DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 20 are amended. Claims 9 and 19 are cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 26, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 10, 13, and 20 have been amended, claims 9 and 19 have been cancelled, and 21-24 have been added. Thus, claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification in the after final response of December 25, 2025, now entered, has overcome the specification objections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §102(a)(1) rejections, however all pending claims remain rejected under 35 USC §103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “cleavage” refers to a negatively formed space or support structure. The examiner disagrees. The paragraph which supposedly provides support for this term recites that the cushion component is “placed on the wearer’s Achilles tendon, which will lift the wearer’s heel” and “raising the area between the heel and calf”. There is no recitation of negative space, nor is any inherently required. For example, Vetters recites substantially similar language “when . . . the foam insert 16 is placed on the wearer’s Achilles tendon, which will lift the wearer’s heel and relive pressure caused by direct connect with any and all surfaces” (para. 0036). There is no indication of a negatively formed space or support structure for lifting and cradling the heel in the insert of Vetters. Rather, it is a flat foam piece.
Next applicant recites that the pad of Lavigne does not maintain a defined stable, concave space. This features is not in the claim language, and also finds no support in the specification or figures. There is no requirement of a maintained pad distance. Furthermore, Applicant’s determination of how Lavigne works is simply attorney argument and not supported by Lavigne. Indeed, Lavigne recites that the pocket is filled with a silicone gel which is then solidified (p. 3, l. 120). Thus, it is unclear where applicant is gleaning that the gap disappears under load. Furthermore, it is unclear how Applicant’s invention supposedly works if similar materials are utilized as to Lavigne. How can the gap of Lavigne diminish under load, but not in the present application? What causes this? And what support is there that the present application behaves any differently than that of Lavigne? Applicant has pointed to no structural features that would be able to accomplish this feature. The examiner finds no support for reading cleavage as a “cradle or recess” built into the cushion and will continue to interpret cleavage as a wedge. Furthermore, even if the examiner did find such support, Lavigne indeed includes such a “cleavage”. The gel of Lavigne is solidified resulting in a piece shaped to the anatomy of the user’s foot. The shape of a user’s foot would include a cavity or recess to house the heel and thus a “cleavage”.
Applicant argues that horizontal body for ankle cushioning and vertical lip for shoe accommodation provide structure different than that of Lavigne. The Examiner disagrees. The lip of the cushion of Lavigne is considered the end point of the cushion, that every cushion in a pocket would include. And the horizontal body is the rest of the cushion. Applicant’s recitation of lip in paras. 39 and 40 and Fig. 2 does not provide any assistance in structurally differentiating the device from that of Lavigne.
On page 9 of the remarks Applicant recites that Lavigne does not account for distinction C. These arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. No structural differences are highlighted, merely the lack of the specific words are utilized. Applicant states that Lavigne only focuses on the heel or Achilles tendon, but this is simply incorrect. Lavigne explicitly includes that there is padding along the body prominences (p. 4, l. 157).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the cushion component is a ‘U’ shaped foam insert is attached” in line 14 which is missing a term before “is attached” such as “that” or “which” or the word “is” should be deleted.
Claim 13 recites “the cushion component is a ‘U’ shaped foam insert is attached” in line 14 which is missing a term before “is attached” such as “that” or “which” or the word “is” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is 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 5, 7, 13, 18, 20, 23, and 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites that the “cushion component is attached by insertion into a pocket attached to the inner portion, outer portion, or in-between layers of the sock by stitches” however claim 1 recites that the cushion is “positioned within and attached the inside of the sock” in line 5. It is unclear how the cushion component could be in a pocket on the outer portion, but somehow also be positioned within and attached to the inside of the sock.
Claim 5 recites that the pocket is attached to the inner portion, outer portion, or in-between layers and that the pocket is attached with stitches “within and to the sock”. It is unclear if the claim recites that the pocket stitches must extend to the sock, or if the pocket is located within the sock.
Claim 7 recites that the cushion is filled with a material from a group of materials. Claim 1 already recites that the cushion is a foam insert. It is therefore unclear if the claim attempts to redefine the material, or if additional materials are claimed to be utilized in conjunction with the foam.
Claim 13 recites that the “cushion component is attached by insertion into a pocket attached to the inner portion, outer portion, or in-between layers of the sock by stitches” however claim 13 previously recited that the cushion is “positioned within and attached the inside of the sock” in line 5. It is unclear how the cushion component could be in a pocket on the outer portion, but somehow also be positioned within and attached to the inside of the sock.
Claim 13 recites that the pocket is attached to the inner portion, outer portion, or in-between layers and that the pocket is attached with stitches “within and to the sock”. It is unclear if the claim recites that the pocket stitches must extend to the sock, or if the pocket is located within the sock.
Claim 18 recites that the cushion is filled with a material from a group of materials. Claim 13 already recites that the cushion is a foam insert. It is therefore unclear if the claim attempts to redefine the material, or if additional materials are claimed to be utilized in conjunction with the foam.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 21, and 22 and 13, 18, 20, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavigne (WO 2007099261) in view of Vetters et al. (US 20050107728).
Regarding claim 1, Lavigne describes a sock (sock 1), comprising:
a first end to receive toes (see annotated Fig. 6),
a second end to overlay a calf (see annotated Fig. 6), and
a heel zone therebetween to overlay a heel (see annotated Fig. 6); and
a cushion component (buffer 2) shaped to contour the heel, ankles, and posterior calf and positioned within and attached to the sock (attached to sock by stitches, p. 2, ll. 44-48) of the sock whereby when the sock is in use the cushion is positioned over lateral and medial malleolus of the foot and reduces pressure to the integument and body tissue that covers the lateral and medial malleolus of the foot by distributing pressure caused by direct contacts with any and all surfaces while accommodating the ability to ambulate (depending on the anatomy and size of the user’s foot, the sock of Lavigne would cover the lateral and medial malleolus);
wherein the sock further comprises a main body, the main body comprising an ankle portion and a foot portion (see annotated Fig. 1); wherein the cushion component is disposed at the ankle portion of the main body, and extends partially about the ankle portion of the sock (is in the ankle portion and extends partially about the ankle portion); wherein the cushion component is configured to protect an ankle of Achilles heel of a wearer from abrasion and discomfort caused by impact with a hard surface (is configured to protect inasmuch as claimed)
wherein the cushion component is a “U” shaped insert (is a U-shape because it extends around the lateral to medial side in a U- shape, see Fig. 2 which depicts a back view, and Fig. 1 which depicts a side view, which, combined depicts that the insert 2 is a U-shaped component) is attached to the tube-sock to serve as an elevating component (is attached, and extends below the foot and thus is considered to elevate the foot by sewing, p. 3, l. 125), wherein the cushion component (2) comprises a horizontal body wrapping partially around the ankle portion from a rear side of the sock toward a front side of the sock (see Figs. 1 and 2 depicting location of the cushioning component which wraps around the ankle), wherein the horizontal body is configured to cushion the ankle of the wearer at a height of the heel (see annotated Fig. 8 and see Figs. 1 and 2 depicting the cushion 2 wrapping around the rear and toward a front of the sock); and the cushion component (2) further comprises a vertical lip (see annotated Fig. 8) extending from a top of the sock towards a heel corner of the sock (the cushion 2 has a thickness, at the edge of the cushion is considered a lip because there is a thickness to the cushion 2), wherein the vertical lip is configured to further protect the ankle of the wearer and provide leeway for heels of different heights (is configured to protect the ankle of heels of different heights inasmuch as claimed);
wherein the cushion is shaped and configured to be positioned over an anatomic shape and bony prominences of the foot (over the heel and Achilles, and bony protrusion, p. 4 ll. 157-159), the cushion component is an integrated structure and positioned to simultaneously conform to, lift the Achilles tendon area, and protect the medial and lateral malleoli (covers heal and Achilles, p. 2, ll. 39-40);
wherein the cushion component is formed to create a cleavage for the heel to rest within (see annotated Fig. 6).
Lavigne does not explicitly describe that the cushion is attached to the inside of the sock although Lavigne describes that the pocket could be attached to the sock, outside of the sock, or between layers of the sock, it does not recite what is considered “attached to the sock”.
In related art, Vetters describes attaching component 12 within a sock (para. 0036, 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the pocket to be stitched within the sock in order to provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance by hiding the pocket body. Furthermore, such an attachment is merely a rearrangement of part. Additionally, such a placement would be obvious to try as there are only three possible locations to attach a pocket: outside, inside, and between layers.
Lavigne does not explicitly describe that the cushion is foam but does describes utilizing a material providing flexibility and shock-absorbing properties (ll. 40-43).
In related art for therapeutic socks, Vetters describes a similar sock that includes an insert that can be formed of gel, foam, air, soft fabric, or a combination (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the material of Lavigne to be foam as such a modification is a simple substitution of one known element (gel) for another (foam) with predictable results. That is, as evidenced by Vetters, one of ordinary skill would understand the predictable results of swapping gel for foam inserts.
Lavigne as modified does not explicitly describe that the horizontal body has a length between 2 and 5 inches, and the vertical lip has a length between 1 and 3 inches. The specification does not provide criticality for these ranges, but rather states that other lengths are appropriate (paras. 39 and 40). Therefore, use of solely legal precedent is acceptable (MPEP 2144(III)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the body length and vertical lip to be between 2 and 5 inches and 1 and 3 inches respectively as such a modification is a mere change in size and “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is] not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144(IV)(A)).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the lengths of the various areas in order to accommodate feet of different sizes. That is, a larger foot would require a larger cushioning area and thus modifying the lengths to correspond to the particular foot would be obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
681
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
354
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 1 wherein the sock is a tube-sock (is a tube sock).
Regarding claim 5, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 1, wherein the cushion component (2) is attached by insertion into a pocket (pocket 20) attached to the inner portion, outer portion, or in-between layers of the sock by stitches (pocket stitched to sock, p. 3, l 125); wherein the pocket is attached with stitches (stitched, p. 3, l. 125) within and to the sock (the pocket is stitched to the sock which requires that the stitches extend into the material of the sock and thus satisfy the “within” term), and wherein a location of the stitches is designed to allow the cushion component to conform to a rounded Achilles tendon (cushion is designed to allow cushioning to the Achilles, l. 153-154, and thus the stitching must be as well).
Regarding claim 7, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 1 wherein the cushion is filled with a material from the group comprising foam (as modified, foam), feathers, polyester, silk, air, linen, gel or other liquid, rubber, synthetic plastic, or water.
Regarding claim 8, Lavigne describes the sock of claim 2, but does not explicitly describe wherein the tube-sock has anti-slip elements between the first end and the heel zone of the sock.
In related art for therapeutic socks, Vetters describes wherein the tube-sock has anti-slip elements (non-slip tread 18) between the first end and the heel zone of the sock (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the sock of Lavigne to include the non-slip tread 18 of Vetters in order to allow the wearer of the sock to safely ambulate without removing the sock (para. 0036).
Regarding claim 10, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 1 wherein the cushion component is attached to the inside of the sock to (what follows is a recitation of intended use) serve as the elevating component (serves as an elevating component inasmuch as claimed, see Fig. 6 in which the foam can be located under the heel of the sock).
Regarding claim 11, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 10 wherein the cushion component is positioned so that when the therapeutic sock is worn, the cushion component is placed on the wearer's Achilles tendon (is placed on Achilles tendon), which will (what follows is a recitation of intended use) lift the wearer's heel and relieve pressure caused by direct contact with any and all surfaces (see Fig. 6, depending on how worn the pad lifts the user’s heel and the Achilles is surrounded as shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 12, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 11 wherein the tube-sock material is a type of fabric (textile materials, ll. 127-129) that allows for adaptation to the needs of a patient wearer but does not explicitly describe that the material selected from the group comprising elastic, cotton, nylon, crylic, crepe, elastane, linen, polyamide, polyester, silk, tencel, viscose, and viscolycra.
In related art for socks, Vetters describes that the tube-sock material may be elastic, cotton, nylon, etc. (para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the material Lavigne to be that of Vetters in order to permit the sock to be adapted to the needs of a patient wearer (Vetters, para. 0037).
Regarding claim 21, sock of claim 1 wherein anti-slip elements are provided on the sole of the sock.
Lavigne does not explicitly describe wherein the tube-sock has anti-slip elements on the sole of the sock.
In related art for therapeutic socks, Vetters describes wherein the tube-sock has anti-slip elements (non-slip tread 18) on the sole of the sock (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the sock of Lavigne to include the non-slip tread 18 of Vetters in order to allow the wearer of the sock to safely ambulate without removing the sock (para. 0036) and to provide traction to the user.
Regarding claim 22, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 10 wherein the cushion component is placed in its own cloth pocket (pocket 20, canvas, p.2 , l. 45) and the cloth pocket has been attached with stitches within and to the sock (stitched, p. 2, ll. 44-46, location is within the sock as modified by Vetters).
Regarding claim 13, Lavigne describes a tube-sock (sock 1), comprising:
a first end to receive toes (see annotated Fig. 6),
a second end to overlay a calf (see annotated Fig. 6), and
a heel zone therebetween to overlay a heel (see annotated Fig. 6); and
a cushion component (buffer 2) shaped to contour the heel, ankles, and posterior calf and positioned within and attached to the tube-sock (stitched, p. 2, ll. 44-46) whereby when the tube-sock is in use the cushion is positioned over lateral and medial malleolus of the foot and reduces pressure to integument and body tissue that covers the lateral and medial malleolus of the foot by distributing pressure caused by direct contacts with any and all surfaces while accommodating the ability to ambulate (depending on the anatomy and size of the user’s foot, the sock of Lavigne would cover any boney prominences)
wherein the cushion is shaped and positioned over the anatomic shape and boney prominences of the foot (over the heel and Achilles, and bony protrusion, p. 4 ll. 157-159),
wherein the cushion component is a “U” shaped insert (is a U-shape because it extends around the lateral to medial side in a U- shape, see Fig. 2 which depicts a back view, and Fig. 1 which depicts a side view, which, combined depicts that the insert 2 is a U-shaped component) is attached to the tube-sock to serve as an elevating component (is attached, and extends below the foot and thus is considered to elevate the foot by sewing, p. 3, l. 125), wherein the cushion component (2) comprises a horizontal body wrapping partially around the ankle portion from a rear side of the sock toward a front side of the sock (see Figs. 1 and 2 depicting location of the cushioning component which wraps around the ankle), and a vertical lip (see annotated Fig. 8) extending from a top of the sock towards a heel corner of the sock (the cushion 2 has a thickness, at the edge of the cushion is considered a lip because there is a thickness to the cushion 2), wherein the cushion component (2) is attached by insertion into a pocket (pocket 20) attached to the inner portion, outer portion, or in-between layers of the sock by stitches (pocket stitched to sock, p. 3, l 125); wherein the pocket is attached with stitches (stitched, p. 3, l. 125) within and to the sock (the pocket is stitched to the sock which requires that the stitches extend into the material of the sock and thus satisfy the “within” term), and wherein a location of the stitches is designed to allow the cushion component to conform to a rounded Achilles tendon (cushion is designed to allow cushioning to the Achilles, l. 153-154, and thus the stitching must be as well), the cushion component is an integrated structure and positioned to simultaneously conform to, lift the Achilles tendon area, and protect the medial and lateral malleoli (covers heal and Achilles, p. 2, ll. 39-40);
wherein the cushion component is formed to create a cleavage for the heel to rest within (see annotated Fig. 6).
Lavigne does not explicitly describe that the cushion is attached to the inside of the sock although Lavigne describes that the pocket could be attached to the sock, outside of the sock, or between layers of the sock, it does not recite what is considered “attached to the sock”.
In related art, Vetters describes attaching component 12 within a sock (para. 0036, 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the pocket to be stitched within the sock in order to provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance by hiding the pocket body. Furthermore, such an attachment is merely a rearrangement of part. Additionally, such a placement would be obvious to try as there are only three possible locations to attach a pocket: outside, inside, and between layers.
Lavigne does not explicitly describe wherein the tube-sock has anti-slip elements between the first end and the heel zone of the sock.
In related art for therapeutic socks, Vetters describes wherein the tube-sock has anti-slip elements (non-slip tread 18) between the first end and the heel zone of the sock (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the sock of Lavigne to include the non-slip tread 18 of Vetters in order to allow the wearer of the sock to safely ambulate without removing the sock (para. 0036) and to provide traction to the user.
Lavigne does not explicitly describe that the cushion is foam but does describes utilizing a material providing flexibility and shock-absorbing properties (ll. 40-43).
In related art for therapeutic socks, Vetters describes a similar sock that includes an insert that can be formed of gel, foam, air, soft fabric, or a combination (para. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the material of Lavigne to be foam as such a modification is a simple substitution of one known element (gel) for another (foam) with predictable results. That is, as evidenced by Vetters, one of ordinary skill would understand the predictable results of swapping gel for foam inserts.
Lavigne as modified does not explicitly describe that the horizontal body has a length between 2 and 5 inches, and the vertical lip has a length between 1 and 3 inches. The specification does not provide criticality for these ranges, but rather states that other lengths are appropriate (paras. 39 and 40). Therefore, use of solely legal precedent is acceptable (MPEP 2144(III)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the body length and vertical lip to be between 2 and 5 inches and 1 and 3 inches respectively as such a modification is a mere change in size and “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is] not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144(IV)(A)).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the lengths of the various areas in order to accommodate feet of different sizes. That is, a larger foot would require a larger cushioning area and thus modifying the lengths to correspond to the particular foot would be obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Laving describes the sock of claim 17 wherein the cushion is filled with a material from the group comprising foam (as modified, foam), feathers, polyester, silk, air, linen, gel, or other liquid, rubber, synthetic plastic, or water.
Regarding claim 20, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 19 wherein the tube-sock material is a type of fabric (textile materials, ll. 127-129) to allow for adaptation to the needs of a patient wearer but does not explicitly describe that the material selected from the group comprising elastic, cotton, nylon, crylic, crepe, elastane, linen, polyamide, polyester, silk, tencel, viscose, and viscolycra.
In related art for socks, Vetters describes that the tube-sock material may be elastic, cotton, nylon, etc. (para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the material Lavigne to be that of Vetters in order to permit the sock to be adapted to the needs of a patient wearer (Vetters, para. 0037).
Regarding claim 23, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 13 wherein anti-slip elements are provided on the sole of the sock (as modified by Vetters, includes non-slip tread on the sole of the sock).
Regarding claim 24, Lavigne as modified describes the sock of claim 13 wherein the cushion component (2) is placed in its own cloth pocket (pocket 20, canvas, p.2 , l. 45) and the cloth pocket has been attached with stitches within and to the sock (stitched, p. 2, ll. 44-46, location is within the sock as modified by Vetters).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732