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
Applicant's amendment filed on June 13, 2025 has been received. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Additionally, Applicant’s clarifying remarks regarding the claimed term “outer edge” necessitate new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(b), as discussed below.
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, 3-12, and 14-20 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitations “an outer edge of the innermost cover layer is connected to the outermost cover layer,” “the outer edge of the innermost cover layer partially overlaps with the outer edge of the outermost cover layer,” and “the outer edge of the innermost cover layer has a size smaller than that of the outer edge of the outermost cover layer.”
Where Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “edge” (as in “outer edge”) in claims 1 and 12 is used by the claim to mean “side” (see page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on June 13, 2025) while the accepted meaning is “the line where an object or area begins or ends,” “the narrow part adjacent to a border” (see definitions 2a, 2b of “edge” via Merriam-Webster.com). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The Examiner notes that using the term “outer edge” while meaning “outer side” or “outer surface” is confusing and does not clearly set forth the structure of the claimed bra. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “an outer surface of the innermost cover layer is connected to the outermost cover layer,” “the outer surface of the innermost cover layer partially overlaps with the outer surface of the outermost cover layer,” and “the outer surface of the innermost cover layer has a size smaller than that of the outer surface of the outermost cover layer.” Applicant is advised to make corresponding amendments to the claims and specification.
Claims 5, 10, and 16 recite similar limitations in regards to “an outer edge of the middle layer” and “an outer edge of the filling layer,” are likewise indefinite, and will be interpreted in a likewise manner.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the bra cup according to claim 2.” The limitation is indefinite, as claim 2 has been canceled. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “the bra cup according to claim 1.”
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, and 20, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stephens et al. (herein Stephens)(US Patent No. 6,431,945).
Regarding claim 1, Stephens discloses a bra cup (one of 10A, 10B), comprising:
an outermost cover layer (51) having an arc-shaped concave surface (see at least Fig. 4 and column 4, lines 3-27);
a filling layer (31) arranged on the outermost cover layer and located on the arc-shaped concave surface (see at least Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31); and
an innermost cover layer (innermost layer of pocket 30, see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the innermost cover layer is located at a side of the outermost cover layer where the arc-shaped concave surface is located (see Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31), and an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above) of the innermost cover layer is connected to the outermost cover layer (at least indirectly at upper end 33 and lower end 34, see Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31); the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the innermost cover layer partially overlaps with the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the outermost cover layer (see Figs. 1,-4 and 7), the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the innermost cover layer has a size smaller than that of the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the outermost cover layer (see at least Figs. 4 and 7); and the filling layer is located between the innermost cover layer and the outermost cover layer (see at least Figs. 4 and 7 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Stephens further discloses wherein the innermost cover layer has a single-layer structure or a multi- layer structure (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Stephens further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) is located at at least two of a bottom end, a top end or a side end of the arc-shaped concave surface (see at least Figs. 4 and 7, filling layer 31 is located along at least a bottom end and a side end of the concave surface of outermost layer 51).
Regarding claim 5, Stephens further discloses a middle layer (outer layer of pocket 30, see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the middle layer is located between the filling layer (31) and the outermost outer cover layer (51; see at least Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31); and an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above) of the filling layer does not extend beyond an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side) of the middle layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Stephens further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) comprises one or more filling layers (see at least Figs. 4-6 and column 2, line 55 – column 3, line 31).
Regarding claim 10, Stephens further discloses a middle layer (outer layer of pocket 30, see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the middle layer is located between the filling layer (31) and the outermost outer cover layer (51; see at least Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31); and an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above) of the filling layer does not extend beyond an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side) of the middle layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Stephens discloses a bra (10) comprising a pair of breast cups (10A, 10B), wherein each bra cup of the pair of bra cups comprises:
an outermost cover layer (51) having an arc-shaped concave surface (see at least Fig. 4 and column 4, lines 3-27);
a filling layer (31) arranged on the outermost cover layer and located on the arc-shaped concave surface (see at least Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31); and
an innermost cover layer (innermost layer of pocket 30, see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the innermost cover layer is located at a side of the outermost cover layer where the arc-shaped concave surface is located (see Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31), and an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above) of the innermost cover layer is connected to the outermost cover layer (at least indirectly at upper end 33 and lower end 34, see Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31); the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the innermost cover layer partially overlaps with the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the outermost cover layer (see Figs. 1,-4 and 7), the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the innermost cover layer has a size smaller than that of the outer edge (interpreted to refer to the outer surface/side) of the outermost cover layer (see at least Figs. 4 and 7); and the filling layer is located between the innermost cover layer and the outermost cover layer (see at least Figs. 4 and 7 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31).
Regarding claim 14, Stephens further discloses wherein the innermost cover layer has a single-layer structure or a multi- layer structure (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Stephens further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) is located at at least two of a bottom end, a top end or a side end of the arc-shaped concave surface (see at least Figs. 4 and 7, filling layer 31 is located along at least a bottom end and a side end of the concave surface of outermost layer 51).
Regarding claim 16, Stephens further discloses a middle layer (outer layer of pocket 30, see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the middle layer is located between the filling layer (31) and the outermost outer cover layer (51; see at least Fig. 4 and column 2, line 33 – column 3, line 31); and an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above) of the filling layer does not extend beyond an outer edge (interpreted to refer to an outer surface/side) of the middle layer (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Stephens further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) comprises one or more filling layers (see at least Figs. 4-6 and column 2, line 55 – column 3, line 31).
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 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.
Claims 6, 7, 11, 17, and 18, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens, as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 12, and 16 above, in view of Chen (US PG Pub 2009/0061730), further in view of Martinet et al. (herein Martinet)(US PG Pub 2012/0225607) and Fildan et al. herein Fildan (US PG Pub 2006/0094336).
Regarding claim 6, Stephens discloses the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the outer cover layer (51) and the middle layer (outer layer of pocket 30) are bonded together (see Fig. 4 and column 4, lines 18-27). Stephens also discloses wherein the filling layer (31) may be non-removably coupled within the middle and innermost cover layers (via stitching at upper end 33 of pocket 30, which closes the pocket, see column 3, lines 21-31) but fails to specify wherein the middle layer and the filling layer, and the filling layer and the innermost cover layer are also bonded together.
However, the Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art to bond or laminate a non-removable filling layer of a bra cup to its surrounding layers, so as to securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup. For example, Chen teaches at least one non-removable filing layer (4, 4’) that is laminated to surrounding layers (2, 3) of the bra cup, so as to securely attach the layers together and facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression and sewing (see paragraph 0017).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Stephens’ non-removable filling layer to be laminated to its surrounding layers (i.e., the middle layer and the innermost cover layer), as doing so would securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup and/or facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression or sewing.
Chen fails to specify wherein the lamination method includes use of a hot melt adhesive.
However, Martinet teaches wherein lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together (see paragraph 0046). Fildan further teaches wherein hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability (see paragraph 0013).
Therefore, based on Martinet’s and Fildan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically used hot melt adhesive for Chen’s lamination process, as lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together, and hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability.
Regarding claim 7, Stephens discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) may be non-removably coupled between the outermost and innermost cover layers (via stitching at upper end 33 of pocket 30, which closes the pocket, see column 3, lines 21-31) but fails to further disclose wherein the outermost cover layer and the filling layer, and the filling layer and the innermost cover layer are both bonded with a hot melt adhesive.
However, the Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art to bond or laminate a non-removable filling layer of a bra cup to its surrounding layers, so as to securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup. For example, Chen teaches at least one non-removable filing layer (4, 4’) that is laminated to surrounding layers (2, 3) of the bra cup, so as to securely attach the layers together and facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression and sewing (see paragraph 0017).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Stephens’ non-removable filling layer to be laminated to its surrounding layers (i.e., the middle layer and the innermost cover layer), as doing so would securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup and/or facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression or sewing.
As modified, Stephens’ filling layer (31) would be directly bonded to the innermost layer (inner layer of pocket 30, see Fig. 4), and would be indirectly bonded to the outermost layer (via outer layer of pocket 30, see Fig. 4).
Chen fails to specify wherein the lamination method includes use of a hot melt adhesive.
However, Martinet teaches wherein lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together (see paragraph 0046). Fildan further teaches wherein hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability (see paragraph 0013).
Therefore, based on Martinet’s and Fildan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically used hot melt adhesive for Chen’s lamination process, as lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together, and hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability.
Regarding claim 11, Stephens discloses the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) may be non-removably coupled between the outermost and innermost cover layers (via stitching at upper end 33 of pocket 30, which closes the pocket, see column 3, lines 21-31) but fails to further disclose wherein the outermost cover layer and the filling layer, and the filling layer and the innermost cover layer are both bonded with a hot melt adhesive.
However, the Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art to bond or laminate a non-removable filling layer of a bra cup to its surrounding layers, so as to securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup. For example, Chen teaches at least one non-removable filing layer (4, 4’) that is laminated to surrounding layers (2, 3) of the bra cup, so as to securely attach the layers together and facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression and sewing (see paragraph 0017).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Stephens’ non-removable filling layer to be laminated to its surrounding layers (i.e., the middle layer and the innermost cover layer), as doing so would securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup and/or facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression or sewing.
As modified, Stephens’ filling layer (31) would be directly bonded to the innermost layer (inner layer of pocket 30, see Fig. 4), and would be indirectly bonded to the outermost layer (via outer layer of pocket 30, see Fig. 4).
Chen fails to specify wherein the lamination method includes use of a hot melt adhesive.
However, Martinet teaches wherein lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together (see paragraph 0046). Fildan further teaches wherein hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability (see paragraph 0013).
Therefore, based on Martinet’s and Fildan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically used hot melt adhesive for Chen’s lamination process, as lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together, and hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability.
Regarding claim 17, Stephens discloses the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the outer cover layer (51) and the middle layer (outer layer of pocket 30) are bonded together (see Fig. 4 and column 4, lines 18-27). Stephens also discloses wherein the filling layer (31) may be non-removably coupled within the middle and innermost cover layers (via stitching at upper end 33 of pocket 30, which closes the pocket, see column 3, lines 21-31) but fails to specify wherein the middle layer and the filling layer, and the filling layer and the innermost cover layer are also bonded together.
However, the Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art to bond or laminate a non-removable filling layer of a bra cup to its surrounding layers, so as to securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup. For example, Chen teaches at least one non-removable filing layer (4, 4’) that is laminated to surrounding layers (2, 3) of the bra cup, so as to securely attach the layers together and facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression and sewing (see paragraph 0017).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Stephens’ non-removable filling layer to be laminated to its surrounding layers (i.e., the middle layer and the innermost cover layer), as doing so would securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup and/or facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression or sewing.
Chen fails to specify wherein the lamination method includes use of a hot melt adhesive.
However, Martinet teaches wherein lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together (see paragraph 0046). Fildan further teaches wherein hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability (see paragraph 0013).
Therefore, based on Martinet’s and Fildan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically used hot melt adhesive for Chen’s lamination process, as lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together, and hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability.
Regarding claim 18, Stephens discloses the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) may be non-removably coupled between the outermost and innermost cover layers (via stitching at upper end 33 of pocket 30, which closes the pocket, see column 3, lines 21-31) but fails to further disclose wherein the outermost cover layer and the filling layer, and the filling layer and the innermost cover layer are both bonded with a hot melt adhesive.
However, the Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art to bond or laminate a non-removable filling layer of a bra cup to its surrounding layers, so as to securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup. For example, Chen teaches at least one non-removable filing layer (4, 4’) that is laminated to surrounding layers (2, 3) of the bra cup, so as to securely attach the layers together and facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression and sewing (see paragraph 0017).
Therefore, based on Chen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Stephens’ non-removable filling layer to be laminated to its surrounding layers (i.e., the middle layer and the innermost cover layer), as doing so would securely retain the filling layer in place within the bra cup and/or facilitate further production steps such as thermal compression or sewing.
As modified, Stephens’ filling layer (31) would be directly bonded to the innermost layer (inner layer of pocket 30, see Fig. 4), and would be indirectly bonded to the outermost layer (via outer layer of pocket 30, see Fig. 4).
Chen fails to specify wherein the lamination method includes use of a hot melt adhesive.
However, Martinet teaches wherein lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together (see paragraph 0046). Fildan further teaches wherein hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability (see paragraph 0013).
Therefore, based on Martinet’s and Fildan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically used hot melt adhesive for Chen’s lamination process, as lamination methods such as spray lamination, powder lamination, and hot melt lamination are all known in the art to be suitable for bonding two brassiere layers together, and hot melt adhesives are advantageous because they allow the adhesive to be applied at selective locations to form a stitch-free bond that maintains a higher level of air-permeability and breathability.
Claims 8 and 19, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in view of Waitz et al. (herein Waitz)(US PG Pub 2010/0015886).
Regrading claims 8 and 19, Stephens discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 12, as discussed above. Stephens further discloses wherein the filling layer (31) is formed from a resilient foam (see column 3, lines 12-20) but fails to specify a polyurethane foam.
However, Waitz teaches a brassiere cup (120) having a filling layer (132) that may be formed of known pliable padding materials, such as polyurethane foam, polyester fiberfill, or shaped gels (see paragraph 0021). The Examiner notes that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, based on Waitz’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have chosen a polyurethane foam material for Stephens’ foam material, as such a material is known in the art to be pliable and suitable for forming a padding layer for a brassiere cup.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup, can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights