DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/16/25 has been entered. Claims 1-19, 21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/16/25.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 19, 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 Line 8 before “slots” add –the multiple—
Claim 19 Line 9 after “a number of” delete “straps of the multiple straps” and substitute –the multiple straps—
Claim 21 Lines 1-2 before “inner surface” delete “an” and substitute –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 19 Line 4
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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19, on which Claim 21 depends, already recites that there is “an attachment section disposed on an inner surface of a rear portion of the bodice that is configured to receive….via multiple slots” which already indicates that the slots are of the attachment section which are on a rear portion inner surface. As such, Claim 21 reciting “multiple slots are disposed on an inner surface of the rear portion” is not further narrowing. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by May (USPN 6155906).
Regarding Claim 12, May teaches an athletic bra (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; however, see Fig. 3; Col. 4 Lines 31-34 "same brassiere 10 shown in Fig. 1 is utilized in conjunction with straps 22a and 24b. The same attachment described above are shown"; May teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being used athletically, especially in light of Col. 5 Line 33 “sports brassieres”), comprising:
a bodice (see Fig. 3, inasmuch as the term has been defined in the claims);
multiple straps that are fixed to a front portion of the bodice (see Fig. 3, straps 22a, 24b); and
multiple openings disposed on an edge of a back portion of the bodice and configured to removably attach a strap of the multiple straps (see Fig. 1 showing what’s happening in Fig. 3 based on Col. 4 Lines 31-34, wherein Fig. 1 shows hooks through openings at an edge of a back portion; Col. 3 Lines 339-34 “straps 22a and 24a each have attachment devices 32a and 34a for attachment to the back of the brassiere”; May teaches the hooks/openings on a back portion which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of removably attaching the straps).
Regarding Claim 15, May further teaches the athletic bra of claim 12, wherein each strap of the multiple straps includes an attachment end having a hook (see rejection of Claim 12),
and wherein each opening of the multiple openings includes a slot configured to receive the hook (see rejection of Claim 12, wherein the opening is a slot).
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.
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 10-15, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776).
Regarding Claim 1, Noreen teaches an article of clothing (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 Fig. 1; page 3 Line 13 "bra 2"; ), comprising:
a garment having a front portion and a rear portion (see Fig. 1 for inside of front/rear; page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra");
multiple straps (see Fig. 1; page 3 Line 14 "pairs of shoulder straps 4"),
wherein each strap includes a front end and a back end (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the front end of each strap of the multiple straps is fixed to the front portion (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 14-19 “shoulder straps 4…capable of detachable connection to the bra component 3 itself with the help of fasteners 5 arranged on the shoulder straps 4 and attachment devices 6 on the aforementioned bra 2, comprises a set of laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2”, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”); and
a strap attachment mechanism (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 18-19 "laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2"),
disposed on an inner surface of the rear portion of the garment (page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra", wherein the outermost 6/7s are on the rear),
which includes multiple openings to removably receive the back end of each strap of the multiple straps (see Fig. 1 outermost 6/7s),
wherein the strap attachment mechanism is disposed on along an edge of the inner surface of the rear portion of the garment (see Fig. 1 for edge as recited, wherein the aforementioned already indicated the strap attachment mechanism is at the inner surface of the rear portion).
Noreen does not explicitly teach the garment being a bodice.
Walsh teaches the garment being a bodice ([0021] "The brassiere may also be halter top, tank top or any garment utilized to hold the wearer's breasts in place"; wherein a tank top comprises a bodice at least based on applicant’s Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s garment to be a tank top as taught by Walsh, and therefore have a bodice, as a simple substitution of one type of breast-holding garment for another, in order to be effective in holding the breasts in place ([0021]), based on aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism include slots or slits (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in a regularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed as a group of openings on each side of the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice (see Fig. 1, wherein columns constitute a group and/or wherein rows constitute groups).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein each back end of each strap includes a hook that is configured to attach the strap to the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen further teaches wherein the article of clothing is an athletic bra (Noreen teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized athletically).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Noreen further teaches wherein the article of clothing is a tank top (see rejection of Claim 1, wherein Walsh teaches the garment as a tank top).
Regarding Claim 12, Noreen teaches an athletic bra (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 Fig. 1; page 3 Line 13 "bra 2"; Noreen teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized athletically), comprising:
a garment (page 3 Line 13);
multiple straps that are fixed to a front portion of the garment (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 14-19 “pair of shoulder straps 4…capable of detachable connection to the bra component 3 itself with the help of fasteners 5 arranged on the shoulder straps 4 and attachment devices 6 on the aforementioned bra 2, comprises a set of laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2”, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”); and
multiple openings disposed on an edge of a back portion of the garment and configured to removably attach a strap of the multiple straps (see Fig. 1, especially for edge as recited; page 3 Lines 14-19, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”).
Noreen does not explicitly teach the garment being a bodice.
Walsh teaches the garment being a bodice ([0021] "The brassiere may also be halter top, tank top or any garment utilized to hold the wearer's breasts in place"; wherein a tank top comprises a bodice at least based on applicant’s Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s garment to be a tank top as taught by Walsh, and therefore have a bodice, as a simple substitution of one type of breast-holding garment for another, in order to be effective in holding the breasts in place ([0021]), based on aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Noreen further teaches wherein a number of openings of the multiple openings on the back portion of the bodice is greater than a number of straps of the multiple straps (Noreen page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; see Fig. 1 wherein the rear slots are 3 columns with 3 rows on each side, resulting in 9 slots on each side; this is greater than the set of 6 or 8 straps in Figs. 4 and 8).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple openings are disposed on an inner surface of the edge of the back portion of the bodice (see Noreen Fig. 1; page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra", wherein the outermost 6/7s are on the inner surface of the back).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Noreen further teaches wherein each strap of the multiple straps includes an attachment end having a hook (see Fig. 1; page 5 Lines 17-18 "hooks 5 in the shoulder straps 4"),
and wherein each opening of the multiple openings includes a slot configured to receive the hook (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Noreen teaches an athletic bra (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 Fig. 1; page 3 Line 13 "bra 2"; Noreen teaches the bra which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized athletically), comprising:
a garment (page 3 Line 13);
multiple straps that are fixed to a front portion of the garment (see Fig. 1; page 3 Lines 14-19 “pair of shoulder straps 4…capable of detachable connection to the bra component 3 itself with the help of fasteners 5 arranged on the shoulder straps 4 and attachment devices 6 on the aforementioned bra 2, comprises a set of laterally and vertically distributed connecting attachments 7 on the aforementioned bra 2”, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”); and
an attachment section disposed on an inner surface of a rear portion of the garment that is configured to receive a strap of the multiple straps via multiple slots disposed along an edge of the rear portion of the garment (see Fig. 1, especially for edge as recited; page 3 Lines 14-19, wherein Fig. 1 illustrates the example of one strap fixed as recited, but both straps are disclosed as being fixed/fixable--page 3 Lines 5-6 “permit lateral adjustment of the shoulder straps both at the front and at the rear of the bra”; for inner surface-- page 2 Line 19 "Fig. 1 shows the inside of an outspread bra", wherein the outermost 6/7s are on the interior of the rear);
wherein a number of slots disposed along the edge of the rear portion of the garment is greater than a number of straps of the multiple straps (page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; see Fig. 1 wherein the rear slots are 3 columns with 3 rows on each side, resulting in 9 slots on each side; this is greater than the set of 6 or 8 straps in Figs. 4 and 8).
Noreen does not explicitly teach the garment being a bodice.
Walsh teaches the garment being a bodice ([0021] "The brassiere may also be halter top, tank top or any garment utilized to hold the wearer's breasts in place"; wherein a tank top comprises a bodice at least based on applicant’s Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s garment to be a tank top as taught by Walsh, and therefore have a bodice, as a simple substitution of one type of breast-holding garment for another, in order to be effective in holding the breasts in place ([0021]), based on aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Noreen further teaches wherein the multiple slots are disposed on an inner surface of the rear portion (see rejection of Claim 19).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Fildan et al (USPN 7431631), herein Fildan.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in an irregularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice.
However, Noreen teaches the opposite,
wherein the multiple openings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in a regularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the bodice (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen to be irregularly spaced based on a finite number of solutions and aesthetic design choice.
Nevertheless, Fildan teaches wherein the multiple fastenings of the strap attachment mechanism are disposed in an irregularly spaced configuration along the inner surface of the rear portion of the garment (see Fig. 2 for D-ring and snaps being irregular spaced; Col. 4 Lines 61-64 "row of snap fasteners 42, 43, 44 ...D-ring fastener 47").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s fastenings/openings to be irregularly spaced as taught by Fildan as known for adjustable fastenings (Col. 1 Lines 17-18), especially to provide a desired comfort and/or fit (see extrinsic evidence Garson USPN 2782418 Col. 3 Lines 3-7).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of May (USPN 6155906).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Noreen at least suggests wherein each strap includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (see Fig. 1, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Fig. 1 illustrates a slider mechanism).
Nevertheless, May further teaches wherein each strap includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 6-10 "strap set 40c shown at Fig. 2 discloses the use of an adjustment means 46 in conjunction with the straps…to adjust the overall length of the straps").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s strap with the slider mechanism of May in order to adjust the overall strap length (Col. 4 Lines 6-10).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Noreen at least suggests wherein each strap of the multiple straps includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (see Fig. 1, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Fig. 1 illustrates a slider mechanism).
Nevertheless, May further teaches wherein each strap includes a slider mechanism that adjusts a length of the strap (Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 6-10 "strap set 40c shown at Fig. 2 discloses the use of an adjustment means 46 in conjunction with the straps…to adjust the overall length of the straps").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s strap with the slider mechanism of May in order to adjust the overall strap length (Col. 4 Lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Cushman (USPN 0201597).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Noreen teaches wherein the multiple straps include two straps that are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the bodice and two straps that are fixed to a second side of the front portion of the bodice (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Noreen page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; Noreen teaches at least four straps and at least two fixable positions on a first side and at least two fixable positions on a second side which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the configuration recited, especially permanently/without further changes).
Nevertheless, Cushman teaches wherein the multiple straps include two straps that are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the garment and two straps that are fixed to a second side of the front portion of the garment (see Figs. 2, 5, especially permanently/without further changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s sets to be of the configuration recited especially as Cushman teaches such a configuration is known in the art for effectively suspending a garment over a wearer’s shoulders.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noreen (WO 01/03525) in view of Walsh (US Publication 2013/0084776), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Hengy (USPN 1032901).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Noreen teaches wherein the multiple straps include three straps are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the bodice and one strap that is fixed to a second side of the front portion of the bodice (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Noreen page 5 Lines 9-10 "shoulder strap 4…which is part of a set 27"; see Figs. 4 and 8 for embodiments of sets; Noreen teaches at least four straps and at least three fixable positions on a first side and at least one fixable positions on a second side which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the configuration recited, especially permanently/without further changes).
Nevertheless, Hengy further teaches wherein the multiple straps include three straps are permanently fixed to a first side of the front portion of the garment and one strap that is fixed to a second side of the front portion of the garment (see Fig. 1, Lines 24-38 "shoulder straps 5 which have…tabs 7 for engaging the front buttons of trouser and the tabs 8 for engaging the front portions of drawers"; as such, the front has 3 on each side, and is capable of the recited configuration, especially permanently/without further changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noreen’s sets to be of the configuration recited especially as Hengy teaches such a configuration is known in the art for effectively suspending a garment over a wearer’s shoulders (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Noreen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 9. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 9 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19, 21 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—
At the outset, pertaining to remarks on pages 8-9—it is unclear whether the remarks merely indicate that the previous rejection has not yet rejected the exact terminology as currently amended. If so, see rejections herein. However--
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Noreen and Walsh do not disclose the recitation of Claim 1—it is unclear if the remarks are indicating that the references individually do not teach the claim. If so, 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).
Further pertaining to remarks on page 8 that May, Noreen and Walsh do not disclose the recitation of Claim 1—if the remarks are merely directed to how the references do not explicitly use the term “edge”-- it seems as though remarks desire to have an interpretation of the term that is not yet claimed. Under broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “edge”, the references teach the claims as recited, as indicated herein.
Furthermore, no specific definition for the term “edge” has been provided in the specification. Even if the disclosure somehow disclosed a narrower interpretation for the term “edge” than that disclosed by the prior art, Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 directed to claims 12-19, 21—examiner notes that Claims 12 and 19 are even broader than Claim 1; as such, if Claim 1 is met, so are Claims 12 and 19. No other specific arguments as to how the references do not structurally teach the dependents have been made. Amended Claim 19 seems merely to have included the structure of Claim 20, and no specific arguments have been made as to how the references did not teach the structure of Claim 20.
In other words, no structural differentiation has been made between the prior art and the current set of claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Bell-Counts (USPN 12419365) directed to bra strap adjustable at cups; Smith et al (US Publication 2009/0047866) directed to front/rear inner attachment sections for straps to have multiple configurations; Kyle (USPN 9801423) directed to adjustable bra strap.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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