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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, received 24 November 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a non-final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1-4, 6-7, 9, 18, 22
Canceled
17, 28-29
Pending
1-16, 18-27
Presented for Examination
1-16, 18-27
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112(b) Rejections
Overcome by the amendment and withdrawn.
103 Rejections
The arguments are drawn to amended subject matter and are addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (US D747601 S) in view of Amis (US 20200205481 A1) and Zens (US 4172456 A).
As to claim 1, Middleton discloses a sock (title) comprising:
a welt area defining a collar (see annotated FIGS below);
a leg portion (see annotated FIGS below), the leg portion extending from the collar (see annotated FIGS below), the leg portion including a front area and a back area (front and back shown in FIG 1, back shown in FIG 2), the back area at least partially covering an Achilles tendon of a wearer in an as-worn condition (capable of covering and intended to cover), wherein the back area comprises a landing area (see annotated FIGS below);
a heel portion extending below the leg portion (see FIGS); a foot portion extending forwardly from the heel portion (see FIGS); and a first pull loop comprising terminal ends of a strip coupled to the sock at a base (see annotated FIG 2 below, there is no claimed structure for the base and the base is broadly interpreted as the top and bottom ends of the first pull loop), wherein the base is coupled to the landing area (all of the components are coupled to one another).
Middleton does not disclose the leg portion comprising a first material having a first elasticity; wherein the strip comprises a second elasticity, and wherein the second elasticity is less than the first elasticity.
Amis teaches a sock (100) comprising a first material (para. 24, 110) having a first elasticity (para. 28, elasticity of 110), a pull strip (112) having a second elasticity, wherein the second elasticity is less than the first elasticity (para. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sock of Middleton so as to comprise a first material having a first elasticity, the strip having a second elasticity, wherein the second elasticity is less than the first elasticity in view of Amis in order to allow the sock to stretch to put on the sock while providing a more sturdy structure to grab when donning or doffing the sock (para. 28 of Amis).
Middleton does not disclose the landing area comprising a first knit pattern that is different from a second knit pattern of other areas of the leg portion, and wherein the first knit pattern comprises more surface area than the second knit pattern.
Zens teaches a similar sock (“stocking,” title) including an area with a first knit pattern and an area with a second knit pattern (e.g., section 2 is rib knit and sections 3 and 4 are jersey knit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide areas having different knit patterns, in order to impart the desired properties to each area of the sock, e.g., the degree and direction of compression to support and wearers body and to keep the shape of the sock.
Because Applicant has not defined the boundaries of the landing area and/ or other areas, Middleton is interpreted such that the landing area of the sock has more surface area than other areas of the sock, as shown in the annotated FIGS below, and the first knit pattern necessarily comprises more surface area than the second knit pattern.
PNG
media_image1.png
722
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
882
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Middleton does not disclose the sock of claim 1, wherein the base of the strip is adhesively coupled to the landing area of the sock.
Middleton is silent as to the coupling means.
However, adhesive is a known coupling means in the apparel art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adhesively couple the base of the strip to the landing area, in order to provide a secure attachment.
As to claim 3, Middleton does not disclose the sock of claim 1, wherein the base is adhesively coupled intermediate the landing area of the sock and the strip, the base providing a coupling surface for the strip.
Middleton does show the base is coupled intermediate the landing area and at least portions of the strip, and the base provides a coupling surface for the strip, but is silent as to the coupling means.
However, adhesive is a known coupling means in the apparel art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adhesively couple the base of the strip to the landing area, in order to provide a secure attachment.
As to claim 8, Middleton as modified discloses the sock of claim 1, wherein the landing area is a non-ribbed landing area (Zens discloses jersey knitting).
Regarding claim 10, the combined reference teaches a second pull loop (F, see annotated fig. forming a loop with surface of leg portion under F) spaced above the first pull loop at the back area of the sock adjacent the welt area (figs. 1,2), the second pull loop comprising a strip (F) coupled to the sock at the back area (figs. 1,2); but fails to teach the strip having a third elasticity, wherein the third elasticity is less than the first elasticity.
Amis teaches a sock (100) comprising a first material (para. 24, 110) having a first elasticity (para. 28, elasticity of 110), a pull strip (112) having a different elasticity wherein the different elasticity is less than the first elasticity (para. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sock of Middleton so that the strip of the second pull loop has a third elasticity, wherein the third elasticity is less than the first elasticity in view of Amis in order to allow the sock to stretch to put on the sock while providing a more sturdy structure to grab when donning or doffing the sock (para. 28 of Amis).
As to claim 11, Middleton as modified does not disclose the sock of claim 10, wherein the strip of the second pull loop is adhesively coupled to the sock.
Middleton is silent as to the coupling means.
However, adhesive is a known coupling means in the apparel art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adhesively couple the second pull loop to the sock, in order to provide a secure attachment.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (US D747601 S) in view of Amis (US 20200205481 A1) and Zens (US 4172456 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Meiselman (US 20150059047 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined reference to teach the sock further comprising a cover disposed over at least one terminal end of the strip to capture the strip between the cover and the base.
Meiselman teaches footwear (fig. 4) having a cover (470) disposed over at least one terminal end of a strip (460) to capture the strip between the cover and the base (para. 43, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the strip of the combined reference such that a cover is disposed over at least one terminal end of the strip to capture the strip between the cover and the base in view of Meiselman in order to provide further reinforcement.
As to claim 6, Middleton as modified discloses the sock of claim 4, wherein either one of or both of the base and the cover comprise a two-layer construction with an outer layer comprising a stretch woven fabric (Meiselman para. 0043 teaches the cover 470 is neoprene) but does not disclose an inner layer comprising an adhesive bonded to the landing area.
One of ordinary skill would recognize that 470 must be attached to the garment somehow, and adhesive is a known means of attaching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adhesively bond the neoprene outer layer of the cover to the landing area via an inner layer of adhesive, in order to provide a secure attachment.
As to claim 7, Middleton as modified does not disclose the sock of claim 6, wherein the outer layer comprises an elasticity less than the landing area.
With there being only three possibilities –the elasticity of the outer layer is either less than, greater than, or equal to the landing area— the claimed elasticity would be known to one of ordinary skill and within the scope of the reference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the outer layer with less elasticity than the landing area, in order to provide a secure structure for reinforcing the pull tab under the stress of pulling, and to provide the landing area with elasticity to comfortably fit wearers of different sizes or the same wearer when in motion.
As to claim 16, Middleton as modified does not disclose the sock of claim 4, further comprising a stitch extending through the sock, the cover, the strip, and the base of the first pull loop.
Middleton as modified does disclose sock, the cover, the strip, and the base of the first pull loop are all coupled together, but is silent as to the coupling means.
Stitching, adhesive is a known coupling means in the apparel art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a stitch extending through the sock, the cover, the strip, and the base of the first pull loop, in order to provide a secure attachment.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (US D747601 S) in view of Amis (US 20200205481 A1) and Zens (US 4172456 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Al-Arab (U.S. Patent No. 10219954).
Regarding claim 5, the combined reference fails to teach the strip comprises a grosgrain construction.
Al-Arab teaches a garment pull tab (72) (fig. 5) formed of grosgrain (col. 9, lines 20-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised the strip of the combined reference of a grosgrain construction in view of Al-Arab in order to provide a tactile sturdy structure for pulling and/or since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (forming a pull tab/strip) (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (US D747601 S) in view of Amis (US 20200205481 A1) and Zens (US 4172456 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varsik (US 20200214365 A1).
As to claim 9, Middleton does not disclose the sock of claim 1, wherein the first knit pattern of the landing area comprising a one-by-one alt pique pattern.
Varsik teaches a similar sock (title) including an area of pique stitch (110, para. 0030).
Therefore, it is known to provide a pique knit area of a sock.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first knit pattern of the landing area comprising a one-by-one alt pique pattern, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first knit pattern of the landing area comprising a one-by-one alt pique pattern, in order to provide a known stitch for a sock and to provide the desired degree of compression.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (US D747601 S) in view of Amis (US 20200205481 A1) and Zens (US 4172456 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489).
Regarding claim 12, the combined reference fails to teach a third pull loop at the front area of the sock adjacent the welt area, the third pull loop comprising a strip coupled to the sock at the front area, the strip having a fourth elasticity, wherein the fourth elasticity is less than the first elasticity.
Groat teaches a leg portion (A) having a pull loop (b) at the front area of the leg portion (figs. 1,2), the pull loop comprising a strip coupled to the front area (figs. 1, 2) (col. 1, lines 25-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a third pull loop at the front area of the sock of the combined reference adjacent the welt area, the third pull loop comprising a strip coupled to the sock at the front area in view of Groat in order to provide a location at the front of the sock to assist in drawing the leg portion upon the leg (Groat col 1 line 25-31).
As to claim 13, Middleton as modified does not disclose the sock of claim 12, wherein the strip of the third pull loop is adhesively coupled to the sock.
Middleton is silent as to the coupling means.
However, adhesive is a known coupling means in the apparel art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adhesively couple the third pull loop to the sock, in order to provide a secure attachment.
As to claim 14, Middleton as modified does not disclose the sock of claim 12, further comprising a stitch coupling the strip of one or more of the first pull loop, the second pull loop, and the third pull loop to the sock.
Middleton as modified does disclose one or more of the first pull loop, the second pull loop, and the third pull loop are coupled to the sock, but is silent as to the coupling means.
Stitching, adhesive is a known coupling means in the apparel art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a stitch coupling the strip of one or more of the first pull loop, the second pull loop, and the third pull loop to the sock, in order to provide a secure attachment.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (US D747601 S) in view of Amis (US 20200205481 A1) Zens (US 4172456 A), and Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Carpenter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5950240).
Regarding claim 15, the combined reference fails to teach the stitch is a bar tack stitch.
Carpenter teaches fastening a loop to a garment using a bar tack stitch to prevent the loop from being torn away if the user pulls too hard (col. 2, lines 12-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the stitch of the combined reference as a bar tack stitch in view of Carpenter in order to prevent the loop(s) from being torn away if the user pulls too hard (col. 2, lines 12-21 of Carpenter).
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (U.S. Patent No. D747601) in view of Amis et al. (U.S. 20200205481) and Ingimundarson et al. (US 20180042754 A1), and Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489).
Regarding claim 18, Middleton teaches a sock (figs. 1-4) comprising: a welt area defining a collar (A, see annotated fig.) ;a leg portion (B, see annotated fig.) extending from the collar, the leg portion including a front area (leg portion of fig. 4) and a back area (leg portion of fig. 2 and extending under F to at least to the forward edge of F);
the back area comprising a first landing area having more surface area than other areas of the sock for adhesion of a first base to the first landing area (it is noted that Applicant has not defined the boundaries of the first landing area and so the first landing area is broadly interpreted, see annotated FIG 2 below, capable of receiving a first base adhered thereto), wherein the first landing area comprises a first shape (rectangle, see annotated FIG below)
a heel portion (C, see annotated fig.) extending below the leg portion;
a foot portion (D, see annotated fig.) extending from heel portion; a first pull loop (E, see annotated fig. forming a loop with surface of leg portion under E) coupled to the sock at the first base (fig. 2, see modification below); a second pull loop (F, see annotated fig., forms loop with surface under F) spaced above the first pull loop at the back area of the sock adjacent the welt area (fig. 1), but fails to teach the sock comprising a first material having a first elasticity and a third pull loop at the front area of the sock adjacent the welt area.
Amis teaches a sock (100) comprising a first material (para. 24, 110) having a first elasticity (para. 28, elasticity of 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sock of Middleton so as to comprise a first material having a first elasticity in view of Amis in order to allow the sock to stretch to put on the sock (para. 28 of Amis).
The combined reference fails to teach a third pull loop at the front area of the sock adjacent the welt area.
Groat teaches a leg portion (A) having a pull loop (b) at the front area of the leg portion (figs. 1,2), the pull loop comprising a strip coupled to the front area (figs. 1,2)(col. 1, lines 25-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a third pull loop at the front area of the sock of the combined reference adjacent the welt area, in view of Groat in order to provide a location at the front of the sock to assist in drawing the leg portion upon the leg (col. 1, lines 25-31 of Groat).
Middleton does not disclose a base.
Ingimundarson teaches a similar leg garment ("ORTHOPEDIC DEVICE," title) including a leg portion (FIG 9) including a back area comprising a landing area for adhesion of a base to the landing area (FIG 9, 604 is considered to be a base and is adhered to the landing area via stitching 607 and adhesive 608 as taught in para. 0152), a first pull loop comprising terminal ends of a strip coupled to the sock at the base (603).
Middleton and Ingimundarson are both drawn to pull loops to facilitate donning and doffing a leg garment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the pull loops of Middleton with the pull loop structure taught by Ingimundarson, for the purpose of providing a known structure to facilitate donning and doffing the leg garment.
PNG
media_image3.png
602
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
510
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, the combined reference teaches each of the first pull loop, the second pull loop and the third pull loop comprises a strip (E,F of annotated fig., b of Groat) coupled to the sock (figs. 1,2 of Middleton); but fails to teach the strip having a second elasticity, wherein the second elasticity is less than the first elasticity.
Amis teaches a sock (100) comprising a first material (para. 24, 110) having a first elasticity (para. 28, elasticity of 110), a pull strip (112) having a second elasticity, wherein the second elasticity is less than the first elasticity (para. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sock of Middleton such that the strip has a second elasticity, wherein the second elasticity is less than the first elasticity in view of Amis in order to allow the sock to stretch to put on the sock while providing a more sturdy structure to grab when donning or doffing the sock (para. 28 of Amis).
As to claim 20, Middleton as modified discloses the sock of claim 18, the back area further comprising a second landing area for adhesion of a second base to the second landing area (see Middleton’s FIGS, the “area” of the second loop), the second pull loop coupled to the sock at the second base (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 18 above, where Middleton’s loops are provided with Ingimundarson’s base 604).
Regarding claim 21, the combined reference teaches the third pull loop comprises a strip (E,F of annotated fig., b of Groat) coupled to the sock (figs. 1,2 of Middleton); but fails to teach a base coupled intermediate the sock and the strip, the base providing a coupling surface for the strip.
Ingimundarson teaches footwear (600, figs. 9,10) having a pull strip (603) wherein a base (604) is coupled intermediate the sock and the strip, the base providing a coupling surface for the strip (para. 152).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a base coupled intermediate the sock and the strip of the combined reference, the base providing a coupling surface for the strip in view of Ingimundarson in order to securely fasten the strip to the sock.
Claim(s) 22 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (U.S. Patent No. D747601) in view of Amis et al. (U.S. 20200205481) and Ingimundarson et al. (US 20180042754 A1), and Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Meiselman (U.S.20150059047).
Regarding claim 22, the combined reference teaches the strip of the first pull loop, includes terminal ends (fig. 2 of Middleton); but fails to teach a cover adhesively coupling at least one terminal end of the strip to a base, and wherein the first shape of the first landing area is configured to receive a second shape of the first base.
Meiselman teaches footwear (fig. 4) having a cover (470) disposed over at least one terminal end of a strip (460) adhesively coupling at least one terminal end of the strip to a base (area under glue) (paras. 43,48, fig. 4), the first base having a second shape (see FIGS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the strip of the combined reference such that a cover is disposed over at least one terminal end of one or more of the first pull loop, the second pull loop, and the third pull loop adhesively coupling at least one terminal end of the strip to a base in view of Meiselman in order to provide further reinforcement.
When Middleton’s landing area is combined with Meiselman’s first base, the first shape of the first landing area is configured to receive a second shape of the first base (this recitation does not lend any structure to the claimed sock and does not set forth any specifics about what is required for the first shape to “receive” a second shape; the Middleton rectangle is capable of receiving the Meiselman second shape, such as by providing the second shape on top of and/ or within the boundaries of the first shape).
Regarding claim 27, the combined reference teaches the cover of the first pull loop, comprises an adhesive backing (para. 48 of Meiselman, glue).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (U.S. Patent No. D747601) in view of Amis et al. (U.S. 20200205481), Ingimundarson et al. (US 20180042754 A1), Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489), and Meiselman (U.S.20150059047) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Parker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5692319).
Regarding claim 23, the combined reference fails to teach a stitch extending through the sock, the cover, the strip, and the base of the first pull loop.
Meiselman teaches footwear (fig. 4) having a cover (470) disposed over at least one terminal end of a strip (460) to capture the strip between the cover and the base (para. 43, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stitched the cover over at least one of the strips of the combined reference such that a stitch extends through the sock, the cover, the strip, and the base of one or more of the first pull loop, the second pull loop, and the third pull loop in view of Parker in order to further reinforce the pull loop(s) attachment to the sock.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (U.S. Patent No. D747601) in view of Amis et al. (U.S. 20200205481), Ingimundarson et al. (US 20180042754 A1), Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489), Meiselman (U.S.20150059047), and Parker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5692319) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Carpenter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5950240).
Regarding claim 24, the combined reference fails to teach the stitch is a bar tack stitch.
Carpenter teaches fastening a loop to a garment using a bar tack stitch to prevent the loop from being torn away if the user pulls too hard (col. 2, lines 12-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the stitch of the combined reference as a bar tack stitch in view of Carpenter in order to prevent the loop(s) from being torn away if the user pulls too hard (col. 2, lines 12-21 of Carpenter).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (U.S. Patent No. D747601) in view of Amis et al. (U.S. 20200205481), Ingimundarson et al. (US 20180042754 A1), Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489), and Meiselman (U.S.20150059047) as applied to claim 22 above and further in view of Rees-Jones et al. (U.S. 20170175310).
Regarding claim 25, the combined reference doesn’t specifically teach the sock includes a non-ribbed landing area below the base of the first pull loop.
Rees-Jones teaches a sock/footwear formed of Jersey knitted fabric (paras. 146,147, 160-164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sock of the combined reference out of the fabric of Rees-Jones thereby including a non-ribbed landing area below the base of one or more of the first pull loop, the second pull loop and the third pull loop in order to form a sock with maximum stretch and powerful recovery to conform to the wearer (para. 164 of Rees-Jones).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (U.S. Patent No. D747601) in view of Amis et al. (U.S. 20200205481), Ingimundarson et al. (US 20180042754 A1), Groat (U.S. Patent No. 444489), and Meiselman (U.S.20150059047) as applied to claim 22 above and further in view of Baruch (U.S. Patent No. 6709729).
Regarding claim 26, the combined reference teaches the cover comprises neoprene but doesn’t specifically teach the cover comprise a stretch knit fabric.
Baruch teaches a covering layer comprising a stretch knit neoprene (col. 4, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised the cover of one or more of the first pull loop, the second pull loop, and the third pull loop of the combined reference of a stretch knit neoprene in view of Baruch in order to provide a stretchy conformable covering to increase wearer comfort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights