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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant adds two issues of new matter to the specification, drawing, and claims.
1- Since applicant did not originally disclose either the “internal mating length” 137 OR the “external length” 138, it is impossible for applicant to have originally disclosed any relationship (greater than, equal to, or less than) between the two. Further, figure 7 does not explicitly disclose that the part 33 is inserted into the handle 17 of the grabber. Applicant’s original disclosure discusses “aperture 35 for receiving at least one fastener 36 for fastening the arm support arrangement 15 to the handle mechanism 12”, fasteners 36 best shown in figure 10. Therefore, examiner has assumed that the section of the arm support arrangement 15 with apertures 35 are inserted into the handle 32. But, since there is no indication of a length of the arm support 15 within the handle 32, there cannot be original support for the relationship of the “internal mating length” 137 and the “external length” 138, since neither were originally disclosed.
2- Since applicant did not originally disclose either the axes 134 or 135 as shown in new figure 18, it is impossible for applicant to have originally disclosed any comparison of the angle between axis 130 and 134, to the angle of axis 130 and 135, as shown in newly amended drawing 18. Examiner notes that while drawings can be used to show features, the basis of these angles cannot be assumed to be “equal” because drawings are not made to scale. Examiner notes that these can be argued to be originally disclosed as “similar”, but cannot be argued to be originally disclosed to be “equal” as applicant claims, and adds new matter to the specification.
3- applicant claims “equal length” of the first and second support segments 40/41. Again, Examiner notes that while drawings can be used to show features, the basis of these lengths cannot be assumed to be “equal” because drawings are not made to scale. Examiner notes that these can be argued to be originally disclosed as “similar”, but cannot be argued to be originally disclosed to be “equal” as applicant claims, and adds new matter to the specification.
For these reasons, the drawings, specification are objected to, and the claims are rejected under 112a below.
Examiner thanks applicant for cancellation of claim 40.
Regarding Adams, applicant merely asserts Adams does not disclose:
-first support segment 40 extending along a first segment axis 134. Examiner asserts it does, please see annotated Adams figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
237
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-a second support segment 41 of equal length to the first support segment 40 along an axis 135 obliquely angled to the first support segment 40. Since there is no definition of “Segment”, any whole or portion of the “support segments” of Adams could be considered “equal”.
-first and second support segments 40/41 equally angled relative to a median support plane. Examiner notes that “equally” is new matter, as discussed above, but Adams does disclose that the first and second support segments are angled from a median support plane, as shown in the annotated figure 2, in the same manner as applicant’s figure 18. Examiner argues that the support segments are angled “similarly” as originally disclosed, because applicant does not have original support for “equal”.
Applicant asserts the combination of Adams and Fleming (or vice versa) does not disclose the relationship of the amount of the inserted portion as it relates to the external portion. Examiner again notes that this is considered new matter. Further, examiner notes that the amount of inserted portion of the handle is a change of size of the inserted portion of the handle; and therefore examiner asserts that any change of size of existing inserted parts would create the relationship claimed by applicant, the relationship being new matter.
The remainder of the remarks assert reasons why the newly added subject matter is not new matter, arguing that the newly claimed subject matter is originally disclosed in the drawings. Examiner notes that this is not the case. In figure 7, the handle portion 45 is assumed to be inserted into grip 17, however there is no original disclosure for the relationship of inserted length to exposed length. The relationship is new matter. In figure 18, examiner notes that 40 and 41 are angled obliquely from the axis 130, however, there is no original disclosure of these angles being “equal”, nor can the drawings support this very specific relationship. The original disclosure supports “similar”, so does the prior art. The relationship is new matter. The applicant does not support the “equal length” of the parts 40 and 41 in any drawing. Applicant’s arguments regarding new matter are not persuasive.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/3/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
1- Since applicant did not originally disclose either the “internal mating length” 137 OR the “external length” 138, it is impossible for applicant to have originally disclosed any relationship (greater than, equal to, or less than) between the two. Further, figure 7 does not explicitly disclose that the part 33 is inserted into the handle 17 of the grabber. Applicant’s original disclosure discusses “aperture 35 for receiving at least one fastener 36 for fastening the arm support arrangement 15 to the handle mechanism 12”, fasteners 36 best shown in figure 10. Therefore, examiner has assumed that the section of the arm support arrangement 15 with apertures 35 are inserted into the handle 32. But, since there is no indication of a length of the arm support 15 within the handle 32, there cannot be original support for the relationship of the “internal mating length” 137 and the “external length” 138, since neither were originally disclosed.
2- Since applicant did not originally disclose either the axes 134 or 135 as shown in new figure 18, it is impossible for applicant to have originally disclosed any comparison of the angle between axis 130 and 134, to the angle of axis 130 and 135, as shown in newly amended drawing 18. Examiner notes that while drawings can be used to show features, the basis of these angles cannot be assumed to be “equal” because drawings are not made to scale. Examiner notes that these can be argued to be originally disclosed as “similar”, but cannot be argued to be originally disclosed to be “equal” as applicant claims, and adds to the specification.
3- applicant claims “equal length” of the first and second support segments 40/41. Again, Examiner notes that while drawings can be used to show features, the basis of these lengths cannot be assumed to be “equal” because drawings are not made to scale. Examiner notes that these can be argued to be originally disclosed as “similar”, but cannot be argued to be originally disclosed to be “equal” as applicant claims, and adds new matter to the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/3/2025. These drawings are not entered, as they indicate new matter in figures 7 and 18, as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-25, 27-33, 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 24 and 32 include the following new matter:
1- Since applicant did not originally disclose either the “internal mating length” 137 OR the “external length” 138, it is impossible for applicant to have originally disclosed any relationship (greater than, equal to, or less than) between the two. Further, figure 7 does not explicitly disclose that the part 33 is inserted into the handle 17 of the grabber. Applicant’s original disclosure discusses “aperture 35 for receiving at least one fastener 36 for fastening the arm support arrangement 15 to the handle mechanism 12”, fasteners 36 best shown in figure 10. Therefore, examiner has assumed that the section of the arm support arrangement 15 with apertures 35 are inserted into the handle 32. But, since there is no indication of a length of the arm support 15 within the handle 32, there cannot be original support for the relationship of the “internal mating length” 137 and the “external length” 138, since neither were originally disclosed.
2- Since applicant did not originally disclose either the axes 134 or 135 as shown in new figure 18, it is impossible for applicant to have originally disclosed any comparison of the angle between axis 130 and 134, to the angle of axis 130 and 135, as shown in newly amended drawing 18. Examiner notes that while drawings can be used to show features, the basis of these angles cannot be assumed to be “equal” because drawings are not made to scale. Examiner notes that these can be argued to be originally disclosed as “similar”, but cannot be argued to be originally disclosed to be “equal” as applicant claims, and adds to the specification.
3- applicant claims “equal length” of the first and second support segments 40/41. Again, Examiner notes that while drawings can be used to show features, the basis of these lengths cannot be assumed to be “equal” because drawings are not made to scale. Examiner notes that these can be argued to be originally disclosed as “similar”, but cannot be argued to be originally disclosed to be “equal” as applicant claims, and adds new matter to the specification.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any new matter issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 24-25, 27-33, 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 10500715 Fleming in view of 5156429 Adams.
Claim(s) 24-25, 27-33, 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Fleming.
Examiner further notes that the claims are rejected in two manners: Adams in view of Fleming, AND Fleming in view of Adams. Examiner discloses what each reference teaches, and then will address the obviousness reasoning separately below. Further, applicant claims new matter relationships. Examiner shows that the prior art discloses what is disclosed by the original disclosure, and is capable of obviously changing to meet the new matter relationships as noted below.
Adams discloses a tool with a handle (figure 11), having an upper handle (annotated) and a lower handle angled away from the upper handle (annotated), and a trigger (annotated), as well as an arm support arrangement (figure 11), the arm support arrangement comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
253
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
236
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a tubular body (column 2 line 1) having at least three bends (indicated in figure 11) defining at least two planes (annotated lines with T terminals) and terminating in a tool-engaging end 24, a male handle mating portion (the tool engaging end 24 (figure 12), a female support mating portion 66 being mated with the male handle mating portion 68 (figure 12) thereby
PNG
media_image4.png
314
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
attaching the arm support mechanism to the handle mechanism (figure 12), a first plane of the two planes comprising an upward slanting arm-engaging angled portion opposite the tool-engaging end 24, the arm-engaging angled portion comprising one of the bends disposed between a pair of support segments, a second plane of the two planes comprising a support-to-fulcrum angled portion (Adams arm support meets applicant’s claimed structure, based on comparison of figures 18 to Adams figure 1, and figure 20 to Adams figure 4, included above);
the arm-engaging angled portion comprising a first support segment extending along a first segment axis (as shown in figure 2 annotated below), a second support segment of equal length (new matter, but a segment of section 32 is equal to the length of the segment 46; applicant does not define “segment”) to the first support segment extending along a second segment axis obliquely angled relative to the first support segment (as shown in annotated figure 2), and a radiused support segment extending intermediate the first and second support segments (as shown in figure 2) , the first and second support segments being equally angled (new matter, but shown in Adams figure 2) relative to a median support plane extending through the section 30, the radiused support segment 34 being configured for engaging the user’s forearm (as shown in figure 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
237
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the bends cooperating to orient an axis of a user's forearm toward the handle mechanism in parallel relation to the arm axis (as shown in Adams figure 1), at least the elongate arm portion and the tool having a weight directed downwardly (by gravity) such that the arm-engaging angled portion is directed upwardly toward the user's forearm about a fulcrum point at the handle mechanism (by having the structure shown by applicant), the arm support arrangement thereby counterbalancing a load associated with the tool.
Adams discloses the use of the handle on a plurality of “tools” (column 5 line 61) and “any number of implements or attachments well known in the art” (column 4 line 6), “present device can be
PNG
media_image5.png
187
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
used to lift and support relatively heavy objects” (column 3 line 64). Therefore, Adams is obvious to be attached to any “tool” which is “well known in the art” which “can be used to lift” objects. Adams discloses doing so with the extension 16 with loop 18 as in figure 1, using extension 16 with surface 20, or with male extension portion 68 in figure 12, which extends into the handle 66 of a tool, and the male extension portion 68 has a length within the handle 66 of the tool. The length of the mating portion 68 is able to be variable, changing the relationship of what is internal the handle of Adams to the parts of the arm support which are external of the tool handle. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a).
Fleming discloses:
a grabber tool (title) for enabling a user to grab objects, the grabber tool comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
312
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a handle mechanism (annotated) configured to be ergonomically received in a user's hand (angled), the handle mechanism comprising an upper handle portion (near arm 106), a lower handle portion angled relative to the upper handle portion (angle annotated in figure 1a), and a trigger mechanism 114 extending intermediate the upper handle portion and the lower handle portion (as shown in figure 1a, in the same location as applicant’s trigger 18) configured to enable at least a portion of the user's hand to selectively direct a trigger portion thereof toward the lower handle portion;
an elongate arm portion 106, the elongate arm portion extending distally from a first handle end of the upper handle portion (as shown in figure 1a) along an arm axis and comprising a proximal handle end and a distal pincher end 102, the upper handle portion extending along the arm axis 106 (as shown in figure 1a), the lower handle portion extending along a grip axis (indicated in figure 1a) obliquely angled relative to the arm axis at a handle angle;
a pincher mechanism 102 operably extending distally from the distal pincher end and being operatively coupled to the trigger mechanism 114, the trigger mechanism being operable to selectively close the pincher mechanism via the elongate arm portion 106.
Fleming does not disclose the inclusion of an arm support, or the manner in which to attach the grabber device to an arm support.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 24, Adams in view of Fleming:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a different “tool” which also has a handle and trigger, such as that taught by Fleming, to the known arm support for tools which have triggers, as taught by Adams. Doing so allows the known variability of Adams to be applied to the known tool of Fleming, in a known attachment mechanism taught in Adams figure 12. Doing this applies the handle of figures 1-3 to the device with a handle of Fleming, using the known attachment of sleeving the handle of the tool over the male attachment portion of the handle in the manner taught by Fleming figure 12. Therefore, examiner contends that the application of the tool of Fleming to the known handle of Adams is an obvious modification of the Adams disclosure, resulting in the handle of the tool of Fleming being sleeved on the male handle mating portion, which is equivalent to part 24 of Adams.
Regarding claim 24, Fleming in view of Adams:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply an arm support, such as that taught in Adams, to the old and well known tool of Fleming. Examiner contends that Fleming, with its extend arm to reach to “picking objects”, creates more torque on a user’s hand during use, since torque is calculated by, in this instance, weight of the “object” times the distance (length of the arm 106), rather than the weight of the object being in the hand, making the “torque” zero. An increased torque on a hand may present user discomfort, and applying a known arm support such as taught in Adams, would alleviate such discomfort in a known manner. Further, Adams is known to be used on tools which use handles and triggers, as sleeving the handle of the tool onto a portion of the arm support as taught in Adams figure 12. Therefore, the use of the Adams support on the Fleming tool is considered and obvious modification of Fleming.
Regarding claim 32:
Adams discloses a tool with a handle (figure 11), having an upper handle (annotated) and a lower handle (annotated), and a trigger (annotated), as well as an arm support arrangement (figure 11), the arm support arrangement comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
253
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
236
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a tubular body (column 2 line 1) defining at least two planes (annotated lines with T terminals) and terminating in a tool-engaging end 24, the tool engaging end 24 comprising a handle mating portion 68 (figure 12) thereby attaching the arm support to the handle mechanism (figure 11),
a first plane of the two planes comprising an upward slanting arm-engaging angled portion opposite the tool-engaging end 24, the arm-engaging angled portion comprising one of the bends disposed between a pair of support segments,
a handle mating portion 68 (detailed in figure 12) extending from the tool engaging end towards a lower mating portion end (as detailed in figure 12), the support mating portion 68 is inserted into the handle of the tool, with a particular length, which is obviously variable. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a).
the arm-engaging angled portion comprising a first support segment extending along a first segment axis (annotated figure 2 above), a second support segment of equal length (new matter, discussed above) to the first support segment extending along a second segment axis (as annotated in figure 2 above) obliquely angled relative to the first support segment, and a radiused support segment 34 extending intermediate the first and second support segments 42/46, the support segments being equally angled (new matter, Adams discloses applicant’s “similar” angles, as shown in annotated figure 2) relative to a median support plane extending through the handle mating portion (which is equivalent to section 24 in the modification below), the radiused support segment being configured for engaging the user’s forearm (as shown in figure 1),
the S shape in three dimensions for orienting an axis of a user's forearm toward the handle mechanism in parallel relation to the arm axis (as shown in Adams figure 1), at least the elongate arm portion and the tool having a weight directed downwardly (by gravity) such that the arm-engaging angled portion is directed upwardly toward the user's forearm about a fulcrum point at the handle mechanism (by having the structure shown by applicant), the arm support arrangement thereby counterbalancing a load associated with the tool.
Adams discloses the use of the handle on a plurality of “tools” (column 5 line 61) and “any number of implements or attachments well known in the art” (column 4 line 6), “present device can be used to lift and support relatively heavy objects” (column 3 line 64). Therefore, Adams is obvious to be attached to any “tool” which is “well known in the art” which “can be used to lift” objects.
Fleming discloses:
a grabber tool (title) for enabling a user to grab objects, the grabber tool comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
312
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a handle mechanism (annotated), the handle mechanism comprising an upper handle portion (near arm 106), a lower handle portion, and a trigger mechanism 114;
an elongate arm portion 106, the elongate arm portion extending distally from a first handle end of the upper handle portion (as shown in figure 1a) comprising a proximal handle end and a distal pincher end 102;
a pincher mechanism 102 operably extending distally from the distal pincher end and being operatively coupled to the trigger mechanism 114, the trigger mechanism being operable to selectively close the pincher mechanism via the elongate arm portion 106.
Fleming does not disclose the inclusion of an arm support, or the manner in which to attach the grabber device to an arm support.
Regarding claim 32 Adams in view of Fleming:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a different “tool” which also has a handle and trigger, such as that taught by Fleming, to the known arm support for tools which have triggers, as taught by Adams. Doing so allows the known variability of Adams to be applied to the known tool of Fleming, in a known attachment mechanism taught in Adams figure 12. Therefore, examiner contends that the application of the tool of Fleming to the known handle of Adams is an obvious modification of the Adams disclosure.
Regarding claim 32 Fleming in view of Adams:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply an arm support, such as that taught in Adams, to the old and well known tool of Fleming. Examiner contends that Fleming, with its extend arm to reach to “picking objects”, creates more torque on a user’s hand during use, since torque is calculated by, in this instance, weight of the “object” times the distance (length of the arm 106), rather than the weight of the object being in the hand, making the “torque” zero. An increased torque on a hand may present user discomfort, and applying a known arm support such as taught in Adams, would alleviate such discomfort in a known manner. Further, Adams is known to be used on tools which use handles and triggers, as well as female and male mating portions between the tool and the handle. Therefore, the use of the Adams support on the Fleming tool is considered and obvious modification of Fleming.
Regarding claims 25 and 33,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 1 and 32.
Adams’ arm support further discloses the first plane extends obliquely relative to the axis of the user's forearm (as shown in Adams figure 11) such that the first plane extends through the support mating portion (68 figure 12) and a grip end of the upper handle portion (66 of figure 12) at a junction thereof with the lower handle portion, the first plane being obliquely angled between the arm axis and the grip axis (along axis of section 32 of figure 11).
Regarding claims 27 and 35,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 24 and 32.
Adams arm support further discloses the linear first 32 and second support segments 42 flank outer portions of the user's forearm (figure 6) equidistantly from the arm axis (as shown in annotated figure 2 of Adams).
Regarding claims 28 and 36,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 24 and 32.
Adams support arm further includes the support-to-fulcrum angled portion comprises a linear first angle segment 44, a linear second angle segment 56 obliquely angled relative to the linear first angle segment, and a radiused angle segment (figure 11) extending intermediate the linear first and second angle segments (figure 11).
Regarding claims 29 and 37,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 24 and 32.
Adams support arm further includes the support-to-fulcrum angled portion (as previously claimed in claims 28 and 36) is connected to the arm-engaging angled support angled portion (also in figure 11) by way of a radiused central segment (curve 34 in figures 11-13) extending intermediate the linear second support segment and the linear second angle segment.
Regarding claims 30 and 38,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 24 and 32.
Adams support arm includes the male handle mating portion/tool- engaging portion and the female/support mating portion as disclosed in figure 12. Adams figure 12 does not disclose the male and female parts of the connection each comprise at least one fastener receiving aperture.
Adams figure 10 discloses a spring fastener 58 within both tubes that has a portion extending into through holes 62 of both tubes so that the arms are connected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize any known connection means for male/female connectors of figure 12 of Adams, with known male/female connections as shown in figure 10 of Adams. Examiner notes that these are known alternatives for male/female connections in similar devices and are well known in the art. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claims 31 and 39,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 27 and 35.
Adams support arm of figure 11 does not particularly include padding on the exterior of the handle.
Adams figures 6-10 include padding 30 “preferably made of plastic or rubber” (column 4 line 37) is known to be added to a location where the user interacts with the handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place a known “rubber” tube cover as taught in Adams figure 1 to the other locations of any known Adams handle variations, including that of figure 11. Examiner contends that the use of a cover or pad along any part of the handle does not affect how the handle of Adams is used, and is purely for comfort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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 San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights