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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-7, and 15 is/are amended. Claim 20 is newly canceled and claim 19 remains canceled. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “connection means” in claim 1 line 8, “adjustment means” in claim 1 line 10, “lock means” in claim 13 line 2. Claim 1 line 8 sets forth the limitation “connection means for removably connecting the front protection element to the main body”, which invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites a means plus function without sufficient structure in the claim. Claim 1 line 10 sets forth the limitation “adjustment means designed to be handled by the user for adjusting the size of the inner space according to the sizes of the body of the user”, which also invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites a means plus function without sufficient structure in the claim. Claim 13 line 2 sets forth the limitation “lock means for locking the rotatable element upon rotation thereof and/or once the at least one section of the closed-loop wire has been wound”, which also invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites a means plus function without sufficient structure in the claim.
For claim 1 line 8, the corresponding/equivalent structure is defined on pages 8 and 9 of the specification, where the connection means comprises a closed-loop wire and at least one belt.
For claim 1 line 10, the corresponding/equivalent structure is defined on page 10 of the specification, where the adjustment means comprises a rotatable element.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning of “wherein the protection device is a karting body protection meeting requirements of International Automobile Federation standard 8870-2018 and thereby providing a design that enables a wearer to operate a kart while providing protection to the wearer from potential impacts against projecting parts from the kart during its operation”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear which year of the standard the limitation intends to claim, and therefore, the metes and boundaries of International Automobile Federation standard 8870-2018 cannot be ascertained. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify/define in the claim limitation which year of the International Automobile Federation standard the limitation intends to claim. Further, it is unclear to which structure “its operation” is referring, whether the limitation intends to claim the operation of the kart, the operation of the protection device, or the operation of another structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the protection device meets the requirements of at least absorbing energy as provided by p. 1 of Applicant’s specification during operation of the protection device. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan et al. (US 2019/0041167 A1).
Regarding claim 1, insofar as is definite, Swan discloses a protection device (100) for protecting the sides/the ribs, the back and the chest of a user (at least paras. 64 & 78; Figs. 1-2), comprising:
- a main body (120, 130) designed to protect the sides/the ribs and the back of the user (para. 64; Figs. 1-2 show 120 and 130 protecting the back and the sides of the user respectively);
- a front protection element (110) designed to protect the chest of the user (para. 8 discloses a first “chest panel”) and removably connected to the main body (paras. 10 & 78, where the chest panel 110 is “releasably attached” to 120 and 130), the main body and the front protection element being movable relative to one another (para. 79 discloses 120, 130 and 110 movable relative to one another via 127) and delimiting an inner space (Figs. 1-2, where the inner space is the cavity of 100 that encloses the wearer’s body) for the body of the user (para. 78, where 110, 120, and 130 are releasably attached via 132 and once 132 is released, the inner space increases and when 132 is engaged, the inner space is delimited);
- connection means (132) for removably connecting the front protection element to the main body (para. 78);
- adjustment means (para. 77, tensioning mechanism) designed to be handled by the user for adjusting the size of the inner space according to the sizes of the body of the user (para. 77); wherein the connection means and the adjustment means are distinct there between and are at least partially and operatively associated (paras. 77-78, where the tensioning mechanism and 132 are distinctly different structures and “operatively associated” because they are both comprised on 130); and wherein the protection device is a karting body protection meeting requirements of International Automobile Federation standard 8870-2018 and thereby providing a design that enables a wearer to operate a kart while providing protection to the wearer from potential impacts against projecting parts from the kart during its operation (It is noted that the recitation “wherein the protection device is a karting body protection meeting requirements of International Automobile Federation standard 8870-2018 and thereby providing a design that enables a wearer to operate a kart while providing protection to the wearer from potential impacts against projecting parts from the kart during its operation” is 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; Swan discloses the structures as claimed, and therefore, the protection device of Swan is a karting body protection meeting requirements of International Automobile Federation standard 8870-2018 and thereby providing a design that enables a wearer to operate a kart while providing protection to the wearer from potential impacts against projecting parts from the kart during its operation inasmuch as claimed, and as best understood; Swan additionally discloses in para. 4 that 100 is worn during military operations with associated equipment, and therefore meets the claimed limitation as best understood).
Regarding claim 2, Swan discloses the protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the front protection element comprises a rigid or semi-rigid outer shell (112; Fig. 1; paras. 66 & 72, where 112 on 110 is made of a “rigid material” and 112 is facing outwardly toward the environment, and therefore, “a rigid outer shell”).
Regarding claim 3, Swan discloses the protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the main body has a front opening for making the inner space accessible from the outside (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the space between 110 and 130 is “a front opening”; the circled area is a front opening when 132 is disengaged, and once 132 is disengaged or not connected, the front opening is functionally “for making the inner space accessible from the outside), the front opening being covered by the front protection element removably connected to the main body (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the front opening is covered by 110 as connected to 130 via 132 because the space between 110 and 130 is “covered” inasmuch as claimed; Examiner notes the term “covered” is very broad and merely means “to place something upon or over, so as to protect or conceal”, see defn. no. 1a of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/covered, and therefore, 110 covers, or is placed upon 130 via 132, to conceal the front opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
615
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Swan discloses the protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the main body comprises two side protection elements (Figs. 1-2, left and right 130) for protecting the ribs of the user (It is noted that the recitation “for protecting the ribs of the user” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As such, Swan discloses the structure as claimed) and a back protection element (120) for protecting the back of the user (para. 66 discloses 120 is a “back plate assembly”; It is noted that the recitation “for protecting the back of the user” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As such, Swan discloses the structure as claimed), the connection means being designed for removably connecting the front protection element to at least one of the side protection elements (para. 78).
Regarding claim 5, Swan discloses the protection device according to claim 4, characterized in that the side protection elements and the back protection element comprise rigid or semi-rigid outer shells (para. 72, where 112 and 122 are made of a rigid material and are facing outwardly toward the environment, and therefore, are “rigid outer shells”; para. 82, where 112 and 122 are “attached to and/or formed in a lower portion of the panel, and may general extend under the arms of the user in the vicinity of the cummerbund element(s) 130”, and therefore, 130 includes 112 and 122).
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banducci (US 2019/0226811 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Banducci discloses a protection device (10) for protecting the sides/the ribs, the back and the chest of a user (para. 21 & Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a main body (14 and a first side as annotated below in Fig. 2, and a second side is opposite to the annotated first side) designed to protect the sides/the ribs and the back of the user (paras. 3 & 25, where 10 protects the torso of the user, which includes the sides and back of the wearer);
PNG
media_image2.png
559
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a front protection element (12) designed to protect the chest of the user (paras. 3 & 20, where 10 protects the torso of the user, which includes the chest of the wearer) and removably connected to the main body (para. 20, “the front panel 12 and the back panel 14 may be selectively separable”), the main body and the front protection element being movable relative to one another (see annotated Fig. 2 above, where 12, 14, and annotated sides are movable relative to one another when a wearer dons the protection device and fits the protection device to the wearer’s torso) and delimiting an inner space for the body of the user (para. 26, where tension of 18 is adjusted to move 14 and 12, and therefore, “delimiting an inner space”; Figs. 1-2, where the inner space is the cavity where the wearer’s body is enclosed by 10);
connection means (18, 20, 22) for removably connecting the front protection element to the main body (Figs. 1-2 & paras. 25-26, where 30 of 18 selectively couples 12 to 14 and the first and second sides of 10);
adjustment means (24) designed to be handled by the user for adjusting the size of the inner space according to the sizes of the body of the user (paras. 25-26, where “using the rotary tension knob 24” adjusts the tension of 18, and therefore, 24 is functionally “designed to be handled by the user for adjusting the size of the inner space according to the sizes of the body of the user” inasmuch as claimed); wherein the connection means and the adjustment means are distinct there between and are at least partially and operatively associated (paras. 25-26);
and wherein the protection device is a karting body protection meeting requirements of International Automobile Federation standard 8870-2018 and thereby providing a design that enables a wearer to operate a kart while providing protection to the wearer from potential impacts against projecting parts from the kart during its operation (It is noted that the recitation “wherein the protection device is a karting body protection meeting requirements of International Automobile Federation standard 8870-2018 and thereby providing a design that enables a wearer to operate a kart while providing protection to the wearer from potential impacts against projecting parts from the kart during its operation” is 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; para. 4 discloses 10 is a protection device that at least absorbs energy because it is a ballistic garment; Banducci discloses the structures as claimed and as best understood).
Regarding claim 7, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the connection means comprises a closed-loop wire (20, 22; Fig. 1 & para. 22 discloses 22 are “formed of a high-strength cord”, and therefore, a closed-loop wire inasmuch as claimed) slidably coupled to the front protection element and to the main body (para. 22 and Figs. 1-2, slidably coupled to the front protection element and to the main body).
Regarding claim 8, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 7, characterized in that a first side end (see annotated Fig. 1 below) of the closed-loop wire and a second side end of the closed-loop wire opposite to the first side end are slidably coupled to the main body (see annotated Fig. 1 below & para. 22, where the first and second side ends are opposite one another and are slidably coupled to the main body) or to the side protection elements.
PNG
media_image3.png
446
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 7, characterized in that the adjustment means comprise a rotatable element (para. 22, where 24 is a “rotary” tensioning knob) partially engaging at least one section of the closed-loop wire (para. 22, where 24 is coupled to at least one end 23a and 23b of 22), the rotation of the rotatable element allowing sliding of the closed-loop wire (para. 22 discloses 24 adjusting 22, and therefore, functionally allows “the rotation of the rotatable element allowing sliding of the closed-loop wire”).
Regarding claim 12, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 11, characterized in that the rotatable element is round (Fig. 1) and has two angularly offset slots (Fig. 1) for an entry (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and an exit (see annotated Fig. 1 below) of the at least one section of the closed-loop wire (para. 22; see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the left side of 24 where the entry and exit are located is “at least one section”), the rotatable element being designed for winding or un-winding the closed-loop wire (para. 22 discloses 24 is adjustable by rotating, and therefore, “designed for winding or un-winding the closed-loop wire” inasmuch as claimed).
PNG
media_image4.png
421
457
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 8, characterized in that a first side and a second side of the front protection (see annotated Fig. 1 below) are superimposed over the front ends of the main body (Fig. 1 & annotated Fig. 1 below shows the first and second side superimposed over left and right 32; paras. 25-26) or of the side protection elements, the degree of overlap between the first side and the second side of the front protection element and the front ends of the main body or the side protection elements varying during sliding of the closed-loop wire and adjustment of the size of the inner space (Fig. 1, paras. 23-25 discloses that as 22 and 24 are tensioned, “the degree of overlap between the sides of the front protection element and the front ends of the main body varying during sliding of the closed-loop wire and adjustment of the size of the inner space”).
PNG
media_image5.png
424
457
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the connection means comprises at least one belt (30; Fig. 2 & para. 26) having a first end (see annotated Fig. 2 below) secured to a side of the front protection element (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the first end is secured to a side of the front protection element via 32, 34, and 22) and second end (see annotated Fig. 2 below) removably secured to the main body or to a side protection element (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
557
496
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 16, characterized in that the second end of the at least one belt and one of the side ends of the closed-loop wire is associated with a plate (34; Examiner notes the term “associated” is very broad and merely means “following or accompanying”, see adj. defn. no. 3 of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/associated, and therefore, “the at least one belt and one of the side ends of the closed-loop wire is associated with a plate” inasmuch as claimed).
Banducci does not directly disclose the second end of the at least one belt and one of the side ends of the closed-loop wire is associated with a plate removably fastened to the main body or to one of the side protection elements.
However, a second embodiment (Figs. 6A-6D) of Banducci teaches the second end of the at least one belt and one of the side ends of the closed-loop wire is associated with a plate removably fastened to the main body or to one of the side protection elements (para. 35 discloses a disassembled state for 34, and therefore, 34 is “removably fastened to one of the side protection elements as annotated in Fig. 2 above in the rejection of claim 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plate of the first embodiment of Banducci to be removably fastened to one of the side protection elements, as taught by the second embodiment of Banducci, in order to adjust the comfort and fit of the garment for the wearer.
Regarding claim 18, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 1, characterized in that the adjustment means are arranged on the front protection element (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan et al. (US 2019/0041167 A1), in view of Stanzione (US 2016/0309807 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Swan discloses the protection device according to claim 4, characterized in that the side protection elements are connected to opposite lateral sides of the back protection element (Figs. 1-2; para. 79 discloses left and right 130 are connected/attached to left and right sides of 120/122 via fasteners 127, where left and right sides are opposite lateral sides of 120/122).
Swan does not directly disclose the side protection elements are connected to the opposite lateral sides of the back protection element by at least one hinge.
However, Stanzione teaches a protective device (100) with protection elements (200, 300) that are connected by at least one hinge (400).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the securement system of Swan with the securement system taught by Stanzione, as a simple substitution of one well known securement system for another would yield the predictable result of providing a flexing protection device to achieve the expected result of adjustably flexing protection device for a more comfortable fit. When in combination, Swan and Stanzione disclose the side protection elements are connected to the opposite lateral sides of the back protection element by at least one hinge.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banducci (US 2019/0226811 A1), in view of Cooke (US 2007/0128959 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 7, except for characterized in that the front protection element and the main body or the side protection elements comprise guide elements having channels for the sliding of the closed-loop wire.
However, Cooke teaches the front protection element and the main body or the side protection elements (Fig. 1) comprise guide elements having channels for the sliding of the closed-loop wire (plurality of 23 & plurality of 26; Fig. 1 & para. 4, where the plurality of 23 and plurality of 26 have channels, the channels being the space of 23 and 26 that envelops the cables 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front protection element and the main body of Banducci to comprise guide elements having channels for the sliding of the closed-loop wire, as taught by Cooke, in order to extend the life of the closed-loop wire and protect from wear and tear.
Regarding claim 10, Cooke further teaches the protection device according to claim 9, characterized in that the guide elements are formed, as channels or grooves (para. 7, channels), on the outer surface of the front protection element (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banducci (US 2019/0226811 A1), in view of Chen (US 2008/0172848 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 11, except for wherein the rotatable element is designed to be locked upon rotation thereof and/or once the at least one section of the closed-loop wire has been wound.
However, Chen teaches wherein the rotatable element (10; Fig. 2) is designed to be locked upon rotation thereof and/or once the at least one section of the closed-loop wire has been wound (Fig. 2 & para. 22, where 10 is designed to be locked via 153 upon rotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotatable element of Banducci to be designed to be locked upon rotation, as taught by Chen, in order to prevent the rotatable element mechanisms from overly moving (para. 22).
Regarding claim 14, Banducci discloses the protection device according to claim 11, except for characterized in that the rotatable element is positioned in a recess formed in the front protection element.
However, Chen teaches a front protection element (15) characterized in that the rotatable element (10) is positioned in a recess (151) formed in the front protection element (para. 22 & Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front protection element of Banducci to include a recess, and the rotatable element to be positioned in a recess in the front protection element, as taught by Chen, in order to securely attach the fastener.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the amended limitations, in which additional consideration and reinterpretation has been given for a new grounds of rejection, as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
