double-sided tape, and the snap lock fastener” (claim 4). It is indefinite whether claim 3 is requiring that one or more of each of the types of fasteners listed must be present, or one or more fastener must be present, and that one or more fastener can be any of the fastener types listed. Similarly, regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether at least two of the types of fasteners must be present, or merely two fasteners must be present and the two fasteners can be any of the types listed in the claim. Correction is required. As best as can be determined from the disclosure and illustrations, it appears that the same fastener type is being used in the headwear, wherein there are instances where at least two fasteners are present (each of those fasteners being the same type of fastener; see Fig. 3-8, for example, wherein none of the figures show more than one fastener type being used together). For purposes of examination, claim 3 is being interpreted as “wherein there is at least one instance of the fastener, wherein the fastener is a hook and loop fastener, a double-sided tape, or a snap lock fastener” and claim 4 is being interpreted as “wherein there are at least two instances of the fastener”, as best as can be understood. Examiner notes that claim 10 recites similar indefinite language as claim 3, is likewise indefinite, and will be interpreted in a similar manner as identified above with respect to claim 3.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aileo (USPN 3,055,012) in view of Bracci (IT 202100000350 A1; please refer to the English machine translation document provided herewith).
Regarding independent claim 1, Aileo discloses a headwear (helmet #1) comprising: an interior surface (the inner surface of shell #5 of helmet #1; Figs. 1-2 of Aileo) configured to face a user’s head (inner surface is capable of facing a hypothetical user’s head; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense); an exterior surface disposed opposite to the interior surface (see exterior surface of shell #5 of the helmet #1; Figs. 1-2 of Aileo); and a fabric liner (elements hood #3 and depending portion #7 form a fabric liner; Col. 1, Lines 39-45; Col. 3, Lines 28-33; Col. 5, Lines 3-17 of Aileo) positioned adjacent to the interior surface (Figs. 1-2 of Aileo; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); all components of the headwear are adjacent one another, at least to some degree) and removably attached to the exterior surface (Fig. 8 of Aileo; the liner #3/#7 is removably attached to the exterior surface using U-shaped clip #41; Col. 1, Lines 51-57; Col. 2, Line 69 through Col. 3, Line 10; Col. 4, Lines 16-21 and 42-45; Col. 4, Line 71 through Col. 5, Line 17 of Aileo). Aileo is silent as to whether the fabric liner is anti-microbial. The liner of Aileo is a hood #3 with a neck covering downward-depending portion #7, as noted above (Col. 3, Lines 28-33 of Aileo).
Bracci discloses headwear (Fig. 4A of Bracci) having a neck covering #5/ #6 (Figs. 4A-4C of Bracci). The headwear (#1, #3, #4) and the neck covering (parts #5, #6) is made of Merino wool comprising antibacterial yarn (see English language translation, last 2 lines on page 3).
Aileo and Bracci teach analogous inventions in the field of headwear with fabric neck-covering portions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have constructed the liner/neck cover of Aileo out of Merino wool including antibacterial yarn, since this material is conventional for headwear and neck coverings, as taught by Bracci, in order to promote hygiene and inhibit bacterial growth and odors in garments, and further since the concept of applying antimicrobial properties into garments is very well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the modified headwear of Aileo (i.e. Aileo in view of Bracci, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the anti-microbial fabric liner (#3/#7) is removably attached to the exterior surface via a fastener (the U-shaped clip #41; see Fig. 8; Col. 4, lines 16-21 and 42-45; Col. 4, Line 71 through Col. 5, Line 17 of Aileo).
Regarding independent claim 8, Aileo discloses a headwear (helmet #1) comprising: an interior surface (the inner surface of shell #5 of helmet #1; Figs. 1-2 of Aileo) configured to face a user’s head (inner surface is capable of facing a hypothetical user’s head; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense); an exterior surface disposed opposite to the interior surface (see exterior surface of shell #5 of the helmet #1; Figs. 1-2 of Aileo); and a fabric liner (elements hood #3 and depending portion #7 form a fabric liner; Col. 1, Lines 39-45; Col. 3, Lines 28-33; Col. 5, Lines 3-17 of Aileo) removably disposed at the interior surface (see Fig. 2; Col. 1, Lines 39-45 of Aileo), wherein the fabric liner is configured to fold and cover a bottom edge of the headwear from the exterior surface (see Figs. 2 and 8; Col. 1, Lines 54-57; Col. 2, Line 69-10; Col. 4, Line 42 through Col. 5, Line 17 of Aileo). Aileo is silent as to whether the fabric liner is anti-microbial. The liner of Aileo is a hood #3 with a neck covering downward-depending portion #7, as noted above (Col. 3, Lines 28-33 of Aileo).
As noted above, Bracci discloses headwear (Fig. 4A of Bracci) having a neck covering #5/ #6 (Figs. 4A-4C of Bracci). The headwear (#1, #3, #4) and the neck covering (parts #5, #6) is made of Merino wool comprising antibacterial yarn (see English language translation, last 2 lines on page 3).
As noted above, Aileo and Bracci teach analogous inventions in the field of headwear with fabric neck-covering portions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have constructed the liner/neck cover of Aileo out of Merino wool including antibacterial yarn, since this material is conventional for headwear and neck coverings, as taught by Bracci, in order to promote hygiene and inhibit bacterial growth and odors in garments, and further since the concept of applying antimicrobial properties into garments is very well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the modified headwear of Aileo (i.e. Aileo in view of Bracci, as applied to claim 8 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8, as set forth above, and further that the anti-microbial fabric liner (#3/#7) is removably attached to the interior surface via a fastener (parts #17, #23, #25 form a fastener which removably attaches the hood to the interior surface of the helmet; see Figs. 2, 4, and 7 of Aileo; Col. 1, Lines 39-50 and Col. 3, Lines 38-57 of Aileo).
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 (claims 3, 4 and 10 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaquez et al. (hereinafter “Jaquez”) (US 2011/0302697) further in view of Niedrich et al. (hereinafter “Niedrich”) (US 2016/0058089).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jaquez discloses a headwear comprising: an interior surface (the interior surface of shell #105; Fig. 5 of Jaquez) configured to face a user’s head (Fig. 5 of Jaquez); an exterior surface (the exterior surface of shell #105; Fig. 5 of Jaquez) disposed opposite to the interior surface (Fig. 5 of Jaquez); and a fabric liner (the lower portion of shell #102 and flap #405 is a fabric liner; see Fig. 5 of Jaquez) positioned adjacent to the interior surface (flap #405 is positioned adjacent to the interior surface of shell #105 as seen in Fig. 5 of Jaquez; all components of Jaquez are adjacent one another, at least to some degree) and removably attached to the exterior surface (via connectors #115, #125; see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0042-0045 of Jaquez). Jaquez is silent as to whether the fabric liner is anti-microbial, but does teach that parts #102 and #405 may comprise the same material (¶ 0043 of Jaquez).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Niedrich discloses headwear including panels (#112, #114) and a hanging element #105 (see Fig. 1a of Niedrich) which are made of antimicrobial fabric (¶ 0032 of Niedrich). Specifically, Niedrich teaches that the material is fabric such as cotton, polyester, or cotton blends which may include materials or treatments providing antimicrobial properties (¶ 0032 of Niedrich).
Jaquez and Niedrich teach analogous inventions in the field of headwear with lower fabric portions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have constructed the liner (formed by #102/#405) of Jaquez out of antimicrobial fabric, as taught by Niedrich, in order to promote hygiene and inhibit bacterial growth and odors in the garment.
Regarding claim 2, the modified headwear of Jaquez (i.e. Jaquez in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the anti-microbial fabric liner is removably attached to the exterior surface via a fastener (#115, #125; see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0044-0045 of Jaquez).
Regarding claim 3, the modified headwear of Jaquez (i.e. Jaquez in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 2 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as set forth above, and further that the fastener comprises one or more of a hook and loop fastener, double-sided tape, and snap lock fastener (¶ 0033 of Jaquez discloses that the fastener can be a snap type or hook-and-loop type).
Regarding claim 4, the modified headwear of Jaquez (i.e. Jaquez in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 3 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as set forth above, and further that the fastener comprises at least two of the hook and loop fastener, the double-sided tape, and the snap lock fastener (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0044 of Jaquez, which show multiple fasteners present).
Regarding claim 5, the modified headwear of Jaquez (i.e. Jaquez in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 2 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as set forth above, and further that a first portion of the fastener (first portion is #125; Fig. 5; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)) is coupled to a bottom edge of the exterior surface of the headwear (see Fig. 5 of Jaquez), and a second portion of the fastener (second portion #115) is coupled to a perimeter portion of the anti-microbial fabric liner (#102; see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0044-0045 of Jaquez).
Regarding claim 6, the modified headwear of Jaquez (i.e. Jaquez in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 5 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5, as set forth above, and further that the perimeter portion of the anti-microbial fabric liner (the bottom portion of part #102 forms a perimeter portion of the liner) is configured to fold over a boundary between the interior surface and the exterior surface of the headwear to engage the first portion and the second portion of the fastener (see Fig. 5; fastener portions #115/#125; ¶ 0043-0045 of Jaquez).
Regarding independent claim 8, Jaquez discloses a headwear comprising: an interior surface (the interior surface of shell #105; Fig. 5 of Jaquez) configured to face a user’s head (Fig. 5 of Jaquez); an exterior surface (the exterior surface of shell #105; Fig. 5 of Jaquez) disposed opposite to the interior surface (Fig. 5 of Jaquez); and a fabric liner (the lower portion of shell #102 and flap #405 is a fabric liner; see Fig. 5 of Jaquez) removably disposed at the interior surface (along flap #405; see Fig. 5 of Jaquez), wherein the fabric liner is configured to fold and cover a bottom edge of the headwear from the exterior surface (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Jaquez is silent as to whether the fabric liner is anti-microbial, but does teach that parts #102 and #405 may comprise the same material (¶ 0043 of Jaquez).
As noted above, Niedrich discloses headwear including panels (#112, #114) and a hanging element #105 (see Fig. 1a of Niedrich) which are made of antimicrobial fabric (¶ 0032 of Niedrich). Specifically, Niedrich teaches that the material is fabric such as cotton, polyester, or cotton blends which may include materials or treatments providing antimicrobial properties (¶ 0032 of Niedrich).
As noted above, Jaquez and Niedrich teach analogous inventions in the field of headwear with lower fabric portions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have constructed the liner (formed by #102/#405) of Jaquez out of antimicrobial fabric, as taught by Niedrich, in order to promote hygiene and inhibit bacterial growth and odors in the garment.
Regarding claim 9, the modified headwear of Jaquez (i.e. Jaquez in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 8 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8, as set forth above, and further that the anti-microbial fabric liner is removably attached to the interior surface via a fastener (#130, #415; see Figs. 4-5 and ¶ 0044-0045 of Jaquez).
Regarding claim 10, the modified headwear of Jaquez (i.e. Jaquez in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 9 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 9, as set forth above, and further that the fastener comprises one or more of a hook and loop fastener, double-sided tape, and snap lock fastener (¶ 0033 of Jaquez discloses that the fastener can be a snap type or hook-and-loop type).
Claims 1-5 and 7 (claims 3 and 4 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson-Buist (hereinafter “Thompson”) (US 2018/0064196) in view of De Jesu (US 2016/0100648).
Regarding independent claim 1, Thompson discloses a headwear (see Fig. 2 of Thompson) comprising: an interior surface (the interior surface of outer layer #20; see Figs. 2, 3, and 5 of Thompson) configured to face a user’s head (see Fig. 2 of Thompson, wherein the interior surface of #20 would be configured to face a user’s head, when worn); an exterior surface disposed opposite to the interior surface (the exterior surface of outer layer #20); and a liner (inner shell #50; see Figs. 2, 3 and 5) positioned adjacent to the interior surface (Fig. 5 of Thompson) and removably attached to the exterior surface ((attachments #70a, #70c connect the liner #50 to the exterior surface of layer #20 by folding the edge of layer #20 up, as seen in Fig. 5 of Thompson). See Figs. 3 and 5, ¶ 0013-0014, 0017-0019, 0022 of Thompson, and annotated figure 5 below). The bottom of layer #20 is folded up (inwards), such that its exterior surface faces the fastener #70c of the liner #50 and is then attached to the liner using fasteners #70a, #70c (Fig. 5 and annotated figure below). See exterior surface of layer #20 as indicated along the added bold line in first annotated figure below. Thompson is silent as to whether the liner is made of anti-microbial fabric. Thompson discloses that the liner #50 is a waterproof material that is oil and grease resistant (¶ 0017-0018 of Thompson).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
350
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
De Jesu discloses a waterproof material for a head cap which is an antimicrobial fabric. Specifically, De Jesu discloses a head cap made of a water-repellent fabric material which is antimicrobial (¶ 0042 of De Jesu).
Thompson and De Jesu teach analogous inventions in the field of headwear with waterproof materials. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the antimicrobial fabric material taught by De Jesu as the material of choice for the liner #50 in Thompson in order to provide a benefit to protect the user’s head from microbial growth and odor, as such growth and odor is well-known in the art to be inhibited by antimicrobial materials used in garments.
Regarding claim 2, the modified headwear of Thompson (i.e. Thompson in view of De Jesu, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the anti-microbial fabric liner is removably attached to the exterior surface via a fastener (#70c; see Figs. 3 and 5 of Thompson; ¶ 0019 of Thompson).
Regarding claim 3, the modified headwear of Thompson (i.e. Thompson in view of De Jesu, as applied to claim 2 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as set forth above, and further that the fastener comprises one or more of a hook and loop fastener, double-sided tape, and snap lock fastener (¶ 0019 of Thompson discloses that hook and loop or snap types of fasteners can be used).
Regarding claim 4, the modified headwear of Thompson (i.e. Thompson in view of De Jesu, as applied to claim 3 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as set forth above, and further that the fastener comprises at least two of the hook and loop fastener, the double-sided tape, and the snap lock fastener (fasteners #70a, #70c; see Fig. 5, ¶ 0019 of Thompson).
Regarding claim 5, the modified headwear of Thompson (i.e. Thompson in view of De Jesu, as applied to claim 2 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as set forth above, and further that a first portion of the fastener (#70a) is coupled to a bottom edge of the exterior surface of the headwear (see Fig. 5 of Thompson), and a second portion of the fastener (#70c) is coupled to a perimeter portion of the anti-microbial fabric liner (see annotated Fig. 5 of Thompson above).
Regarding claim 7, the modified headwear of Thompson (i.e. Thompson in view of De Jesu, as applied to claim 5 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5, as set forth above, and further that the first portion of the fastener is configured to cover an entire circumference of the bottom edge of the headwear (see Fig. 2 of Thompson, which shows the whole circumference of the headwear being positioned to be covered by the liner #50).
Claims 8-10 (claim 10 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2010/0107307) in view of Niedrich.
Regarding independent claim 8, Lee discloses a headwear (cap in Fig. 2) comprising: an interior surface configured to face a user’s head (the interior surface of the cap shown in Fig. 2 of Lee (¶ 0013 of Lee)); an exterior surface disposed opposite to the interior surface (the exterior surface of the cap shown in Fig. 2 of Lee); and a fabric liner (shown in Fig. 1; hat liner described in ¶ 0012, 0016, 0020 of Lee) removably disposed at the interior surface (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0016, 0018 of Lee describe removability), wherein the fabric liner is configured to fold and cover a bottom edge of the headwear from the exterior surface (see Fig. 2; the liner extends below the edge of the cap and thus is capable of being folded over the bottom edge of the cap, given the flexibility of the materials that form the liner, which are disclosed as being fabric made of cotton or polyester (¶ 0020 of Lee)). Lee teaches that the fabric may be cotton or polyester (¶ 0020 of Lee), but does not specify that the fabric is antimicrobial.
As noted above, Niedrich discloses headwear including panels (#112, #114) and a hanging element #105 (see Fig. 1a of Niedrich) which are made of antimicrobial fabric (¶ 0032 of Niedrich). Specifically, Niedrich teaches that the material is fabric such as cotton, polyester, or cotton blends which may include materials or treatments providing antimicrobial properties (¶ 0032 of Niedrich).
Lee and Niedrich teach analogous inventions in the field of headwear with fabric lower portions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used constructed the fabric of the liner of Lee out of antimicrobial fabric, as taught by Niedrich, in order to promote hygiene and inhibit bacterial growth and odors in the garment.
Regarding claim 9, the modified headwear of Lee (i.e. Lee in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 8 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8, as set forth above, and further that the anti-microbial fabric liner is removably attached to the interior surface via a fastener (see claim 1 of Lee, which specifically recites that a multiplicity of hook and loop fasteners are affixed to the outside of the liner and the inside rim of the cap so as to removably engage with each other and hold the liner in place inside the cap).
Regarding claim 10, the modified headwear of Lee (i.e. Lee in view of Niedrich, as applied to claim 9 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 9, as set forth above, and further that the fastener comprises one or more of a hook and loop fastener, double-sided tape, and snap lock fastener (as noted in the paragraph immediately above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon in an art rejection above is deemed relevant in the field of headwear with similar liners to the present application’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732