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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16 in the reply filed on 30 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 11 recites, in line 3, “an area density.” This appears to contain a grammatical error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite “an areal density” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 13 recites, in line 5, “mattrass.” This appears to be a spelling error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite “mattress” and will be examined on the merits as such
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 2-9, 11-13 and 16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance-
Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the layer encased in an elastomer”, and the claim also recites “the layer … encased in a polyurea elastomer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to only require the broad limitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “at least one third element”, and the claim also recites “two third elements” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to only require the broad limitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “at least one handle”, and the claim also recites “a pair of handles extending” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to recite the narrower statement as “the at least one handle extends,” and will be examined on the merits as such.
The term “high-density” in claim 4, in line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it is not clear how high or low the density must be of a foam layer in order for such a foam layer to be considered as having a high density.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the different elements" in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have these portions of the claim recite “the two first elements, the one second element, and the at least one third element” (from the scope of claims 2-4) and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 5 recites the following limitations: (1) the different elements [sic] of the impact protective arrangement are secured to one another with a pair of cushioned supports secured to an operatively upper and lower surface of the impact protective arrangement; and (2) the different elements [sic] of the impact protective arrangement being secured to one another with the pair of cushioned supports secured to an operatively upper and lower surface of the impact protective arrangement. This appears to be the same limitation, repeated twice, which is not needed and only adds confusion to the scope of the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the plurality of second elements" in lines 2-3 and "the plurality of third elements" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have these portions of the claim recite “the one second element” (from the scope of claims 2-3), and “the at least one third element” (from the scope of claim 4), respectfully, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the handle" in line 4 and again in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests changing these portions of the claim to “the at least one handle” which would overcome this issue and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 12 recites “ultra-high molecular weight layers” three separate times in lines 2-3. These portions of the claim are indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to “the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene layer” or a different component altogether. Upon review of claim 11, the claim from which claim 12 depends, and to further prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the intent of the applicant was to recite these portions of the claim as “ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene layers” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the plurality of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (according to the interpretation above) layers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as "the at least 14 ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (according to the interpretation above) layers" and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the third element” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “at least third element” is introduced in claim 4, which does not fall within the dependency of claim 12.
Claims 12 and 13 each recite “several.” However, the instant application fails to positively identify how many elements are required which may classify said element as being present in the quantity of “several.” Merriam-webster.com defines several as “more than one” or “more than two but fewer than many.” Therefore, the scope of the claim is not clear because this relative term fails to concisely define the metes and bounds of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “high-density” in claim 13, found in each of lines 3 and 5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it is not clear how high or low the density must be of a foam in order for such a foam to be considered as having a high density.
Claim 13 recites the following limitations: (1) “the pair of cushioned supports comprises a filler material which is enclosed in a fabric cover, the filler material being selected from the group consisting of high-density foam such as [sic] memory foam, wool, polyester, feathers, cotton, and down fibres, or any combination thereof;” and (2) “the bulletproof pillow is in the form of a mattrass [sic] or carpet wherein the cushioned supports comprise several [sic] layers of high-density [sic] foam, support foam, memory foam, or coil springs, or any combination thereof.” These two limitations appear to include two separate embodiments combined into a combination which does not make sense. The applicant includes limitations, from limitation (1), with regards to the composition of the filler of the cushioned supports, and also includes limitations, from limitation (2), with regards to different materials for the cushioned supports. As currently written, limitation (1) and limitation (2) are both required. The metes and bounds of claim 13 are not clearly set forth. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have claim 13 require either the limitations of limitation (1) or limitation (2), and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claims 3, 8, 9, 11 and 16 are included in this rejection based on their dependency from any one of claims 2 or 4-7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over an article titled “RTS Tactical Bulletproof Memory Foam Pillow” by RTS Tactical (hereinafter “RTS”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0270454 (hereinafter “Chiou”).Regarding claim 1 RTS teaches a bulletproof pillow comprising an RTS Tactical Level IIIA NIJ Ballistic Armor Panel (impact protective arrangement) (page 2, 3rd full paragraph and page 3, under the “What’s Included?” heading), and a premium memory foam pillow (cushioned support) which conforms to the shape of your head and shoulders, and cradles neck and shoulders (page 2, 3rd full paragraph, and under the “Memory Foam Pillow Features” heading). RTS does not explicitly disclose another premium memory foam pillow (cushioned support) on another side of the armor panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an additional premium memory foam pillow (a second cushioned support) on the other side of the armor panel to provide head, neck, and shoulder support functionality to each side of the bulletproof pillow. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The first and second cushioned support corresponds to the claimed feature requiring a pair of cushioned supports operatively secured respectfully to an operatively upper and lower surface of the armor panel (impact protective arrangement). RTS is silent with regards to the structure of the RTS Tactical Level IIIA NIJ Ballistic Armor Panel (impact protective arrangement), therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional materials. Chiou teaches a coated fabric suitable for use in an anti-ballistic article, which is a conventional armor panel exhibiting level IIIA protection under NIJ Standard–0101.04 (abstract, paragraph [0120] (see description of BFD value required for level IIIA protection), and Table 2 (showing BFD values of Examples 1-2 being within the requirement of a level IIIA protection material, as detailed from paragraph [0120]). Chiou teaches the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement) 10 comprises a plurality of layers of unidirectional yarns, including an embodiment of four layers of nonwoven fabrics, where orientation yarns 32a and 32c in the first layer (first element comprising overlying layers) and third layer respectfully are in the same position, oriented in a first direction (paragraph [0048] and Figure 3). Chiou teaches the nonwoven fabric layers comprise yarns (fibers) of polyamides, aramids, such as para-aramids, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), etc. (paragraphs [0052] – [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the armor panel of RTS from the coated fabric of Chiou motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of a ballistic panel capable of providing level IIIA protection under NIJ.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Chiou teaches the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement) 10 comprises a plurality of layers of unidirectional yarns, including an embodiment of four layers of nonwoven fabrics, where orientation yarns 32b and 32d in the second layer (at least one second element comprising a layer) and fourth layer respectfully are in the same position, oriented in a second direction, which is orthogonal to the first direction (paragraph [0048]). Chiou teaches the nonwoven fabric layers comprise yarns (fibers) of polyamides, aramids, such as para-aramids, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), etc. (paragraphs [0052] – [0058]). Chiou teaches the second layer 32b is encased in a resin solution 14, 34 comprising a viscoelastic resin (elastomer) (abstract; paragraph [0066]; and Figures 1-3).Regarding claims 3 and 16 In addition, Chiou teaches the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement) 30 comprises: a second layer (one second element) 32b; and a first layer 32a and a third layer 32c (two first elements), where the second layer (one second element) 32b is positioned between the first layer 32a and a third layer 32c (two first elements) (Figure 3).Regarding claim 4 In addition, Chiou teaches a polyethylene foam (at least one third element) having an areal weight of 100 g/m2 (high-density foam layer), located on the back of the fabric assembly also referred to as the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement) (located on a lowermost layer of the plurality of first elements) (paragraphs [0124] – [0126]). The combination of RTS and Chiou discloses the claimed invention except for the polyethylene foam being arranged on both sides of the fabric assembly (impact protective arrangement). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an additional polyethylene foam (corresponding to two third elements) on the other side of the fabric assembly (impact protective arrangement), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The first and second polyethylene foams correspond to the claimed feature requiring two third elements which are arranged at an uppermost and lowermost layer of the plurality of first elements such that the first and second elements are located between the two third elements.Regarding claim 5 The rejection of claim 1 corresponds to a structure of: premium memory foam pillow (cushioned support) (from RTS)/Armor Panel (impact protective arrangement) (coated fabric from Chiou)/memory foam (cushioned support) (from RTS). This structure corresponds to the limitations of claim 5. RTS also teaches the armor panel and memory foam pillow are provided in a pillowcase (first, second, and third elements are secured to one another with a pair of cushioned supports secured to an operatively upper and lower surface of the impact protective arrangement) (pages 2-3).Regarding claim 9 In addition, Chiou teaches a thread is interlaced between the layers to hold the layers together (paragraph [0010]). Chiou teaches the thread comprises polyester, polyamide such as a para-aramid or nylon, polyethylene or polyareneazole being particularly suited (paragraph [0065]).Regarding claim 13 As previously noted, RTS teaches the bulletproof pillow includes a premium memory foam pillow (pair of cushioned supports, as modified in the rejection of claim 1, comprising a filler material of memory foam) (page 2, 3rd full paragraph, and under the “Memory Foam Pillow Features” heading). In addition, RTS teaches the bulletproof pillow is provided in a pillowcase (filler material provided in a fabric cover) (pages 2-3).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RTS and Chiou as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0343737 (hereinafter “Strauss”).Regarding claim 6 The limitations for claim 5 have been set forth above. Regarding the flexibility of the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement), although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement) is flexible, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Chiou reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed impact protective arrangement. See MPEP §2112. The combination of RTS and Chiou does not explicitly teach a cover in which the first element, the one second element, and the at least one third element are housed and wherein the cover includes webbing which extend lengthwise across an upper and lower surface of the cover to provide additional strength and stability to the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement). Strauss teaches a vacuum-sealed flexible ballistic resistant panel comprising a stack of ballistic sheets (impact protective arrangement) comprising aramid and/or UHMWPE fibers (abstract; and paragraphs [0008] and [0115]). Strauss teaches the panel includes a waterproof cover (cover including a webbing that extends lengthwise across an upper and lower surface of the cover) vacuum-sealed around and encasing the ballistic sheets (housing the ballistic sheets) (paragraph [0008]). Strauss teaches the stack of ballistic resistant sheets are vacuum bagged to remove air that is present between adjacent sheets, thereby compressing the stack and reducing its thickness (paragraph [0140]). Strauss also teaches the pressure differential between the air pressure inside and outside is sufficient to produce a suitable compressive force against the stack of ballistic resistant sheets within the ballistic resistant panel. The compressive force is applied uniformly over the panel, thereby resulting in a panel with uniform or nearly uniform thickness (the cover provides additional strength and stability to the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement)) (Id). Chiou and Strauss are analogous inventions in the field of ballistic panels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement) of Chiou with the vacuum bagging of Strauss to provide: (1) a waterproof barrier to the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement); and/or (2) a ballistic resistant panel with uniform or nearly uniform thickness to ensure homogenous or nearly homogenous ballistic protection throughout the anti-ballistic article.Regarding claim 7 In addition, RTS teaches the bulletproof pillow includes two ultra slim high tenacity nylon handles (at least one handle or pair of handles extending outwardly from the impact protective arrangement) which are strong and stable for use as a shield (page 3, under the “What’s Included?” and “Ultra Slim High Tenacity Nylon Handles” headings). The combination of RTS, Chiou, and Strauss does not explicitly teach: (1) the handle being secured to the cover (as taught by Strauss) of the impact protective arrangement and extends away from the pair of cushioned supports (as taught by RTS) such that a user may easily carry the bulletproof pillow; (2) the handle being further secured to the webbing (as taught by Strauss) on opposite sides of the impact protective arrangement; and (3) the arrangement being such that the impact protective arrangement includes a pair of handles extending from both sides of the impact protective arrangement. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine an appropriate location of the handles disclosed by RTS in the bulletproof pillow construction from the combination of RTS, Chiou, and Strauss to provide handles which are useful in manually securing the bulletproof pillow in a defensive position. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).Regarding claim 8 In addition, RTS teaches the bulletproof pillow is secured within a bamboo fabric pillow case (housed in an outer fabric casing) (page 2), which corresponds to an outer fabric casing including at least one opening through which the at least one handle extends outwardly.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RTS and Chiou as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0260968 (hereinafter “Marissen”).Regarding claim 11 The limitations from claim 2 have been set forth above. As previously noted, Chiou teaches the nonwoven fabric layers comprise yarns (fibers) of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) material (paragraphs [0052] – [0058]), which corresponds to the materials of the first element and the second element that is formed into a layer. Chiou does not explicitly teach the UHMWPE layer has an areal density of between 50±8 gram per square meter (g/m2) and 300±8 gram per square meter (g/m2) and having a thickness of between 0.07±0.02 millimetres (mm) and 0.40±0.02 millimetres (mm). Marissen teaches a material sheet comprising at least a monolayer of drawn unidirectional polymer fibers (abstract). Marissen teaches the drawn polymer fibers comprises UHMWPE (paragraph [0046]). Marissen teaches the areal density of each monolayer is preferably less than 0.10 kg/m2 (100 g/m2) (paragraph [0065]), which overlaps the claimed range. Marissen teaches the lower the areal density the greater the number of interfacial sites between adjacent layers per given areal density (Id). Marissen teaches an improved anti-ballistic performance of the material sheet of unidirectional monolayers of drawn ultra-high molecular weight polymer may be achieved through increasing the number of interfacial sites within the material sheet per given areal density, or thickness (paragraph [0009]). Marissen teaches the maximum thickness of the at least one monolayer is preferably less than 60 µm (0.06 mm) (paragraph [0010]), which overlaps the claimed range. Chiou and Marissen are analogous inventions in the field of ballistic panels comprising unidirectional UHMWPE fibers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the areal density and thickness of the plurality of layers of the UHMWPE yarns of Chiou with the areal density and thickness of Marissen to increase the number of interfacial sites between adjacent layers to improve the anti-ballistic performance of the nonwoven fabric layers.Regarding claim 12 In addition, Chiou teaches the nonwoven fabric is used in an article to provide resistance against a ballistic threat, where the number of nonwoven fabrics used in the article will depend on the targeted threat but typically is between five and twenty (paragraph [0115]). Chiou also teaches the position of the sheets in the article will also depend on the article design (layers grouped into sets). Other components such as foam (third element) may also be incorporated into the article. The article is particularly useful for soft body armor (Id). Chiou teaches the nonwoven fabric layers comprise yarns (fibers) of polyamides, aramids, such as para-aramids, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), etc. (paragraphs [0052] – [0058]). Chiou teaches an article where foam (third element) is incorporated, where the foam has a thickness of 3 mm (paragraphs [0124] – [0126]), which falls within the claimed range. Chiou does not explicitly teach a plurality of UHMWPE layers are grouped into sets, wherein several sets form the first element. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine a positioning of the sheets in the article depending on the article design. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Chiou teaches the layers of nonwoven fabric are bound to each other using a binding thread (paragraph [0065]), which corresponds to the UHMWPE of each set being attached to one another. Chiou does not explicitly teach the second layer (second element) 32b has a thickness of 0.5-5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate number of nonwoven fabrics for the second layer using nothing more than routine experimentation depending on the targeted threat of the formed article. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RTS and Chiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0199011 (hereinafter “Beck”).Regarding claim 14 The limitations of claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, the combination of RTS and Chiou does not explicitly teach an additional protective layer which is either housed within the impact protective arrangement or removably secured to the impact protective arrangement, the additional protective layer being in the form of a ballistic plate which is supported in a plate carrier incorporated in the impact protective arrangement. Beck teaches a ballistic resistant article comprising internal components of flexible armor, a ballistic plate (additional protective layer housed within the armor (impact protective arrangement)) 112, and/or a ballistic plate cover (abstract and Figure 1). Beck teaches layers comprising non-woven fibers (paragraph [0056]). Beck teaches the ballistic plate (additional protective layer) is disposed within a front carrier pocket (plate carrier) (paragraph [0040]), which corresponds to the additional protective layer being in the form of a ballistic plate which is supported in a plate carrier incorporated in the impact protective arrangement. Beck also teaches the ballistic plate (additional protective layer) is a hard plate configured to provide ballistic protection against projectiles or shrapnel impacting a strike face of the ballistic plate (Id). Chiou and Beck are analogous inventions in the field of ballistic articles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coated fabric (impact protective arrangement) of Chiou with the ballistic plate of Beck to provide ballistic protection against projectiles or shrapnel impacting the ballistic article.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 7,794,808 teaches encasing a composite material 111 with a polyurea elastomer 121 improves ballistic resistance of the composite material. See abstract; column 2, lines 10-41; column 6, lines 48-55; and Figures 1-11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights