DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 4/21/26 in which claims 10, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27-29 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/26 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In “compression and/or compression garment”, delete “compression and/or” as the recitation is redundant (currently reads “compression garment and/or compression garment”). This occurs in [0023], [0040], [0078], [0082], [0091], [00105]
[0026] second to last sentence: before “alternated“ add –are—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10, 16, 22, 23, 27-29 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 Line 13 “wherein the dense zone has a uniform, smooth…appearance with no ribbing” should be rearranged to be at the end of Claim 10 Line 19 as [0026], [0084] indicates that this is a direct result of the offset/staggering of the inlay yarn float(s) being claimed
Claim 10 Line 13 before “dense zone” add –at least one—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 10 Line 2
Claim 16 Line 1 delete “dense zones” and substitute –at least one dense zone--
Claim 16 Line 3 delete “dense zones” and substitute –at least one dense zone—
Claim 22 Line 2 delete “compression and/or” due to redundancy
Claim 23 Line 14 before “dense zone” add –at least one—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 23 Line 3
Claim 23 Line 13 rearrange “creating a uniform, smooth…appearance with no ribbing in the…dense zone” to be at the end of Claim 23 Line 20 for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 10 Line 13
Claim 27 Line 2 before “total” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 27 Line 3 delete “done” and substitute –zone—
Claim 28 Line 4 after “stitches” add a comma
Claim 28 Line 7 before “or the tuck stitch” add a comma
Claim 29 Line 4 after “stitches” add a comma
Claim 29 Line 7 before “or the tuck stitch” add a comma
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27-29 is/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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “uniform, smooth surface appearance” in Claim 10 Line 13 is new matter. The related antecedent basis is in [0026], [0084] indicating that the staggered floats of the inlay yarn have a direct result of a “uniform, smooth appearance”. As such, adding the term “surface” is considered new matter. Examiner recommends deleting the term, and rearranging the recitation as indicated in the objections. Otherwise, a 112(a) new matter rejection may be warranted for claiming such a result separate from the staggering, without constituting a new rejection.
The term “uniform, smooth surface appearance” in Claim 23 Lines 13-14 is new matter for reasons similarly indicated or Claim 10 Line 13 and has similar recommendations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27-29 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “uniform, smooth surface appearance” in Claim 10 Line 13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term "uniform, smooth" in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite especially in light of the new matter rejection. The term "uniform, smooth" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by the offset/staggered pattern of the inlay yarn based on [0026], [0084]. Examiner recommends deleting the term “surface.”
The term “uniform, smooth surface appearance” in Claim 23 Lines 13-14 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 10 Line 13 and will be similarly interpreted.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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) 10, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Buchschuster (USPN 10689785).
Regarding Claim 10, Harris teaches a circular knit, wherein the knit is formed from a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a ground yarn (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine"; wherein a knit inherently has a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a stitch-forming yarn; nevertheless, see Fig. 2, wherein the stitch-forming yarn is in white) and comprises
at least one dense zone produced by knitting alternately, on each row of stitches, a first row (C-1) of jersey stitches and a second row (C-3) of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2 illustrating the at least one dense zone; Col. 4 Line 6 "alternating courses C-1 and C-3"), such that:
-the first row of jersey stitches is knitted on a first selection of needles, and includes at least one tuck stitch within the first row of jersey stitches, so as to form binding points with loops of the second row of stitches (see Fig. 2),
the knitting of the at least one tuck stitch is performed one stitch in two, one stitch in three, one stitch in four, or one stitch in five, within the first row of stitches (Harris Fig. 2, wherein at least a portion of the stitches is every other/one stitch in two);
the second row of jersey stitches knitted with a second selection of needles and includes knitting with a reinforcing yarn in addition to the ground yarn (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 7-8 “reinforcing yarn R”).
Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one dense zone has a uniform, smooth surface appearance with no ribbing,
and the knit further comprises an elastic inlay yarn between each row of stitches,
by creating one float, or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles that have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches,
the elastic inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively,
and the floats of the elastic inlay yarn being staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next inlay row.
Buchschuster teaches a uniform, smooth surface appearance with no ribbing (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--per applicant specification [0026], [0084], Buchschuster teaches the structures below and therefore a uniform, smooth surface appearance with no ribbing),
and the knit further comprises an elastic inlay yarn between each row of stitches (see Figs. 2, 3; Col. 4 Lines 42-43 “elastic weft yarn 2”; Col. 4 Lines 19-26 “weft yarn row s is arranged between adjacent stitch rows r of the base knit, in which a weft yarn 2 is inserted. The weft yarn 2 is then inserted in each weft yarn row s in alternation as tuck (V) and float (-)…the alternating sequence of loop (I) and tuck (V) of stitch rows r…arranged offset by one stitch”),
by creating one float, or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles that have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches (see Figs. 2, 3 for one float corresponding to needles of first row of stitches; Col. 4 Lines 14-16 “knitting yarn 1 is then knitted in each stitch row r of the base knit in alternation as loop stitch (I) and tuck (V)”; Col. 4 Lines 19-26; Col. 4 Lines 31-43 “alternating sequence of tuck (V) and float(-) of the weft yarn 2 is also offset accordingly by one stitch in consecutive weft yarn courses s. Because of the arrangement…the elastic weft yarn is initially inserted in each weft yarn course s in alternation as tuck (V) and as float (-)”; Col. 4 Lines 55-56 “knit has a periodically recurring repeat R”),
the elastic inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (see Fig. 2 every second needle),
and the floats of the elastic inlay yarn being staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next inlay row (see Fig. 2 for offset/staggered relative to next inlay row s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ knit sock with the elastic inlay float pattern of Buchschuster in order to provide a desired compression without skin irritation (Col. 2 Lines 19-21), especially as both references are directed to circularly-knit socks (Harris Fig. 1; Buchschuster Col. 3 Lines 40-43).
As such, modified Harris teaches the at least one dense zone with the claimed appearance.
Regarding Claim 19, Harris teaches a textile item (it is noted 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; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine", wherein a knit sock is a textile).
Modified Harris teaches comprising at least one of the knit according to claim 10 (see rejection of Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Harris further teaches said item being stockings, tights, or socks (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Modified Harris further teaches wherein the textile item is a compression and/or compression garment item (modified Harris has the elastic inlay yarn of Buchschuster which provides compression and therefore provides a compression garment item).
Regarding Claim 23, Harris teaches a method for circular knitting using a knitting machine to form a knit from a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a ground yarn (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine"; see Fig. 2, wherein the ground yarn is in white), and comprising
at least one dense zone, produced by knitting alternately, on each row of stitches, a first row (C-1) of jersey stitches and a second row (C-3) of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2 illustrating the at least one dense zone; Col. 4 Line 6 "alternating courses C-1 and C-3"), such that:
-the first row of jersey stitches is knitted on a first selection of needles, and includes at least one tuck stitch within the first row of jersey stitches, so as to form binding points with loops of the second row of stitches (see Fig. 2),
the knitting of the at least one tuck stitch is performed one stitch in two, one stitch in three or one stitch in four or one stitch in five, within the first row of stitches (see Fig. 2 for one stitch in two),
-the second row of jersey stitches is knitted with a second selection of needles and includes knitting with a reinforcing yarn in addition to the ground yarn (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 7-8 "reinforcing yarn R").
Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises creating a uniform, smooth surface appearance with no ribbing in the at least one dense zone,
an elastic inlay yarn being inserted between each row of stitches,
by creating one float, or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches,
the elastic inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively,
and the floats of the elastic inlay yarn being staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next.
Buchschuster teaches creating a uniform, smooth surface appearance with no ribbing (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--per applicant specification [0026], [0084], Buchschuster teaches the structures below and therefore a uniform, smooth surface appearance with no ribbing),
an elastic inlay yarn being inserted between each row of stitches (see Figs. 2, 3; Col. 4 Lines 42-43 “elastic weft yarn 2”; Col. 4 Lines 19-26 “weft yarn row s is arranged between adjacent stitch rows r of the base knit, in which a weft yarn 2 is inserted. The weft yarn 2 is then inserted in each weft yarn row s in alternation as tuck (V) and float (-)…the alternating sequence of loop (I) and tuck (V) of stitch rows r…arranged offset by one stitch”),
by creating one float, or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches (see Figs. 2, 3 for one float corresponding to needles of first row of stitches; Col. 4 Lines 14-16 “knitting yarn 1 is then knitted in each stitch row r of the base knit in alternation as loop stitch (I) and tuck (V)”; Col. 4 Lines 19-26; Col. 4 Lines 31-43 “alternating sequence of tuck (V) and float(-) of the weft yarn 2 is also offset accordingly by one stitch in consecutive weft yarn courses s. Because of the arrangement…the elastic weft yarn is initially inserted in each weft yarn course s in alternation as tuck (V) and as float (-)”; Col. 4 Lines 55-56 “knit has a periodically recurring repeat R”; Col. 4 Lines 42-43 “elastic weft yarn 2”),
the elastic inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (see Fig. 2 every second needle),
and the floats of the elastic inlay yarn being staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next inlay row (see Fig. 2 for offset/staggered relative to next inlay row s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ knit sock with the elastic inlay float pattern of Buchschuster in order to provide a desired compression without skin irritation (Col. 2 Lines 19-21), especially as both references are directed to circularly-knit socks (Harris Fig. 1; Buchschuster Col. 3 Lines 40-43).
As such, modified Harris teaches the at least one dense zone with the claimed appearance.
Regarding Claim 28, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Buchschuster further teaches wherein the knit presents successive columns (see Figs. 2, 3) and:
-in each column, the float of the inlay yarn is aligned with the stitch of the first row of the jersey stitches, or a tuck stitch of the inlay yarn is aligned with the tuck stitch of the first row of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2 for both instances), and
-in at least one column, the float of the inlay yarn is aligned with the tuck stitch of the next inlay row, or the tuck stitch of the inlay yarn is aligned with the float of the next inlay row (see Fig. 2 for both instances).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Buchschuster further teaches wherein the knit presents successive columns (see Figs. 2, 3) and:
-in each column, the float of the inlay yarn is aligned with the stitch of the first row of the jersey stitches, or a tuck stitch of the inlay yarn is aligned with the tuck stitch of the first row of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2 for both instances), and
-in at least one column, the float of the inlay yarn is aligned with the tuck stitch of the next inlay row, or the tuck stitch of the inlay yarn is aligned with the float of the next inlay row (see Fig. 2 for both instances).
Claim(s) 16, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Buchschuster (USPN 10689785), further in view of Fray (USPN 6257025).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Harris further teaches wherein the at least one dense zone creates uniform geometric shapes evenly dispersed over the surface of the knit (see Fig. 1).
Harris does not explicitly teach and whose total surface area of the at least one dense zone is less than 10% of a total surface area of the knit.
However, Harris teaches a sock (Col. 1 Line 62).
Fray at least suggests a total surface area of the at least one zone is less than 10% of the total surface area of the knit (Col. 2 Lines 63-67 "hose 10 is knitted, preferably on a circular knitting machine, and may be a sock, a women’s stocking...a leg of panty hose, a leotard, a body suit").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ sock to be a knit as taught by Fray, such as a pantyhose, especially as Fray shows it is known in art that designs for socks can also be applied to panty hose depending on the aesthetic design choice.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Harris teaches the recitation (modified Harris discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the surface area comparisons. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris such that the at least one zone is less than 10% of the total surface area, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, especially depending on the size of the intended user (see extrinsic evidence North USPN 0405903, which clearly shows that modified Harris can be obviously modified to meet the recitation based on size of user). It has been held that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Harris further teaches wherein the at least one dense zone creates uniform geometric shapes evenly dispersed over the surface of the knit (see Fig. 1).
Harris does not explicitly teach whose total surface area of the at least one dense zone is less than 10% of a total surface area of the knit.
However, Harris teaches a sock (Col. 1 Line 62).
Fray at least suggests a total surface area of the at least one zone is less than 10% of the total surface area of the knit (Col. 2 Lines 63-67 "hose 10 is knitted, preferably on a circular knitting machine, and may be a sock, a women’s stocking...a leg of panty hose, a leotard, a body suit").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ sock to be a knit as taught by Fray, such as a pantyhose, especially as Fray shows it is known in art that designs for socks can also be applied to panty hose depending on the aesthetic design choice.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Harris teaches the recitation (modified Harris discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the surface area comparisons. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris such that the at least one zone is less than 10% of the total surface area, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, especially depending on the size of the intended user (see extrinsic evidence North USPN 0405903, which clearly shows that modified Harris can be obviously modified to meet the recitation based on size of user). It has been held that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27-29 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks beginning on page 8 that the office does not teach “uniform smooth surface appearance with no ribbing”—examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the specification antecedent basis for the term in [0026] and [0084], this is taught by the offset/staggered structure of the inlay floats. In other words, inasmuch as the offset/staggered structure of the inlay floats exist, the uniform smooth surface appearance with no ribbing exists, especially as the terms uniform and smooth are relative. As such, even if Imboden were still utilized, its disclosure of “waffle effect” does not teach away inasmuch as modified Harris teaches the offset/staggered structure of the inlay floats in light of Imboden (see response to remarks of page 12 below).
Pertaining to remarks on page 10 that the combination of Harris and Gaither is improper due to structural incompatibility due to limitations not taught by Gaither—examiner respectfully disagrees. To clarify, this is one of the reasons why the advisory action indicated that the arguments were piecemeal, and arguing against references individually. The allegedly missing limitations are already taught by Harris in the independent claim, and Gaither is merely utilized to teach the motivation for an inlay yarn as recited. 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).
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that the combination of Harris and Gaither is cherry-picking-- examiner respectfully disagrees. First, remarks have not addressed the actual motivation provided for the combination of Harris and Gaither (for example: for compression, as indicated on page 7 of the final rejection 10/22/25). Furthermore, in response to such an argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and/or MPEP 707.07(f).
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that the combination of Harris and Gaither is hindsight—examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Pertaining to remarks on page 12 that Gaither does not disclose the one float, or consecutive floats and therefore is improper combination—examiner respectfully disagrees. Similarly as aforementioned, this remark is piecemeal, as references Imboden and Danaher were utilized to teach these limitations in Claims 5, 6, 14, 15. Danaher has not been addressed by the remarks.
Pertaining to remarks on page 12 that Imboden is for floats of a ground yarn and not an inlay yarn and therefore is not proper for combination—examiner respectfully disagrees. Harris already teaches the float pattern of an inlay yarn, and is merely silent that a float pattern can be staggered. Imboden teaches a float pattern can be staggered. Regardless of whether the pattern is for a ground yarn or inlay yarn, the staggered pattern is clearly taught by Imboden and the motivation for aesthetics applies regardless of whether for ground or inlay. Examiner notes even if Imboden were not used, Danaher Fig. 7A teaches all claims in conjunction with Harris and Gaither, except Claims 28, 29. Nevertheless, for the sake of compact prosecution, a new rejection is presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Lochhead (USPN 2100861) directed to weft inlay yarn has floats that align with the tucks of the row of jersey stitches.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights