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 of Species A (Figs. 1-4) without traverse in the reply filed on 16 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 15-16, 20, 22, and 24 have been withdrawn by the Applicant as being drawn to non-elected Species B/C, there being no allowable generic of linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-25 are pending in the application and an action on the merits follows regarding claims 1-4, 6-14, 17-19, 21, 23, and 25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cord loop” and “interior cord portion” of claims 1 and 11, the “self-locking grommet” of claims 9 and 25, and the “pull cord” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The Examiner notes that 140 references the cord loop and 142 references the interior cord portion in the Specification, but all appear to point to the exterior layer of the garment only in the Drawings. The pull cord is not shown in the Drawings at all.
The drawings are further objected to because the details as disclosed in the Claims and Specification are difficult to examine in the Drawings because the Drawings are pixilated and shaded in dark colors. For example, it is difficult to see structures 144, 146, and 148 in Fig. 1. The Specification notes these structures are the first opening, second opening, and exterior cord portion, respectively, however the Examiner cannot clearly define these structures even when magnified. All claimed structures must be shown clearly to facilitate appropriate examination of the claimed invention. The featured reference characters not clearly defined include, but are not limited to:
104, 106, 114, 122, 124, 134, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 17-19 (and claims 2, 8-10, 21, 23, and 25 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 11 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “a hood having a top portion, a back portion, first and second side portions and a base, forming a front face opening”. It is unclear what structure or structures is forming the front face opening. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “a hood having a top portion, a back portion, first and second side portions, and a base, wherein the top portion, back portion, first and second side portions, and base altogether form[[ing]] a front face opening”.
Independent Claims 1 and 11 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the exterior cord portion may be pulled and lengthened to cinch the front face opening of the hood to the base of the hood”. It is unclear if the exterior cord portion has the ability to be pulled and lengthened or not as the phrase “may be” defines a possibility but not a certainty. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the exterior cord portion capable of being pulled and lengthened to cinch the front face opening of the hood to the base of the hood”.
In Claim 3, Applicant recites “about 0.5 to about 5 inches”. The claimed range of about 0.5 to about 5 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 0.5 to 5 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 0.4 inches to be “about 0.5”, but 0.4 inches would fall outside of a range of 0.5 to 5 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 0.5 to about 5 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 0.5 to 5 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.4 to 6 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of 0.5 to 5 inches).
In Claim 4, Applicant recites “about 1 and about 3 inches”. The claimed range of about 1 and about 3 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 1 to 3 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 3.5 inches to be “about 3 inches”, but 3.5 inches would fall outside of a range of 1 to 3 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 1 to 3 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 1 to 3 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.5 to 4 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of about 1 and about 3 inches).
In Claim 6, Applicant recites “about 0.5 to about 6 inches”. The claimed range of about 0.5 to about 5 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 0.5 to 6 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 0.4 inches to be “about 0.5”, but 0.4 inches would fall outside of a range of 0.5 to 6 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 0.5 to about 6 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 0.5 to 6 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.4 to 7 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of 0.5 to 6 inches).
In Claim 7, Applicant recites “about 1 and about 2 inches”. The claimed range of about 1 and about 2 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 1 to 2 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 2.5 inches to be “about 2 inches”, but 2.5 inches would fall outside of a range of 1 to 2 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 1 to 2 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 1 to 2 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.5 to 3 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of about 1 and about 2 inches).
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “substantially parallel.” It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much the two interior cord portions can deviate from being parallel to be considered “substantially parallel”. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
In Claim 13, Applicant recites “about 0.5 to about 5 inches”. The claimed range of 0.5 to 5 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 0.5 to 5 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 0.4 inches to be “about 0.5”, but 0.4 inches would fall outside of a range of 0.5 to 5 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 0.5 to about 5 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 0.5 to 5 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement in inches of 0.4 to 6 in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of 0.5 to 5 inches).
In Claim 14, Applicant recites “about 1 and about 3 inches”. The claimed range of about 1 and about 3 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 1 to 3 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 3.5 inches to be “about 3 inches”, but 3.5 inches would fall outside of a range of 1 to 3 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 1 to 3 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 1 to 3 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.5 to 4 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of about 1 and about 3 inches).
In Claim 17, Applicant recites “about 0.5 to about 6 inches”. The claimed range of about 0.5 to about 5 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 0.5 to 6 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 0.4 inches to be “about 0.5”, but 0.4 inches would fall outside of a range of 0.5 to 6 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 0.5 to about 6 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 0.5 to 6 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.4 to 7 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of 0.5 to 6 inches).
In Claim 18, Applicant recites “about 1 and about 2 inches”. The claimed range of about 1 and about 2 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 1 to 2 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 2.5 inches to be “about 2 inches”, but 2.5 inches would fall outside of a range of 1 to 2 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 1 to 2 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 1 to 2 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.5 to 3 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of about 1 and about 2 inches).
Claim 19 recites the limitation, “substantially a same distance apart.” It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much the two points of the two cord ends can deviate from being the same distance apart to be considered “substantially a same distance apart”. Further, it is unclear how the two points of the two cord ends can be the same distance apart but only substantially. The two points of the cord ends either would be or would not be the same distance apart. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
In Claim 23, Applicant recites “about 1 and about 4 inches”. The claimed range of about 1 and about 4 inches is indefinite because it applies an approximating term “about” to the maximum and minimum boundaries of the range, and it is unclear whether a value outside of a non-approximated range of 1 to 4 inches would be acceptable. For example, one could consider 4.5 inches to be “about 4 inches”, but 4.5 inches would fall outside of a range of 1 to 4 inches. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Examiner notes that the Specification does not define any tolerances regarding how to interpret the broadening term “about”. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claimed range “about 1 to 4 inches” is not being interpreted to require that the range must be between 1 to 4 inches, thus giving importance to the term broadening term “about” (i.e. a measurement of 0.5 to 5 inches in the prior art will be deemed to meet the claimed approximated range of about 1 and about 4 inches).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-12, 21, and 25 (as best can be understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall US 5369809.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Hall discloses a garment (Figs. 1-4; Abstract) comprising: a body (Figs. 1-4 shows the upper body of a garment); and a hood (Figs. 1-4 #10) having a top portion (Figs. 1-4 #19), a back portion (Fig. 2 shows the rear view of the hood; Hall Annot. Fig. 2), first and second side portions (Hall Annot. Fig. 2) and a base (Hall Annot. Fig. 2), forming a front face opening (Hall Annot. Fig. 1), the hood having an outer layer (Figs. 1-4 #26), an inner liner (Figs. 1-4 #24) and a hood cinch system (Figs. 1-4 show the various components of the hood cinch system including #14/16/18/22/27/28/20/36/40/42), the hood cinch system comprising, a cord loop (Figs. 1-4 #16) having an interior cord portion (Col. 3:34-43) extending between the outer layer and the inner liner (Col. 3:34-43; Figs. 1-4 #14), the cord loop extending from the front face opening to the back portion adjacent the base of the hood (Fig. 1), the cord loop having an exterior cord portion (Figs. 1-4 #16 exterior) adjacent the base of the hood (Figs. 1-4), wherein the exterior cord portion may be pulled and lengthened to cinch the front face opening of the hood to the base of the hood (Col. 4:10-24).
Regarding Claim 2, Hall discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the interior cord portion has two sections (Figs. 1-2 #16 left/right inside sections #14 left/ right) that are substantially parallel to each other (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 8, Hall discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the cord loop is secured to the hood adjacent the front face opening (Col. 3:34-43 and 4:10-24).
Regarding Claim 9, Hall discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the exterior cord portion has a self-locking grommet (Figs. 2-3 #28).
Regarding Claim 10, Hall discloses the garment of claim 1, further comprising a pull cord (Figs. 1-2 #36) provided in a pocket (Figs. 1-2 #38) adjacent about the front face opening (Fig. 1).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Hall discloses a garment (Figs. 1-4; Abstract) comprising: a body (Figs. 1-4 shows the upper body of a garment); and a hood (Figs. 1-4 #10) having a top portion (Figs. 1-4 #19), a back portion (Hall Annot. Fig. 2), first and second side portions (Hall Annot. Fig. 2) and a base (Hall Annot. Fig. 2), the hood forming a front face opening (Hall Annot. Fig. 1), the hood having an outer layer (Figs. 1-4 #26), an inner liner (Figs. 1-4 #24) and a hood cinch system (Figs. 1-4 show the various components of the hood cinch system including #14/16/18/22/27/28/20/36/40/42), the hood cinch system comprising, a cord (Figs. 1-4 #16) having two cord ends (Figs. 1-4 #22 left/right), the two cord ends being secured between the outer layer and the inner liner of the hood (Col. 3:34-43; Figs. 1-4 #14), the cord having two interior cord portions (Col. 3:34-43) extending from the secured two cord ends to the back portion adjacent the base of the hood (Col. 3:34-43), the cord having an exterior cord portion (Figs. 1-4 #16 exterior) at the base of the hood (Figs. 1-4), wherein the exterior cord portion may be pulled and lengthened to gather the top portion, the back portion, and the first and second side portions of the hood adjacent to the base of the hood (Col. 4:10-24).
Regarding Claim 12, Hall discloses the garment of claim 11, wherein the two interior cord portions are substantially parallel to each other (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 21, Hall discloses the garment of claim 11, wherein the two cord ends are secured to the hood adjacent the front face opening (Col. 4:10-24).
Regarding Claim 25, Hall discloses the garment of claim 11, wherein the exterior cord portion of the cord has a self-locking grommet (Figs. 1-3 #28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-7 (as best can be understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Hall discloses the garment of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the two sections are provided about .5 to about 5 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the two sections by 0.5 to 5 inches to facilitate fitting of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified garment of Hall discloses the garment of claim 3, but does not expressly disclose wherein the two sections are provided about 1 and about 3 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the two sections by 1 to 3 inches to facilitate fitting of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, Hall discloses the garment of claim 1, wherein the interior cord portion extends outside the hood at first (Hall Annot. Fig. 1) and second openings (Hall Annot. Fig. 1) provided adjacent the base of the hood (Fig. 1), and wherein the exterior cord portion extends therebetween (Fig. 2).
Hall does not expressly disclose the first and second openings are provided about .5 to about 6 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the first and second openings by 0.5 to 6 inches to facilitate ease of function and aesthetics of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified garment of Hall discloses the garment of claim 6, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second openings are provided about 1 to about 2 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the first and second openings by 1 to 2 inches to facilitate ease of function and aesthetics of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 13-14, 17-19, and 23 (as best can be understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claims 11-12 and 21 above.
Regarding Claim 13, Hall discloses the garment of claim 12, but does not expressly disclose wherein the two interior cord portions are about .5 to about 5 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the two interior cord portions by 0.5 to 5 inches to facilitate fitting of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 14, the modified garment of Hall discloses the garment of claim 13, but does not expressly disclose wherein the two interior cord portions are about 1 and about 3 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the two interior cord portions by 1 to 3 inches to facilitate fitting of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17, Hall discloses the garment of claim 11, wherein the two interior cord portions extend outside the hood at first (Hall Annot. Fig. 1) and second openings (Hall Annot. Fig. 1) provided adjacent the base of the hood (Fig. 1), and wherein the exterior cord portion extends therebetween (Fig. 2).
Hall does not expressly disclose the first and second openings are provided about .5 to about 6 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the first and second openings by 0.5 to 6 inches to facilitate ease of function and aesthetics of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18, the modified garment of Hall discloses the garment of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second openings are provided about 1 to about 2 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to separate the first and second openings by 1 to 2 inches to facilitate ease of function and aesthetics of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 19, the modified garment of Hall discloses the garment of claim 18, wherein the two cord ends are secured at two points (Col. 4:10-24; Figs. 1-2) substantially a same distance apart as the first and second openings at the base of the hood (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Hall discloses the garment of claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein the two cord ends are secured about 1 to 4 inches apart. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to secure the two cord ends 1 to 4 inches apart to facilitate better fitting of the garment to the wearer of choice, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
PNG
media_image1.png
665
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
754
1212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hussey US 20180271196 teaches a hood system
Rolfe US 20140317829 teaches a hood apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732