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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to the 02/19/2026 reply to the 10/21/2025 Office action.
The reply, page 7, cancelled claim 9 and amended claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 17 and 19-20.
Claims 1-8, 10-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2012/0255128 A1 in view of references already of record in light of the issues introduced by the claim amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, each claim as amended recites “…wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers has a first color and a first color contrast, a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers, wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers has a second color and a second color contrast that is less than the first color contrast…” which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. MPEP 2111. Under the BRI the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01. A review of the specification to determine the intended meaning of first color contrast and second color contrast finds the terms on page 31 at lines 9-10, “…some embodiments, the fire-retardant fibers have a first color contrast (sometimes referred to as brightness contrast, luminance contrast or value).” Thus the specification does not provide any guidance for interpreting first color contrast and second color contrast and as a result the ordinary meaning of color contrast is used. The ordinary definition used is “[c]olor contrast is about how one color stands out from another color.” (https://www.chhs.colostate.edu/accessibility/best-practices-how-tos/color-contrast/)
As a result, the claim is indefinite because the recited “a first color and a first color contrast” is unclear in that the claim sets forth a color having a contrast but in view of the ordinary definition a contrast requires a second color which determines the contrast. The specification does not provide any guidance on interpreting a contrast. Therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because it is unclear how the contrast is intended to be determined.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-19 are rejected via dependency.
In an effort to provide substantive examination the following interpretation is used:
1. (Currently Amended) A mattress cover, comprising: a plurality of fire-retardant fibers, wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers has a first color [[and a first color contrast]]; a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers, wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers has a second color [[and a second color contrast that is less than the first color contrast,]] wherein the first color is different from and contrasts with the second color, wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers are woven together with the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers in a face layer of the mattress cover, and wherein the weight percentage of the non-fire-retardant fibers is less than the weight percentage of the fire-retardant fibers.
A similar interpretation is used for the remaining independent claims.
NOTE: any prior art rejection provided below is made as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues above.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0255128 A1, hereinafter D1, in view of US 2022/0389628 A1 (previously cited), hereinafter D2.
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses a mattress cover (abstract; per MPEP 2111. 02 I, note that the preamble is interpreted as merely reciting an intended use or a statement of purpose, and is not considered limiting), comprising:
a plurality of fire-retardant fibers (one yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn, this could be a fiberglass fiber or para-aramid or such. In the embodiment produced the yarn used was a 1/99 fiberglass that was air jet spun with modacrylic FR fibers wrapped around the modacrylic, [0048]);
a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (plaited with this yarn into the jersey side of the fabric was a 1/70 polyester yarn, [0048]),
wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers are woven together with the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers in a face layer of the mattress cover (As shown in FIG. 3, two yarns are used on the jersey side of the fabric. One yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn, this could be a fiberglass fiber or para-aramid or such. In the embodiment produced the yarn used was a 1/99 fiberglass that was air jet spun with modacrylic FR fibers wrapped around the modacrylic. Plaited with this yarn into the jersey side of the fabric was a 1/70 polyester yarn. These two yarns make up the flat jersey side of the fabric. The role and function of the 1/70 polyester yarn is to support the fiberglass yarn during the knitting process to reduce the chance of defects like holes to be produced. The most important benefit of the polyester yarn is to melt and mix with the charred modacrylic fibers and coagulate and produce a simulated shield to block the flame from reaching the latex or foam or more importantly reducing the air flow), and
wherein the weight percentage of the non-fire-retardant fibers is less than the weight percentage of the fire-retardant fibers ([0040] the melting yarn is between about 5% and about 20% of the total fabric compositions).
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers has a first color [[and a first color contrast]] or wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers has a second color [[and a second color contrast that is less than the first color contrast,]] wherein the first color is different from and contrasts with the second color.
However, D2 discloses a mattress cover (10 in fig. 3; [0028]-[0029]), comprising: a plurality of fire-retardant fibers, wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers (first weft yarns 100, fig. 1, are flame resistant [0017]) has a first color ([0023] the two different yarns could also have different ... colors); and a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (second weft yarns 200), wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (second weft yarns 200) has a second color ([0023] the two different yams could also have different ... colors), wherein the first color is different from the second color ([0023] the two different yams could also have different ... colors). It is noted that different colors inherently provide contrast, because the colors are different.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D2 to modify the cover of D1 for the purpose of identifying the presence of fire resistant materials due to the different colors used. An invention created through the combining of prior art elements (i.e. the fire resistant cover of D1 and the different colored fire resistant fibres used in the D2) according to known methods (i.e. a design choice) to yield predictable results (i.e. a fireproof mattress pad) is obvious.
As to claim 2.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the first color is white and the second color is blue.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including aesthetic design changes, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, see §I which cites In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947), where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation having no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As claimed, a color is ornamental as a function is not claimed nor is one supported in the specification as filed.
A review of the specification appears finds this color combination is arbitrary and no support is found for any criticality of the color choice limitation. Per MPEP 2144.04 because the applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it is appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
The applicant has not disclosed that the recited color limitation solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose or function, i.e. lacks any supported criticality. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation above the fact that the color choice is ornamental. Thus, a device having the claimed color would not perform differently than the prior art disclosure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed color, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
As to claim 3.
See explanation for claim 2.
As to claim 4.
See explanation for claim 2.
As to claim 5.
See explanation for claim 2.
As to claim 6.
D1 discloses wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (melting yarn) are 1% by weight to 50% by weight of a total weight of the mattress cover ([0040] the melting yarn is between about 5% and about 20% of the total fabric compositions), wherein the fire-retardant fibers are 50% by weight to 99% by weight of the total weight of the mattress cover (balance to one yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn).
As to claim 7.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the mattress cover has a weight of 100 grams per square meter ("gsm") to 1,000 gsm.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §IV.
A review of the specification appears finds the limitation of claim 7 arbitrary as no support is found for any criticality of the claimed values. Per MPEP 2144.04 because the applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it is appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
The applicant has not disclosed the limitation of claim 7 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to select a cover weight as a matter of design choice in an effort to select a fabric commensurate with the mattress being covered.
As to claim 8.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by D2: discloses wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers (first weft yarns 100, fig. 1, are flame resistant [0017]) is composed of one or more of a cellulosic yarn, rayon yarn, wool, viscose filament yarn, polyester, polypropylene, fire retardant poly, acrylic, nylon, synthetic bulking yarns, or combinations or blends thereof (viscose rayon fibers, [0017]).
An invention created through the combining of prior art elements (i.e. the fire resistant cover of D1 and the different colored fire resistant fibres used in the D2) according to known methods (i.e. a routine material selection using known alternatives) to yield predictable results (i.e. a fireproof mattress pad) is obvious.
As to claim 10.
D1 discloses wherein the face layer and a back layer are not attached to an inlay layer and the face layer and the back layer encapsulates the inlay layer ([0024] a flame resistant (FR) three-layer double-knit fabric. The top layer is of standard non-FR face yarn, the middle layer is of a FR filler spun yarn and the bottom layer is of a FR spun yarn or FR filament yarn).
As to claim 11.
D1 discloses a mattress, comprising: a core ([0021]); and a mattress cover, ([0021]) wherein the mattress cover covers at least a portion of the core (0021), wherein the mattress cover includes a plurality of fire-retardant fibers (one yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn, this could be a fiberglass fiber or para-aramid or such. In the embodiment produced the yarn used was a 1/99 fiberglass that was air jet spun with modacrylic FR fibers wrapped around the modacrylic, [0048]);
a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (plaited with this yarn into the jersey side of the fabric was a 1/70 polyester yarn, [0048]),
wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers are woven together with the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers in a face layer of the mattress cover (As shown in FIG. 3, two yarns are used on the jersey side of the fabric. One yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn, this could be a fiberglass fiber or para-aramid or such. In the embodiment produced the yarn used was a 1/99 fiberglass that was air jet spun with modacrylic FR fibers wrapped around the modacrylic. Plaited with this yarn into the jersey side of the fabric was a 1/70 polyester yarn. These two yarns make up the flat jersey side of the fabric. The role and function of the 1/70 polyester yarn is to support the fiberglass yarn during the knitting process to reduce the chance of defects like holes to be produced. The most important benefit of the polyester yarn is to melt and mix with the charred modacrylic fibers and coagulate and produce a simulated shield to block the flame from reaching the latex or foam or more importantly reducing the air flow), and
wherein the weight percentage of the non-fire-retardant fibers is less than the weight percentage of the fire-retardant fibers ([0040] the melting yarn is between about 5% and about 20% of the total fabric compositions).
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers has a first color [[and a first color contrast]] or wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers has a second color [[and a second color contrast that is less than the first color contrast,]] wherein the first color is different from and contrasts with the second color.
However, D2 discloses a mattress cover (10 in fig. 3; [0028]-[0029]), comprising: a plurality of fire-retardant fibers, wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers (first weft yarns 100, fig. 1, are flame resistant [0017]) has a first color ([0023] the two different yarns could also have different ... colors); and a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (second weft yarns 200), wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (second weft yarns 200) has a second color ([0023] the two different yams could also have different ... colors), wherein the first color is different from the second color ([0023] the two different yams could also have different ... colors). It is noted that different colors inherently provide contrast, because the colors are different.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D2 to modify the cover of D1 for the purpose of identifying the presence of fire resistant materials due to the different colors used. An invention created through the combining of prior art elements (i.e. the fire resistant cover of D1 and the different colored fire resistant fibres used in the D2) according to known methods (i.e. a design choice) to yield predictable results (i.e. a fireproof mattress pad) is obvious.
As to claim 12.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the first color is white and the second color is blue.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including aesthetic design changes, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, see §I which cites In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947), where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation having no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As claimed, a color is ornamental as a function is not claimed nor is one supported in the specification as filed.
A review of the specification appears finds this color combination is arbitrary and no support is found for any criticality of the color choice limitation. Per MPEP 2144.04 because the applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it is appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
The applicant has not disclosed that the recited color limitation solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose or function, i.e. lacks any supported criticality. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation above the fact that the color choice is ornamental. Thus, a device having the claimed color would not perform differently than the prior art disclosure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed color, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
As to claim 13.
See explanation for claim 12.
As to claim 14.
See explanation for claim 12.
As to claim 15.
See explanation for claim 12.
As to claim 16.
D1 discloses wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (melting yarn) are 1% by weight to 50% by weight of a total weight of the mattress cover ([0040] the melting yarn is between about 5% and about 20% of the total fabric compositions), wherein the fire-retardant fibers are 50% by weight to 99% by weight of the total weight of the mattress cover (balance to one yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn).
In the event the rejection of claim 16, supra, is found insufficient, the following alternative rejection is provided.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (second weft yarns 200) are 1% by weight to 50% by weight of a total weight of the mattress cover, and wherein the fire-retardant fibers are 50% by weight to 99% by weight of the total weight of the mattress cover.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §IV.
A review of the specification appears finds the limitation of claim 16 arbitrary as no support is found for any criticality of the claimed ratios. For example, pages 5-8 merely recite various ratios of non-fire-retardant fibers to fire-retardant fibers. This is insufficient to support any claim of criticality. Per MPEP 2144.04 because the applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it is appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
It is noted that D1 provides a flame resistant knit fabric with an upper surface and a lower surface (thought the upper and lower surface can be reversed and do not indicate the orientation that the fabric is used in a finished article), wherein the majority of the upper surface comprises the first weft yarns and the majority of the lower surface comprises the second weft yarns. Majority means greater than 50% by weight. The applicant has not disclosed the limitation of claim 6 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a fabric having the claimed relative ratios would not perform differently than the prior art fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified D1 to have the claimed limitation, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
As to claim 17.
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the mattress cover has a weight of 100 grams per square meter ("gsm") to 1,000 gsm.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §IV.
A review of the specification appears finds the limitation of claim 7 arbitrary as no support is found for any criticality of the claimed values. Per MPEP 2144.04 because the applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it is appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
The applicant has not disclosed the limitation of claim 7 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to select a cover weight as a matter of design choice in an effort to select a fabric commensurate with the mattress being covered.
As to claim 18.
D1 does not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by D2: discloses wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers (first weft yarns 100, fig. 1, are flame resistant [0017]) is composed of one or more of a cellulosic yarn, rayon yarn, wool, viscose filament yarn, polyester, polypropylene, fire retardant poly, acrylic, nylon, synthetic bulking yarns, or combinations or blends thereof (viscose rayon fibers, [0017]).
An invention created through the combining of prior art elements (i.e. the fire resistant cover of D1 and the different colored fire resistant fibres used in the D2) according to known methods (i.e. a routine material selection using known alternatives) to yield predictable results (i.e. a fireproof mattress pad) is obvious.
As to claim 19.
D1 discloses wherein the face layer and a back layer are not attached to an inlay layer and the face layer and the back layer encapsulates the inlay layer ([0024] a flame resistant (FR) three-layer double-knit fabric. The top layer is of standard non-FR face yarn, the middle layer is of a FR filler spun yarn and the bottom layer is of a FR spun yarn or FR filament yarn).
As to claim 20.
D1 discloses bedding, comprising: a core ([0021]); and a cover, ([0021]) wherein the cover covers at least a portion of the core (0021), wherein the cover includes a plurality of fire-retardant fibers (one yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn, this could be a fiberglass fiber or para-aramid or such. In the embodiment produced the yarn used was a 1/99 fiberglass that was air jet spun with modacrylic FR fibers wrapped around the modacrylic, [0048]);
a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (plaited with this yarn into the jersey side of the fabric was a 1/70 polyester yarn, [0048]),
wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers are woven together with the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers in a face layer of the mattress cover (As shown in FIG. 3, two yarns are used on the jersey side of the fabric. One yarn has a fiber that does not melt or burn, this could be a fiberglass fiber or para-aramid or such. In the embodiment produced the yarn used was a 1/99 fiberglass that was air jet spun with modacrylic FR fibers wrapped around the modacrylic. Plaited with this yarn into the jersey side of the fabric was a 1/70 polyester yarn. These two yarns make up the flat jersey side of the fabric. The role and function of the 1/70 polyester yarn is to support the fiberglass yarn during the knitting process to reduce the chance of defects like holes to be produced. The most important benefit of the polyester yarn is to melt and mix with the charred modacrylic fibers and coagulate and produce a simulated shield to block the flame from reaching the latex or foam or more importantly reducing the air flow), and
wherein the weight percentage of the non-fire-retardant fibers is less than the weight percentage of the fire-retardant fibers ([0040] the melting yarn is between about 5% and about 20% of the total fabric compositions).
D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers has a first color [[and a first color contrast]] or wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers has a second color [[and a second color contrast that is less than the first color contrast,]] wherein the first color is different from and contrasts with the second color.
However, D2 discloses a cover (10 in fig. 3; [0028]-[0029]), comprising: a plurality of fire-retardant fibers, wherein the plurality of fire-retardant fibers (first weft yarns 100, fig. 1, are flame resistant [0017]) has a first color ([0023] the two different yarns could also have different ... colors); and a plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (second weft yarns 200), wherein the plurality of non-fire-retardant fibers (second weft yarns 200) has a second color ([0023] the two different yams could also have different ... colors), wherein the first color is different from the second color ([0023] the two different yams could also have different ... colors). It is noted that different colors inherently provide contrast, because the colors are different.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D2 to modify the cover of D1 for the purpose of identifying the presence of fire resistant materials due to the different colors used. An invention created through the combining of prior art elements (i.e. the fire resistant cover of D1 and the different colored fire resistant fibres used in the D2) according to known methods (i.e. a design choice) to yield predictable results (i.e. a fireproof cover for a mattress pad) is obvious.
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.
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE 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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 27 May 2026
Prosecution Insights