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 .
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 1-6, 8, 9, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0180046 (hereinafter “Davis”), and further in view of United States Patent Number 4,188,988 (hereinafter “Agyagos”).Regarding claim 1 Davis teaches a folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 comprising an elongate body defining a plurality of inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 each foldably connected to immediately neighboring panels thereof, the plurality of panels comprising an initial panel as a first end, at least one tertiary panel defining a second end, and an immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel between the initial panel and the at least one tertiary panel; wherein the plurality of panels are foldable upon one another beginning from the second end toward the first end of the elongate body onto itself repeatedly (paragraph [0053], and Figures 1-2). Davis teaches each of the plurality of inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 has substantially the same dimensions aligned along the X-axis (central longitudinal axis) of the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 (paragraph [0056] and Figure 1), which corresponds to a width oriented parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the elongate body, the width being continuous across each of the plurality of inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112. Davis teaches a plurality of hinges 114 that separate adjacent inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 may swing in 180° in either direction (paragraph [0058]). Davis teaches the closed apparatus can be joined together with devices such as straps (paragraphs [0065]). Davis teaches the inserts (panels comprising a sheet of material) 106, 108, 110, 112 are designed to support the larger weight of an animal and/or person, including an obese person (paragraphs [0053]). Davis does not explicitly teach the inserts (panels comprising a sheet of material) have a load rating of at least 500 pounds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate load rating of the inserts using nothing more than routine experimentation based on the weight requirement for the intended use of the folding patient transfer apparatus. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Davis does not explicitly teach the plurality of panels are foldable upon one another beginning from the second end toward the first end of the elongate body onto itself repeatedly until any tertiary panels are contained between the initial panel and the immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel, and a first handle extending from the initial panel and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel at a position to align with the first handle when the elongate body is in a fully folded state. Agyagos teaches a sheet assembly (elongate body) 1 comprising a plurality of panels which include four different sections (initial panel defining a first end, at least one tertiary panel defining a second end, and an immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel between the initial panel and the at least one tertiary panel) which are foldable into a closed configuration, where a pair of hand grips (first handle and second handle) 16 are aligned with each other to provide a carrying handle for the folded bag (abstract, column 3, lines 7-10, and Figures 2 and 4-6). Agyagos teaches the four different sections of the bag are foldable upon one another beginning from a second end toward a first end of the sheet assembly (elongate body) 1 onto itself repeatedly, where the folds are centered around the placement of the pair of hand grips (first handle and second handle) 16 (Figures 5-6). Agyagos does not explicitly teach the pair of hand grips 16 include a first handle extending from the initial panel and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pair of hand grips 16 including a first handle extending from the initial panel defining a first end and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). This modification corresponds to plurality of panels are foldable upon one another beginning from the second end toward the first end of the elongate body onto itself repeatedly until any tertiary panels are contained between the initial panel and the immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel, and a first handle extending from the initial panel and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel at a position to align with the first handle when the elongate body is in a fully folded state. Davis and Agyagos are analogous inventions in the field of foldable sheet assemblies. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 of Davis with the pair of hand grips 16 of Agyagos to provide a convenient carrying means for the patient transfer apparatus in its folded, unused state. The recitation of “[a] portable, foldable mat for constructions sites” has been considered. It is submitted that, according to MPEP § 2111.02, intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the structure of the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) from the combination of Davis and Agyagos is capable of performing the intended use of being used in construction sites.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Agyagos teaches the pair of hand grips (first handle and second handle) 16 is made of a fabric tape 32 which is sewn into (fixedly attached to) the bottom of the sheet assembly (elongate body) 1 (column 3, lines 7-10, and Figures 1 and 6).Regarding claim 3 In addition, Agyagos teaches the pair of hand grips (first handle and second handle) 16 are defined by an endless oval strap of material 32 sewn to the initial panel and the immediately neighboring second panel (column 3, lines 7-10, and Figures 1, 5 and 6).Regarding claim 4 In addition, Agyagos teaches the endless oval strap has a central longitudinal axis aligned with a central longitudinal axis of the sheet assembly (elongate body) 1 (Figure 1).Regarding claim 5 In addition, Davis teaches each panel comprises a top layer 102 and a bottom layer 104 (covering 102, 104) encapsulating the inserts (panels comprising a sheet of material) 106, 108, 110, 112 in a chamber (compartment) 122 (Figures 1 and 11, and paragraphs [0058] and [0064]).Regarding claim 6 In addition, Davis teaches the top layer 102 and a bottom layer 104 (covering 102, 104) comprises two elongate pieces of textile fabric sewn together via perimeter seams 120 and insert seams 114 to define each chamber (compartment) 122 (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0059] and [0064], and Figures 1-2).Regarding claim 8 In addition, Davis teaches each compartment is defined by sewn material hinges (sewn seams) 1114 extending in direction Y which is transverse to a direction X (central longitudinal axis of the elongate body) between immediately neighboring inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 (Figure 1, and paragraphs [0058] and [0064]).Regarding claim 9 In addition, Davis teaches in between immediately neighboring panels there are at least two stitches (forming sewn seams) spaced apart a pre-selected distance from one another to define a hinge region 1114 of the covering (Annotated Figure 11, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13 In addition, Davis teaches the elongate body includes three or more inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 (Figure 1).Regarding claim 14 In addition, Davis teaches the folding patient transfer apparatus (elongate body) 100 is preferably large enough to accommodate an average sized adult person with a preferred length of between 48 inches (4 feet) and 96 inches (8 feet) (paragraph [0053]), which overlaps the claimed range.Regarding claim 15 In addition, Davis teaches variations of the folding patient transfer apparatus 100 can be properly sized for smaller pediatric patients and for larger or obese patients and/or animals (paragraph [0053]). Davis does not explicitly teach the elongate body of the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 is at least 10 feet long. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate length for the elongate body of the folding patient transfer apparatus using nothing more than routine experimentation to properly size the folding patient transfer apparatus to be useful for larger patients or animals. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Regarding claim 16 In addition, Davis teaches a preferred embodiment where the rigid inserts (each of the plurality of panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 are substantially 18 inches long along the X direction (width oriented parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the elongate body) and 24 inches wide along the Y direction (paragraph [0057] and Figure 1), which falls within the claimed range.Regarding claim 17 In addition, Davis teaches a preferred width of between 20 inches and 30 inches (paragraph [0053]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Agyagos as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0173473 (hereinafter “Jenkins”).Regarding claim 7 The limitations for claim 6 have been set forth above. As previously noted, Davis teaches the top layer 102 and a bottom layer 104 (covering 102, 104) comprises two elongate pieces of textile fabric sewn together to define each chamber (compartment) 122 (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0059] and [0064], and Figures 1-2). Davis teaches the material top layer 102 and bottom layer 104 can comprise any material and/or fabric known by those of skill in the art, including a textile fabric comprising polyethylene fabric (paragraph [0055]), which corresponds to a first textile fabric comprising polyethylene fabric for the bottom layer 104 (defining a bottom surface of the covering 102, 104). Davis also teaches the material top and bottom layers 102 and 104 further allow the folding patient transfer apparatus 100 to comprise properties of substantially water proof, impervious to body fluids, antimicrobial, antibiotic, antistatic, latex free and scratch resistant properties (Id). Davis does not explicitly teach a second textile fabric comprising vinyl coated polyester fabric for the top layer 102 (defining a top surface of the covering 102, 104). Jenkins teaches an activity mat that is convertible to a carrying bag (paragraph [0002]). Jenkins teaches the activity mat 1 is formed of a first waterproof surface 2 and a second non-slip surface 3, where the first surface 2 may be a waterproof material such as vinyl coated polyester, etc. (paragraph [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the top layer 102 (defining a top surface of the covering 102, 104) of Davis with the vinyl coated polyester material of Jenkins to provide a waterproof material on the top surface of the folding patient transfer apparatus 100, as desired by Davis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Agyagos as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of JP 11-062191 A (1999) with a machine translation (concurrently submitted) (hereinafter “Koshi”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 10 The limitations for claim 6 have been set forth above. As previously noted, Davis teaches the top layer 102 and a bottom layer 104 (covering 102, 104) comprises two elongate pieces of textile fabric sewn together to define each chamber (compartment) 122 (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0059] and [0064], and Figures 1-2). In addition, Davis teaches perimeter seams 120 (defining a periphery of the folding patient transfer apparatus), in addition to the insert seams 114, are constructed to aid in holding the inserts 106, 108, 110, 112 in place (paragraph [0058]). Davis does not explicitly teach a binding of textile material is sewn to the top layer (second textile fabric) 102 and a bottom layer (first textile fabric) 104 to define a periphery of the folding patient transfer apparatus (elongate body) 100. Koshi teaches a portable foldable mat 34 (Figure 1 and paragraph [0008]). Koshi teaches a binding of textile material 30 being sewn by threads 13 into fabrics 10, 12 to reinforce a periphery of the mat 34 (Figures 1, 2 and 4, and paragraphs [0011], [0012] and [0014]). Davis and Koshi are analogous inventions in the field of portable foldable mats. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the perimeter seams 120 of Davis with the binding of textile material 30 of Koshi to reinforce peripheral edges of the elongate body resulting in a stronger mat, and/or preventing fraying at the peripheral edges of the mat.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Agyagos, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0353882 (hereinafter “Jose”).Regarding claims 11 and 12 Davis teaches a folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 comprising an elongate body defining a plurality of inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 each foldably connected to immediately neighboring panels thereof, the plurality of panels comprising an initial panel as a first end, at least one tertiary panel defining a second end, and an immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel between the initial panel and the at least one tertiary panel; wherein the plurality of panels are foldable upon one another beginning from the second end toward the first end of the elongate body onto itself repeatedly (paragraph [0053], and Figures 1-2).
Davis teaches a plurality of hinges 114 that separate adjacent inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 may swing in 180° in either direction (paragraph [0058]).
Davis teaches the closed apparatus can be joined together with devices such as straps (paragraphs [0065]).
Davis teaches the inserts (panels comprising a sheet of material) 106, 108, 110, 112 are designed to support the larger weight of an animal and/or person, including an obese person (paragraphs [0053]).
Davis does not explicitly teach the inserts (plurality of panels) have a load rating of at least 500 pounds per wheel relative to a loaded drywall cart. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate load rating of the inserts using nothing more than routine experimentation based on the weight requirement for the intended use of the folding patient transfer apparatus. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Davis does not explicitly teach the plurality of panels are foldable upon one another beginning from the second end toward the first end of the elongate body onto itself repeatedly until any tertiary panels are contained between the initial panel and the immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel, and a first handle extending from the initial panel and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel at a position to align with the first handle when the elongate body is in a fully folded state.
Agyagos teaches a sheet assembly (elongate body) 1 comprising a plurality of panels which include four different sections (initial panel defining a first end, at least one tertiary panel defining a second end, and an immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel between the initial panel and the at least one tertiary panel) which are foldable into a closed configuration, where a pair of hand grips (first handle and second handle) 16 are aligned with each other to provide a carrying handle for the folded bag (abstract, column 3, lines 7-10, and Figures 2 and 4-6). Agyagos teaches the four different sections of the bag are foldable upon one another beginning from a second end toward a first end of the sheet assembly (elongate body) 1 onto itself repeatedly, where the folds are centered around the placement of the pair of hand grips (first handle and second handle) 16 (Figures 5-6).
Agyagos does not explicitly teach the pair of hand grips 16 include a first handle extending from the initial panel and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pair of hand grips 16 including a first handle extending from the initial panel defining a first end and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). This modification corresponds to plurality of panels are foldable upon one another beginning from the second end toward the first end of the elongate body onto itself repeatedly until any tertiary panels are contained between the initial panel and the immediately neighboring second panel of the initial panel, and a first handle extending from the initial panel and a second handle extending from the immediately neighboring second panel at a position to align with the first handle when the elongate body is in a fully folded state.
Davis and Agyagos are analogous inventions in the field of foldable sheet assemblies. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 of Davis with the pair of hand grips 16 of Agyagos to provide a convenient carrying means for the patient transfer apparatus in its folded, unused state.
The recitation of “[a] portable, foldable mat for delivering drywall on wheeled carts” has been considered. It is submitted that, according to MPEP § 2111.02, intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the structure of the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) from the combination of Davis and Agyagos is capable of performing the intended use of being used for delivering drywall on wheeled carts. Davis teaches in a preferred embodiment the thickness of the inserts (each sheet of material) 106, 108, 110, 112 ranges from 1/8 to 3/8 inches (0.125 to 0.375 inches) (paragraph [0057]), which falls within the claimed range. Davis also teaches each insert (each sheet of material) 106, 108, 110, 112 is made from a rigid material including polyethylene, thermoplastics, and the like (paragraph [0056]). Davis does not explicitly teach the inserts (each sheet of material) 106, 108, 110, 112 comprise high density polyethylene (HDPE). Jose teaches a suitcase comprising a rigid bottom panel 101 exhibiting slight flexing (abstract and paragraphs [0070] – [0072]). Jose teaches the bottom panel may be made of hard plastic, such as hard thermoplastics including high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (paragraph [0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the thermoplastic/polyethylene rigid material of the inserts (plurality of panels) of Davis with the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) hard plastic of Jose motivated by the desire to form a conventional rigid polyethylene for a weight supporting structure, comprising HDPE as being known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming such a rigid polyethylene.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Agyagos, and Jose as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jenkins.Regarding claim 18 The limitations for claim 11 have been set forth above. In addition, Davis teaches a top layer (covering) 102 and a bottom layer (covering) 104 comprises two elongate pieces of textile fabric sewn together to define separate chambers 122 (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0059] and [0064], and Figures 1-2). Davis teaches the material top layer (covering) 102 and material bottom layer (covering) 104 can comprise any material and/or fabric known by those of skill in the art, including a polyethylene fabric (paragraph [0055]), which corresponds to the bottom covering 104 comprising polyethylene fabric. Davis also teaches the material top and bottom layers 102 and 104 further allow the folding patient transfer apparatus 100 to comprise properties of substantially water proof, impervious to body fluids, antimicrobial, antibiotic, antistatic, latex free and scratch resistant properties (Id). Davis does not explicitly teach the top layer (covering) 102 comprising vinyl coated polyester. Jenkins teaches an activity mat that is convertible to a carrying bag (paragraph [0002]). Jenkins teaches the activity mat 1 is formed of a first waterproof surface 2 and a second non-slip surface 3, where the first surface 2 may be a waterproof material such as vinyl coated polyester, etc. (paragraph [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the top layer (covering) 102 of Davis with the vinyl coated polyester material of Jenkins to provide a waterproof material on the top surface of the folding patient transfer apparatus 100, as desired by Davis.Regarding claim 19 In addition, Davis teaches each of the plurality of inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 is encapsulated between the top layer (covering) 102 and the bottom layer (covering) 104 in a respective individual compartment defined by perimeter seams 120 and insert seams 114, 1114 (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0059] and [0064], and Figures 1-2 and 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 27 August 2025, with respect to the objection of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed 27 August 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the additional consideration of Jenkins.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued Davis teaches a plurality of handhold openings which are required, which does not correspond to the claimed feature which requires a width that is continuous across each of the plurality of panels. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Davis explicitly teaches, as is included in the updated rejection of record, each of the plurality of inserts (panels) 106, 108, 110, 112 has substantially the same dimensions aligned along the X-axis (central longitudinal axis) of the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 (paragraph [0056] and Figure 1). The width of the inserts (panels) as is commensurate in scope with the claims is defined as the distance of the inserts 106, 108, 110, 112 between adjacent insert seams 114 or between an insert seam 114 and adjacent perimeter seam 120 in the X direction. The applicant argued the proposed modification of Davis by Agyagos would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because there is no suggestion or motivation to remove the handhold openings to arrive at the presently claimed invention. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record because the examiner does not contemplate removing the handhold openings from Davis; but rather, states that it would have been obvious to modify the folding patient transfer apparatus (portable, foldable mat) 100 of Davis with the pair of hand grips 16 of Agyagos to provide a convenient carrying means for the patient transfer apparatus in its folded, unused state. This modification fails to implicate the requirement for such a removal. Regarding claim 10, this claim is considered to be obvious over the prior art currently of record for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, as detailed above. Regarding claim 11, the applicant argued there is no teaching that the between Davis, Agyagos, and Jose to have an HDPE that has a load rating of 500 pounds relative to a loaded drywall cart. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Davis teaches rigid thermoplastic materials are used for the inserts, where polyethylene “and the like” materials are also disclosed. Jose teaches the use of a rigid HDPE thermoplastic material, which is considered to correspond to “the like” materials from Davis. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that substituting the thermoplastic of Davis with the HDPE of Jose would require nothing more than routine skill. Furthermore, Davis provides sufficient teaching and motivation for why a person having ordinary skill in the art would rely on nothing more than routine experimentation to determine a load rating of the apparatus. Jose has not been relied upon for the load rating determination in the rejection currently of record. The applicant argued Jose is not analogous art because Jose is not: in the same field of endeavor; and pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jose is in the same field of endeavor which is a load supporting rigid thermoplastic material sheets. Jose is also pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which is providing a rigid material capable of supporting weight. The applicant argued a typical force of Jose’s disclosure cannot and do not compare to a wheeled cart having 500 lbs or more per wheel. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Davis teaches a thickness and polyethylene material for the inserts that renders obvious the load rating as claimed, and using a known rigid polyethylene (such as the HDPE from Jose) requires nothing more than routine skill.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783