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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 8/19/2024 and 2/3/2025 have been considered by the office.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 60 and 80. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a means for opening and closing the first (and second) elongated hole in claim 1, 14 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diehl (US 4653131 A) in view of Kiik-Miley (US 20210259329 A1) further in view of Christensen (US 8695133 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Diehl discloses a device for use with an infant (restraint 16), comprising: an elongated member having a top surface and a bottom surface (See Fig. 1 and 3, restraint 16 having an elongated member in the form of sheet 18 having a top and bottom surface); the top surface and the bottom surface forming opposed sides of the elongated member (See Fig. 1 and 3, top and bottom surfaces forming opposed sides of the sheet 18 of blanket 10); a first hole situated through the elongated member and the top surface and the bottom surface (See Fig. 1, opening 13); a second hole situated through the elongated member and the top surface and the bottom surface (See Fig. 1, opening 15); the first hole and the second hole located adjacent to one another and creating a space between them on the top surface (See Fig. 1, adjacent openings 13 and 15 creating space between them); a plurality of straps extending outwardly from the elongated member (See Fig. 1, straps 26 extending from sheet 18); wherein, when in use, the elongated member is placed on a bed and secured to the bed using the plurality of straps (See Fig. 1, sheet 18 on mattress 12 and secured by straps 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diehl fails to explicitly disclose a first elongated hole extending outwardly from the first hole in a direction away from the space; a means for opening and closing the first elongated hole; a second elongated hole extending outwardly from the second hole in a direction away from the space; a means for opening and closing the second elongated hole; the infant is then placed in the space on the top surface of the elongated member, an arm of the infant is placed through the first hole and first elongated hole with the means for opening and closing the first elongated hole used to close the first elongated hole thereby securing the arm within the first hole, another arm is placed through the second hole and second elongated hole with the means for opening and closing the second elongated hole used to close the second elongated hole securing the another arm within the second hole, the arm and the another arm freely moveable between the bottom surface of the elongated member and the bed.
However, Kiik-Miley teaches a first elongated hole extending outwardly from the first hole in a direction away from the space (See Fig. 3, first opening 152 of first pouch 150); a means for opening and closing the first elongated hole (See Fig. 3, first fastener 154); a second elongated hole extending outwardly from the second hole in a direction away from the space (See Fig. 3, second opening 162 of second pouch 160); a means for opening and closing the second elongated hole (See Fig. 3, second fastener 164); an arm of the infant is placed through the first hole and first elongated hole with the means for opening and closing the first elongated hole used to close the first elongated hole thereby securing the arm within the first hole, another arm is placed through the second hole and second elongated hole with the means for opening and closing the second elongated hole used to close the second elongated hole securing the another arm within the second hole (See Fig. 1, 2, and 8, arm of infant is placed through the two arm holes 140 and 142 and fastener is closed securing the arm within arm holes 140 and 142).
PNG
media_image2.png
764
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
732
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
684
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl by adding the elongated holes and means for opening/closing said holes taught by Kiik-Miley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “house a baby’s entire arm”; (Kiik-Miley, [0031]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley fails to explicitly teach wherein, when in use, the infant is then placed in the space on the top surface of the elongated member and the arm and the another arm freely moveable between the bottom surface of the elongated member and the bed.
However, Christensen further teaches wherein, when in use, the infant is then placed in the space on the top surface of the elongated member and the arm and the another arm freely moveable between the bottom surface of the elongated member and the bed (See Fig. 1, baby 100 is placed on top surface of enclosure 102 and arms are free to move when placed in arm passageways 104, 110).
PNG
media_image5.png
470
774
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley by changing the arm placement of the infant such as taught by Christensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the baby to feel comfortable and move its arms 106, 10 while limiting the movement of the baby’s arms 106, 108”; (Christensen, [Col. 4, Lines 65-67]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 1 wherein the first hole and the second hole are substantially identical (See Fig. 1, arm openings 13 and 15 are identical).
Regarding Claim 3, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 1.
Diehl fails to explicitly teach wherein the means for opening and closing the first elongated hole is a zipper.
However, Kiik-Miley teaches wherein the means for opening and closing the first elongated hole is a zipper (“fastener 154, 164 is a zipper”; [0039]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl by adding the zippers taught by Kiik-Miley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “close the first pouch”; (Kiik-Miley, [0028]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 1.
Diehl fails to explicitly teach wherein the means for opening and closing the second elongated hole is a zipper.
However, Kiik-Miley teaches wherein the means for opening and closing the second elongated hole is a zipper (“fastener 154, 164 is a zipper”; [0039]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl by adding the zippers taught by Kiik-Miley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “close the second pouch”; (Kiik-Miley, [0029]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 1 wherein the elongated member is defined by a top side, a bottom side, a left side, and a right side (See Fig. 1, sheet 18 defined by a top side, bottom side, left and right side).
Regarding Claim 10, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 1.
Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley fails to explicitly teach a first flap to cover the zipper at an intersection of the first elongated hole and the first hole.
However, Christensen teaches a first flap to cover the zipper at an intersection of the first elongated hole and the first hole (See Fig. 18a and 18b, zipper cover 237a).
PNG
media_image6.png
402
622
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley by adding the zipper cover taught by Christensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “prevent the zipper 114 from irritating the skin of a swaddled baby”; (Christensen, [Col. 11, Lines 5-6]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 1.
Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley fails to explicitly teach a second flap to cover the zipper at an intersection of the second elongated hole and the second hole.
However, Christensen teaches a second flap to cover the zipper at an intersection of the second elongated hole and the second hole (See Fig. 18a and 18b, zipper cover 237a).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley by adding the zipper cover taught by Christensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “prevent the zipper 114 from irritating the skin of a swaddled baby”; (Christensen, [Col. 11, Lines 5-6]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 12 and 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diehl (US 4653131 A) in view of Christensen (US 8695133 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Diehl discloses a device for use with a patient (restraint 16), comprising: an elongated member having a top surface and a bottom surface (See Fig. 1 and 3, restraint 16 having an elongated member in the form of sheet 18 having a top and bottom surface); the top surface and the bottom surface forming opposed sides of the elongated member (See Fig. 1 and 3, top and bottom surfaces forming opposed sides of the sheet 18 of blanket 10); a first hole situated through the elongated member (See Fig. 1, opening 13); a second hole situated through the elongated member (See Fig. 1, opening 15); the first hole and the second hole located adjacent to one another and creating a space between them on the top surface (See Fig. 1, adjacent openings 13 and 15 creating space between them); a plurality of straps extending outwardly from the elongated member (See Fig. 1, straps 26 extending from sheet 18); wherein, when in use, the elongated member is placed on a support and secured to the support using the plurality of straps (See Fig. 1, sheet 18 on mattress 12 and secured by straps 26), an arm of the patient is placed through the first hole (arm opening 13 is meant for an arm to be placed through the hole), another arm is placed through the second hole (arm opening 15 is meant for an arm to be placed through the hole).
Diehl fails to explicitly teach the patient is then placed in the space on the top surface of the elongated member and the arm and the another arm moveable between the bottom surface of the elongated member and the support.
However, Christensen further teaches the patient is then placed in the space on the top surface of the elongated member and the arm and the another arm moveable between the bottom surface of the elongated member and the support (See Fig. 1, baby 100 is placed on top surface of enclosure 102 and arms are free to move when placed in arm passageways 104, 110).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl by changing the arm placement of the infant such as taught by Christensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the baby to feel comfortable and move its arms 106, 10 while limiting the movement of the baby’s arms 106, 108”; (Christensen, [Col. 4, Lines 65-67]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17, Diehl discloses a device for use with a patient (restraint 16), comprising: an elongated member having a top surface and a bottom surface (See Fig. 1 and 3, restraint 16 having an elongated member in the form of sheet 18 having a top and bottom surface); the top surface and the bottom surface forming opposed sides of the elongated member (See Fig. 1 and 3, top and bottom surfaces forming opposed sides of the sheet 18 of blanket 10); a first hole situated in the top surface of the elongated member (See Fig. 1, opening 13); a second hole situated in the top surface of the elongated member (See Fig. 1, opening 15); the first hole and the second hole located adjacent to one another and creating a space between them on the top surface (See Fig. 1, adjacent openings 13 and 15 creating space between them); wherein, when in use, the elongated member is placed on a support (See Fig. 1, sheet 18 on mattress 12).
Diehl fails to explicitly disclose the first hole is used to secure a first appendage of the patient, the second hole is used to secure a second appendage of the patient, with the first appendage and the second appendage moveable within the elongated member between the top surface and the bottom surface.
However, Christensen teaches the first hole is used to secure a first appendage of the patient (See Fig. 1, passageway 104), the second hole is used to secure a second appendage of the patient (See Fig. 1, passageway 110), with the first appendage and the second appendage moveable within the elongated member between the top surface and the bottom surface (See Fig. 1, baby 100 is placed on top surface of enclosure 102 and arms are free to move when placed in arm passageways 104, 110).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl by adding the securable holes such as taught by Christensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the baby to feel comfortable and move its arms 106, 10 while limiting the movement of the baby’s arms 106, 108”; (Christensen, [Col. 4, Lines 65-67]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 18, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 17 and further comprising a plurality of straps extending outwardly from the elongated member (See Fig. 1, straps 26).
Claim 13-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diehl (US 4653131 A) in view of Christensen (US 8695133 B2), further in view of Kiik-Miley (US 20210259329 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 12.
Diehl in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach a first elongated hole extending outwardly from the first hole in a direction away from the space.
However, Kiik-Miley teaches a first elongated hole extending outwardly from the first hole in a direction away from the space (See Fig. 3, first opening 152 of first pouch 150).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Christensen by adding the first elongated hole taught by Kiik-Miley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “house a baby’s entire arm”; (Kiik-Miley, [0031]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 13.
Diehl in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach a means for opening and closing the first elongated hole.
However, Kiik-Miley teaches a means for opening and closing the first elongated hole (See Fig. 3, first fastener 154).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Christensen by adding the fastener taught by Kiik-Miley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “close the first pouch”; (Kiik-Miley, [0028]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 14.
Diehl in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach a second elongated hole extending outwardly from the second hole in a direction away from the space.
However, Kiik-Miley teaches a second elongated hole extending outwardly from the second hole in a direction away from the space (See Fig. 3, second opening 162 of second pouch 160).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Christensen by adding the second elongated hole taught by Kiik-Miley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “house a baby’s entire arm”; (Kiik-Miley, [0031]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 16, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 15.
Diehl in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach a means for opening and closing the second elongated hole.
However, Kiik-Miley teaches a means for opening and closing the second elongated hole (See Fig. 3, second fastener 164).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Christensen by adding the fastener taught by Kiik-Miley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “close the second pouch”; (Kiik-Miley, [0029]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diehl (US 4653131 A) in view of Kiik-Miley (US 20210259329 A1) in view of Christensen (US 8695133 B2), further in view of Aiken (US 20120311762 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 5.
Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach wherein the left side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the top side to a center of the left side.
However, Aiken teaches wherein the left side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the top side to a center of the left side (See Fig. 1B, left lateral side 155A tapers outwardly from top side to center).
PNG
media_image7.png
538
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen by adding tapering such as taught by Aiken. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 6.
Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach wherein the left side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the bottom side to the center of the left side.
However, Aiken teaches wherein the left side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the bottom side to the center of the left side (See Fig. 1B, left lateral side 155A tapers outwardly from bottom side to center).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen by adding tapering such as taught by Aiken. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 5.
Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach wherein the right side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the top side to a center of the right side.
However, Aiken teaches wherein the right side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the top side to a center of the right side (See Fig. 1B, right lateral side 155B tapers outwardly from top side to center).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen by adding tapering such as taught by Aiken. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Diehl, as modified, teaches the device (restraint 16) of Claim 8.
Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen fails to explicitly teach wherein the right side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the bottom side to the center of the right side.
However, Aiken teaches wherein the right side of the elongated member tapers outwardly from the bottom side to the center of the right side (See Fig. 1B, right lateral side 155B tapers outwardly from bottom side to center).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Diehl in view of Kiik-Miley in view of Christensen by adding tapering such as taught by Aiken. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673