DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on November 03, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 21, 23, 33 and 37 have been amended, claims 26-30 are withdrawn, claims 31-32 have been canceled and claim 41 is new. Accordingly, claims 21-30 and 33-40 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits on claims 21-25 and 33-40 to follow.
Because of the applicant’s amendment, the following in the office action filed August 06, 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn as examiner has interpreted enclosed from Oxford Languages Online Dictionary as surrounded.
Previous rejection to 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 03, 2025 have been fully considered but
they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues in remarks filed November 03, 2025 on pages 08-11 and that Hernandez nor its modification Hernandez/Guyan do NOT teach the claimed term / phrase “fully enclosed” wherein the cavity mesh component covers all sides of the cavity.
The Applicant further argues that Hernandez nor its modification Hernandez/Guyan do NOT teach the term “fully enclosed” wherein the cavity may belt open at any end by the mesh component, as described by [0084] of the disclosure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Hernandez and/or Hernandez/Guyan do NOT teach “fully enclosed” and “surrounded or closed off on all sides”.
Oxford Languages dictionary defines enclosed as ~ “surrounded or closed off on all sides”. Based upon the dictionary representation, it appears that using the broadest reasonable interpretation that both “enclosed” and “surrounded” are synonymous. If the Applicant intends these terms / phrases to mean and/or denote a different meaning, then the recited claims need to be amended to recite and communicate such.
The Examiner maintains that Figure 2; Hernandez positively teaches that mesh component (mesh component 32; Hernandez) per Oxford Languages dictionary “surrounds or closes off on all sides” the cavity (cavity 28; Hernandez). Merriam-Webster dictionary aligns with the foregoing Oxford Language dictionary definition of “surround” teaching (mesh component 32; Hernandez) “enclosing on all sides” the cavity (cavity 28; Hernandez).
Therefore Applicant’s argument that “Thus, a definition of "fully enclosed" consistent with the specification would not permit the cavity to be "open at a portion of mesh component" if the cavity is "fully enclosed by the mesh component" as claimed is not what the Applicant has written within the specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Applicant has stated in paragraph 0084 that the “Cavity 165 may be fully enclosed by mesh component 160 so as to be an internal cavity surrounded by unit cells of mesh component 160, or cavity 165 may be open at a portion of mesh component 160, such as at an upper end 143 of sole 140. “ Emphasis on the “or” which teaches that “fully enclosed” and “surrounded” are indeed different than being open at a portion of the mesh component. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that “Thus, a definition of "fully enclosed" consistent with the specification would not permit the cavity to be "open at a portion of mesh component" if the cavity is "fully enclosed by the mesh component" as claimed” is respectfully, false as [0084] of the disclosure clearly states “Cavity 165 may be fully enclosed by mesh component 160 so as to be an internal cavity surrounded by unit cells of mesh component 160, or cavity 165 may be open at a portion of mesh component 160, such as at an upper end 143 of sole 140.”
In summary, based on the Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting the terms “fully enclosed” and “surrounded” as synonymous to each other, but different from the statement after the conjunction / conditional term “or” wherein it is recited “Cavity 165 may be fully enclosed by mesh component 160 so as to be an internal cavity surrounded by unit cells of mesh component 160, or cavity 165 may be open at a portion of mesh component 160, such as at an upper end 143 of sole 140.“ Emphasis added.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, are drawn to the amended claim language that recites that is surrounded and fully enclosed or specifically “wherein the cavity is surrounded and fully enclosed by the mesh component”. These arguments are not commensurate with the rejected claims and a new rejection is set forth below to address the newly added claim limitations.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21-40 in the reply filed on July 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of Invention II drawing to claims 21-40 and Species A drawn to Figures 1-2, and sub Species I (Fig.3) and Sub-Sub-Species k (Figs. 29A and 29B) in the reply filed on July 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of footwear:
• Species A – footwear with small and medium sized pebbles (as shown in Figs. 1-2)
• Species B – footwear with connected matchsticks (as shown in Figs. 7-8)
• Species C – footwear with wishbone type structure (as shown in Fig. 11)
• Species D – footwear with spiral type structure (as shown in Fig 12)
• Species E – footwear with a lattice structure (as shown in Fig. 13)
• Species F – footwear with mosaic tile structure (as shown in Fig. 15)
The species are independent or distinct for reason(s) identified above. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
In addition, this application also contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct sub-species of sole structures some with inserts and others without inserts:
• Sub-Species I – sole structure with insert (as shown in Fig. 3)
• Sub-Species II– sole structure with insert and particles (as shown in Fig. 4)
• Sub-Species III – sole structure with small and medium sized pebbles mesh structure (as shown in Figs. 5A- 5C)
• Sub-Species IV – sole structure with a pyramid mesh structure (as shown in Fig. 9)
• Sub-Species V – sole structure with birds nest mesh structure (as shown in Fig. 10)
• Sub-Species VI – sole structure with lattice mesh structure (as shown in Figs. 16A – 16B)
• Sub-Species VII – sole structure with sidewall cavities with insertable elongated mesh components with knobs (as shown in Fig. 17)
• Sub-Species VIII – sole structure with a sidewall cavity structure (as shown in Fig. 18)
• Sub-Species IX– sole structure with heal counter (as shown in Fig. 19)
• Sub-Species X – sole structure with mesh (as shown in Fig. 20)
The species are independent or distinct for reason(s) identified above. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Additionally, this application also contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct sub-sub-species of mesh components:
• Sub-Sub-Species a –small and larger rectangle mesh component (as shown in figure 6)
• Sub-Sub-Species b – lines and boxes within a rectangle mesh component (as shown in figure 14)
• Sub-Sub-Species c – pyramid lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 21)
• Sub-Sub-Species d – horseshoe lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 22)
• Sub-Sub-Species e – cross within a circle lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 23)
• Sub-Sub-Species f – four leaf lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 24)
• Sub-Sub-Species g – double cross lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 25)
• Sub-Sub-Species h – checker board lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 26)
• Sub-Sub-Species i – four-point lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 27)
• Sub-Sub-Species j – circle lattice structure for a mesh component (as shown in Fig. 28)
• Sub-Sub-Species k –circular and wavy lattice cell (as shown in Figs. 29A-29B)
• Sub-Sub-Species l – cube unit cell (as shown in Figs. 30A-30B)
• Sub-Sub-Species m – shark tooth mesh component (as shown in Fig. 31)
• Sub-Sub-Species n – soft cell (as shown in Figs. 32A-32C)
• Sub-Sub-Species o – stiff cell (as shown in Figs. 33A-33C)
• Sub-Sub-Species p – small and large rectangle (as shown in Figs. 34)
The species are independent or distinct because, as disclosed, the species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species as described above. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Examiner notes that there appears to be no generic Figures.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species:
Applicant must elect one of Species A, B, C, D, E or F for prosecution on the merits; Applicant must then elect one of Sub-Species I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X for prosecution on the merits; and finally, Applicant must elect one of Sub-Sub-Species a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j, k, l, m, n, o, p for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
Accordingly, three elections must be made (one from Species A-F; one from Sub-Species I-X; and one from Sub-Sub-Species a-p), for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). While the searches of the identified species may overlap, the overall search would be seriously burdensome because Examiner would need to search for each distinct invention or variation. Furthermore, the search is only part of the examination process, and MPEP § 803 states "[i]f the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden". The examination of the application would also be burdensome because Examiner would be required to apply art and rejections to claims (presently presented or added in future prosecution) directed towards each distinct and different species of invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 26-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected Sub-Species II– sole structure with insert and particles (as shown in Fig. 4).
Claim 26 is drawn to “wherein the filler comprises particles arranged in the cavity”, which is drawn to nonelected Sub-Species II– sole structure with insert and particles (as shown in Fig. 4).
Claims 27, 28, 29 are withdrawn as these claims depend from a non – elected claim.
Claim 30 is drawn to comprising a port connected to the cavity, which is a non-elected Species F (Figure 15 Non-Elected; port 1069)(Paragraph 0104 discloses a port 1069).
Therefore claims 26-30 are withdrawn at this time. Thus, claims 21-25 and 31-40 have been examined on the merits.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-24 and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0001904 A1 to HOMAR HERNADEZ, (herein after "Hernadez”), and in view over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0281310 A1 to Alan Guyan, (herein after " Guyan”).
As to Claim 21, Hernadez discloses a sole (outsole 16; Hernadez) comprising: a mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) defining a cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez), wherein the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) comprises a three-dimensional structure comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells arranged in a repeating structure and formed of a first material (Figure 2 and Paras. 0010, 0029-0031; Hernadez ~ regarding being formed of a first material being polymeric material.), and wherein the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is surrounded and fully enclosed by the mesh component (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 00280-0032 ; Hernandez (cavity 28; Hernadez) is fully enclosed by the mesh portion (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component. Hernandez teaches that the cavity can be in the plantar or the heel of the shoe.)(Figure 2; Hernadez shows wherein the cavity is fully enclosed by the mesh portion. Examiner notes that the Oxford online dictionary defines enclosed as surrounded. Therefor teaching wherein the cavity is surrounded and fully enclosed by the mesh component.) and defined by an absence of unit cells that interrupts the repeating structure within the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) and the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is at least partially enclosed by the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component); and a filler arranged in the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) and formed of a second material different from the first material (pad 18; Hernadez ~ regarding a filler arranged in the cavity. Paragraphs 0029-0030 ~ regarding a filler material being Ethyl Vinyl Acetate, EVA material).
PNG
media_image1.png
892
1290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hernadez fails to disclose the lattice structure.
Guyan teaches footwear midsole with lattice structure formed between platforms and discloses lattice structures (lattice structure 110; Guyan) (Figure 1; Guyan), as doing so would provide cushioning and shock absorption for the foot of the user.
Therefore, based on Guyan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hernadez’s unit cells to include lattice structures, as doing so would provide cushioning and shock absorption for the foot of the user (para.0003; Guyan).
As to Claim 22, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the sole of claim 21.
Hernadez/Guyan fail to disclose further comprising a solid component connected to the mesh component.
Guyan teaches footwear midsole with lattice structure formed between platforms and discloses further comprising a solid component (outsole 106; Guyan) connected to the mesh component (lattice structure 110; Guyan).
Therefore, based on Guyan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hernadez/Guyan’s mesh component to include further comprising a solid component connected to the mesh component, as doing so would provide cushioning and shock absorption for the foot of the user (para.0003; Guyan).
As to Claim 23, Hernadez/Guyan the disclose the sole of claim 22, wherein the solid component (outsole 106; Guyan) is formed from the second material (Paragraph 0045; Guyan ~ regarding the solid component being and EVA foam. Guyan para. 0038 teaches (lattice structure 110; Guyan being formed of a polymer such as nylon, PTFE or any other thermoplastic polymer. Thereby teaching wherein the solid component is formed from the second material.)
As to Claim 24, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the sole of claim 21, wherein the filler comprises a foam insert (pad 18; Hernadez ~ regarding a filler arranged in the cavity. Paragraphs 0030 ~ regarding a filler material being an EVA).
As to Claim 33, Hernadez discloses an article of footwear, comprising: a sole (outsole 16; Hernadez) comprising: a solid component (wall 20; Hernadez), wherein from a toe region of the sole to a midfoot region of the sole, the solid component extends from a medial side of the sole to a lateral side of the sole (Figure 2 : Hernandez teaches wherein the solid component (20) from a toe region to a midfoot region of the sole (16), the solid component extends from a medial side of the sole to a lateral side of the sole (16) as Hernandez Figures shows a solid component extending around the circumference of the mesh component which is from a medial side of the sole to a lateral side of the sole);
a mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) connected to the solid component (wall 20; Hernadez)( (Figure 2; Hernadez)
wherein the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) defines a cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez), wherein the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) comprises a three-dimensional structure comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells arranged in a repeating structure and formed of a first material (Figure 2 and Paras. 0010, 0029-0031; Hernadez ~ regarding being formed of a first material being polymeric material. Figure 2 also teaches a three-dimensional structure comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells arranged in a repeating structure), and wherein the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is defined by an absence of unit cells that interrupts the repeating structure within the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) and the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is at least partially enclosed by the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component); a filler arranged in the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) and formed of a second material different from the first material (pad 18; Hernadez ~ regarding a filler arranged in the cavity. Paragraphs 0029-0030 ~ regarding a filler material being Ethyl Vinyl Acetate, EVA material); and an upper (upper 12; Hernadez) connected to the sole (outsole 16; Hernadez).
Hernadez fails to explicitly disclose lattice structures, lattice structures.
PNG
media_image2.png
811
1290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Guyan teaches footwear midsole with lattice structure formed between platforms and discloses lattice structures, lattice structures (lattice structure 110; Guyan) (Figure 1; Guyan), as doing so would provide cushioning and shock absorption for the foot of the user.
Therefore, based on Guyan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hernadez’s unit cells to include lattice structures, as doing so would provide cushioning and shock absorption for the foot of the user (para.0003; Guyan).
As to Claim 34, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the article of footwear of claim 33, wherein the lattice structure (lattice structure 110; Guyan) comprises interconnected struts (laths 114; Guyan) defining the plurality of interconnected unit cells (Figures 1 & 2; Guyan).
As to Claim 35, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the article of footwear of claim 32, wherein the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is larger than a maximum dimension of space between interconnected struts (laths 114; Guyan) defining a unit cell (Figure 2; Hernadez ~ regarding wherein the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is larger than a maximum dimension of space between interconnected struts defining a unit cell (modified rib 32; Hernadez with lattice structure 110; Guyan).
As to Claim 36, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the article of footwear of claim 33, wherein the mesh component (rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) is arranged at a heel region of the sole (outsole 16; Hernadez)(Para. 0029; Hernadez ~ regarding mesh component being arranged at a heel region of the sole “The ribs 32 are normally present in at least the heel 24…”).
As to Claim 37, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the article of footwear of claim 36,
wherein the solid component (wall 20; Hernadez) extends from a toe region of the sole (outsole 16; Hernadez) to the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0028 ~ wherein the solid component extends from a toe region of the sole to the mesh component.).
As to Claim 38, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the sole of claim 37, wherein the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is arranged in the heel region (para. 0011, 0028; Hernadez ~ regarding “In a preferred embodiment, an inner cavity is formed in at least one of the plantar, heel…”).
As to Claim 39, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the sole of claim 37, wherein the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is fully enclosed by the mesh portion (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component)(Figure 2; Hernadez shows wherein the cavity is fully enclosed by the mesh portion. Examiner notes that the Oxford online dictionary defines enclosed as surrounded.)
As to Claim 40, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the sole of claim 37, wherein the cavity (cavity 28; Hernadez) is open at an end of the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component and wherein the cavity is open at an end of the mesh component. The cavity is open at the upper or top end of the mesh.).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0001904 A1 to HOMAR HERNADEZ, (herein after "Hernadez”), and in view over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0281310 A1 to Alan Guyan, (herein after "Guyan”), as to claim 33 above, and further in view over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0323307 A1 to Daniel Kim, (herein after "Kim”).
As to Claim 41, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the sole of claim 33, wherein the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) solid component (wall 20; Hernadez).
Although Hernadez/Guyan discloses the mesh component (Figure 2 ~ rib 32; Hernadez ~ regarding a mesh component) and the solid component (wall 20; Hernadez), Hernadez/Guyan fail to disclose being welded to the solid component.
Kim teaches unibody construction footwear and discloses mesh (29; Kim ~ regarding mesh) component being welded to the solid component (23; Kim ~ regarding a solid component being leather, silicone rubber etc.) (Figure 6; Kim teaching that components 23 and 29 can be either a solid or mesh component see paragraphs 0003, 0144, 0171, 0179 and welded to each other see paragraphs 0178, and 0185).
Therefore, based on Kim teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hernadez/Guyan’s the mesh component and solid component to include being welded, as doing so would to provide additional structural integrity for the wearer.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0001904 A1 to HOMAR HERNADEZ, (herein after "Hernadez”), and in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0281310 A1 to Alan Guyan, (herein after " Guyan”), as to claim 21 above and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0033581 A1 to Elizabeth Barnes, (herein after " Barnes”).
As to Claim 25, Hernadez/Guyan disclose the sole of claim 21. wherein the filler (pad 18; Hernadez ~ regarding a filler arranged in the cavity. Paragraphs 0030 ~ regarding a filler material being an EVA) but fails to disclose comprising a fluid filled bladder.
Barnes teaches footwear with support assembly having primary and secondary members and discloses comprising a fluid filled bladder (Para.0034; Barnes ~ regarding fluid filled bladders.).
Therefore, based on Barnes’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hernadez/Guyan’s filler to include comprising a fluid filled bladder, as doing so would provide adequate support and impact force attenuation properties to prevent injury provide cushioning and shock absorption for the foot of the user (para. 0004; Barnes).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKWOKWO REDHEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday7:00 AM to 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKWOKWO OLABISI REDHEAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732