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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first radial protrusion and the second radial protrusion comprise asymmetrical shapes with respect to a central radial axis of each of the first radial protrusion and the second radial protrusion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-7, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Respect to Claims 2-4,
The phrase “wherein each at least one radial protrusion comprises at least one projection extending from the radial protrusion” is unclear in scope, noting that the projections are claimed as part of the protrusion, and they cannot extend from themselves. It is further unclear how this serves to further limit the parent claim, as the broadest reasonable interpretation appears to encompass any form of radial protrusion, as any radial protrusion can be subdivided into a first portion and a second portion that extends from the first portion in a circumferential direction (i.e. any radial protrusion, being 3-dimensional, must have a portion that extends in a circumferential direction which seems sufficient to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of this unclear phrase).
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 3
The phrase “wherein the at least one radial protrusion comprises exactly one radial protrusion, and the least one projection comprises two projections” is unclear in scope. Firstly, it is unclear whether the requirement of the radial protrusion comprising exactly one radial protrusion should be taken as a negative limitation precluding any other radial protrusions, or if the claim language encompasses for example an at least one radial protrusion having projections as claimed which is the only radial protrusion of that type and one or more additional radial protrusions which lack these (i.e. noting the term “comprising” in the preamble of the claim, it is unclear whether the phrase “exactly one” should be taken to be a negative limitation or if it merely indicates that there is only one of this particular type of radial protrusion).
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 10
It recites the limitation "the asymmetrical shapes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 12
It recites the limitation "the at least one projection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 5-7 and 11-17
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends: the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 appears to encompass any radial protrusion, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details of the unclear scope and how it seems to encompass any radial protrusion to the best of Examiner’s understanding of its unclear scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,755,331 to Rassias (Rassias) in view of U.S. Patent #3,168,972 to Parlante (Parlante) or in view of U.S. Patent #9,222,751 to Glock (Glock).
With Respect to Claim 1
Rassias discloses a leg strap adapter, comprising: a leg strap adapter plate (lower mount 30) comprising a user proximal face, a user distal face, a central, vertical axis, a first horizontal axis and a second horizontal axis (FIG. 18 and description); an attachment member (bolt disposed through 31, disclosed but not clearly shown in the drawings) disposed at the central, vertical axis of the leg strap adapter plate and at the first horizontal axis of the leg strap adapter plate; and at least two slots (33) disposed along the second horizontal axis of the leg strap adapter plate and configured to receive a strap (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. 47, FIGS. 22-23 and description); wherein the leg strap adapter is configured to be rotatably attached to a belt engaging member by the attachment member (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. 1-2, FIGS. 20-21 and description), the belt engaging member configured to mount a holster (capable of this use, see e.g. FIGS. 5-6 and description); the attachment member configured to engage with a corresponding at least one opening (opening 31, see e.g. FIG. 14) comprised on the belt engaging member (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 18 and description); but does not detail particulars of the bolt and so does not disclose wherein the attachment member comprises a central post projecting distally from the user distal face of the leg strap adapter plate, and at least one radial protrusion projecting radially from the central post, the central post comprising an axis of rotation about which the leg strap adapter is configured to rotate.
However, Parlante discloses forming a similar pivot joint comprising an attachment member that is a bolt (20 alone or in combination with 22) that comprises a central post projecting distally from the user distal face of a first plate, and at least one radial protrusion (noting head of bolt 20, see e.g. FIG. 7 or alternately 22) projecting radially from the central post, the central post comprising an axis of rotation about which the first plate is configured to rotate.
Glock discloses forming a pivot joint between a similar leg strap adapter plate (12) and a similar belt engaging member which comprises a central post (connection counter device as shown is a post, see e.g. FIG. 4) projecting distally from the user distal face of the leg strap adapter plate (12), and at least one radial protrusion (noting protrusion between the post and the snap fastener 11, which fits into the area defined by the undercut during use) projecting radially from the central post, the central post comprising an axis of rotation about which the leg strap adapter is configured to rotate. It is noted that Glock discloses that one benefit of its structure is ease of detachment of the parts to adjust between configurations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Parlante, to form the attachment member as a central post with a radial projection as taught by Parlante/as claimed, as a mere selection of an art appropriate pivot joint/bolt structure to use. Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Glock, to replace the pivot bolt of Rassias with a mating pivot connection as taught by Glock, in order to allow for easy and toolless separation of the parts (e.g. for conversion between modes) and/or as a mere substitution of one art known pivotal connection structure for another.
With Respect to Claim 2
The leg strap adapter of claim 1, wherein each at least one radial protrusion comprises at least one projection extending from the radial protrusion in a circumferential direction with respect to the central post (any given segment of the radial protrusion has one or more projections extending circumferentially with respect to the central post relative to that segment).
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,755,331 to Rassias (Rassias) in view of U.S. Patent #9,222,751 to Glock (Glock) as applied to claim 1/2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #3,080,634 to Lindblad (Lindblad) and/or U.S. Patent #2018/0325248 to Tedder (Tedder).
With Respect to Claims 1-2
As an alternative to the rejection of claims 1-2 above using Rassias in view of Glock alone, Lindblad or Tedder disclose a similar radial protrusion (central section of 7 per Lindblad; central protrusion of 108/304 per Tedder) for pivotally attaching two members comprising a post and a radial protrusion, wherein the radial protrusion comprises at least one projection (noting left and right side extending portions of 7 per Lindblad, left and right projecting portions of Tedder; noting left and right projections extending circumferentially/left and right from the central portion of 108/304) extending from the radial protrusion in a circumferential direction with respect to the central post.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Rassias and either or both of Lindblad and Tedder, to use a post and protrusion connection as taught by Lindblad or Tedder to replace the pivotal joint of Rassias, in order to provide for easier/toolless connection and disconnection/conversion between modes as taught by Rassias, and/or for the benefits disclosed by Lindblad and/or Tedder for their structures.
Alternately, Lindblad provides motivation to use more than one protrusion, and Tedder provides motivation to have circumferential projections that extend beyond the segment of the protrusion that is connected to the post, and so the combination of Rassias and these references provides sufficient motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of forming two or more protrusions which each have such circumferential projections/extending portions, as doing so constitutes at most a mere duplication of parts (i.e. merely duplicating the Tedder projection shape shown) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) or a mere change in shape (i.e. merely changing the shape of the Lindblad projection/protrusion to have an enlarged head portion/circumferential extensions that are spaced from the post) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 3
The leg strap adapter of claim 2, wherein the at least one radial protrusion comprises exactly one radial protrusion (the combination with Tedder alone has only one radial protrusion; as to the combination(a) with Lindblad, one of the radially extending portions is taken to be the exactly one radial protrusion and the other is a radial extension, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details as to the unclear scope of this limitation), and the least one projection comprises two projections, each projection extending in an opposite circumferential direction than the other projection (Tedder teaches this structure, or as to the combination with only Lindblom, the central segment is the radial projection and has left and right portions which are projections as claimed).
With Respect to Claim 4
The leg strap adapter of claim 2, wherein the at least one radial protrusion comprises a first radial protrusion and a second radial protrusion (the combinations with Lindblad include two protrusions, as to the combination with only Tedder, adding an additional protrusion would be obvious as it constitutes at most a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)), and wherein the least one projection on the first radial protrusion extends in an opposite circumferential direction than the least one projection on the second radial protrusion (each radial protrusion has one protrusion extending in each direction and so selecting one projection extending in one direction e.g. left on one protrusion and one projection extending in the opposite direction on the other protrusion e.g. right meets this claim language).
As further evidence of the obviousness of using multiple protrusions, Tedder discloses that the other shapes and dimensions may be used and those shown in the drawings are merely exemplary ([0005]) and the key (108) and keyhole/keyhole slot(s) (302/306) can have any suitable shape that allows for the locking function, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of using multiple protrusions as doing so constitutes a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 5
The leg strap adapter of claim 4, and Tedder discloses that other shapes and dimensions may be used and those shown in the drawings are merely exemplary ([0005]) and the key (108) and keyhole/keyhole slot(s) (302/306) can have any suitable shape that allows for the locking function; but does not disclose wherein the first radial protrusion and the second radial protrusion comprise asymmetrical shapes with respect to a central radial axis of each of the first radial protrusion and the second radial protrusion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to make the first and second radial protrusions comprise asymmetrical shapes with respect to a central radial axis of each of the first/second radial protrusion, as doing so constitutes at most a mere selection of an art appropriate shape for the protrusions/projections and/or at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 6
The leg strap adapter of claim 4, wherein the first radial protrusion and the second radial protrusion comprise a circumferential angle from each other at an angle in the range of 85°-95° (Lindblad shows an angle of approximately 90 degrees between the center of its projections, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have the combinations with Lindblad include such, or alternately to the degree that the drawings may not be to scale or some other interpretation might be possible, selecting or modifying the angle between the protrusions to be within the claimed range constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) or a mere change in size/proportion (i.e. it changes the size/proportion of the angle/radial distance between them) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))).
As to the combination with only Tedder, the disclosure to use any suitable mating shape is sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use a shape having two radial protrusions with an angle in the claimed range as a mere selection of an art appropriate shape to use or at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 7
The leg strap adapter of claim 6, wherein each of the first radial protrusion and the second radial protrusion extend from the first horizontal axis towards the second horizontal axis (this is an obvious direction to have them extend, so that the protrusions extend upwardly during connection then rotate to a downward orientation when connected, noting that this orientation is the opposite of that shown in Tedder for its clip which rotates from a downward to an upward orientation as shown in FIGS. 8A-C which is the opposite of how the combinations including Tedder would attach as the final orientation of the Rassias structure will be locked in a downward orientation), symmetrically with respect to the central, vertical axis of the leg strap adapter plate Lindblad and Tedder both show symmetrical protrusions).
With Respect to Claim 8
A leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly comprising: a belt engaging member (1 and 2); and a leg strap adapter, comprising: a leg strap adapter plate (lower mount 30) comprising a user proximal face, a user distal face, a central, vertical axis, a first horizontal axis and a second horizontal axis; an attachment member (108 per Tedder or 507 per Lindblad) disposed at the central, vertical axis of the leg strap adapter plate and at the first horizontal axis of the leg strap adapter plate; and at least two slots (33) disposed along the second horizontal axis of the leg strap adapter plate and configured to receive a strap (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. 47, FIGS. 22-23 and description); wherein the leg strap adapter is configured to be rotatably attached to the belt engaging member by the attachment member (rotatable per Rassias and Lindblad and/or Tedder also disclose rotation), the belt engaging member configured to mount a holster (capable of this use, see e.g. FIGS. 5-6 and description); wherein the attachment member comprises a central post (Lindblad 5 alone or in combination with 6, see Tedder FIGS .and description of post of e.g. 108) projecting distally from the user distal face of the leg strap adapter plate, and at least one radial protrusion (outer portion of 6 and/or 7 or only the central segment thereof per Lindblad or as shown in Tedder) projecting radially from the central post, the central post comprising an axis of rotation about which the leg strap adapter is configured to rotate, the attachment member configured to engage with a corresponding at least one opening (capable of this use, noting Rassias opening 31 as modified, see e.g. 11/12 of Lindblad and/or Tedder 302/306 in FIG. 3B) comprised on the belt engaging member; wherein the belt engaging member is rotatably connected to the leg strap adapter, wherein the belt engaging member comprises at least one opening (Rassias opening 31 as modified, see e.g. 11/12 of Lindblad and/or Tedder 302/306 in FIG. 3B) disposed at a central, vertical axis of the belt engaging member, wherein the central post and the at least one radial protrusion is configured to pass through the at least one opening disposed along the central, vertical axis of the belt engaging member in a connect and disconnect position of the leg strap adapter, and wherein rotation of the leg strap adapter from the connect and disconnect position locks the leg strap adapter to the belt engaging member (per Lindblad and/or Tedder).
With Respect to Claim 9
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 8, wherein the connect and disconnect position of the leg strap adapter comprises the leg strap adapter disposed 180° with respect to a vertically aligned, in-use, position of the leg strap adapter and the belt engaging member, wherein the central, vertical axes of the leg strap adapter and the belt engaging member are aligned in both the connect and disconnect position and the vertically aligned, in-use, position (Lindblad FIGS. 8A-C show approximately 180 degree rotation between positions, as does Tedder FIGS. 1-3, and Rassias FIG. 18 shows a vertically aligned in use position which renders obvious the connect/disconnect position being similarly vertically aligned at 180 degrees rotation from the FIG. 18 position).
With Respect to Claim 10
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 9, wherein the at least one opening comprises a central hole and at least one slot extension (Lindblad 11 as shown in e.g. FIG. 3B is a slot extension or can be considered two or more interconnected slot extensions, see e.g. Tedder FIG. 3B showing such a slot extension or extensions) extending radially from the central hole, wherein the at least one slot extension corresponds to each of the at least one radial protrusions in the connect and disconnect position.
With Respect to Claim 11
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 10, and as to the combination(s) with Lindblom wherein the asymmetrical shapes of each the first radial protrusion (taken to be the left side of tab portion 304, see. e.g. FIG. 3A) and the second radial protrusion (taken to be the right side of tab portion of 304, see e.g. FIG. 3A showing that each side is asymmetrical as the left side has a left projection and the right side has a right projection, for clarity these two parts are taken to be two integrally formed radial protrusions) are configured to prevent passage of a respective first radial protrusion and the second radial protrusion through a non-corresponding one of the at least one slot extension (at least to the extent broadly claimed).
Alternately, Tedder discloses that the key (108) which includes the radial protrusions can be any suitable shape, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have the first and second radial protrusions be in different shapes with different corresponding slot shapes such that the different projections cannot fit through the non-corresponding slot extension, as doing so constitutes at most a mere selection of an art appropriate shape or at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). Examiner notes that there is no particular benefit to having both radial protrusions have the same shape and/or both be able to fit through the non-corresponding slot extension, noting that the Lindblad and Tedder structures are both only capable of insertion in a single orientation.
Alternately, as to the combination with only Lindblad, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have the first and second radial protrusions be in different shapes with different corresponding slot shapes such that the different projections cannot fit through the non-corresponding slot extension, as doing so constitutes at most a mere selection of an art appropriate shape or at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). Examiner notes that there is no particular benefit to having both radial protrusions have the same shape and/or both be able to fit through the non-corresponding slot extension, noting that the Lindblad structure is only capable of insertion in a single orientation.
With Respect to Claim 12
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 11, wherein the at least one projection is configured to prevent disconnection of the leg strap adapter from the belt engaging member by blocking disconnection of the at least one protrusion through one of the at least one slot extensions unless the leg strap adapter is in the connect and disconnect position.
With Respect to Claim 13
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 12, wherein the at least one slot extension comprises one slot extension extending radially from the central hole along the central, vertical axis of the belt engaging member (per Lindblad and/or Tedder which disclose locking using the slot extension in this corresponding position).
With Respect to Claim 14
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 12, wherein the at least one slot extension comprises two slot extensions each extending radially and upwardly from the central hole at an angle of 85°-95° with respect to the central, vertical axis of the belt engaging member (see the rejection of claim 6 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 15
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 10, wherein the belt engaging member comprises a vertically adjustable belt engaging member assembly comprising a backing plate (1) attached to a proximal face of a vertically adjustable belt engaging member (2, it is vertically adjustable by adjusting the height of the belt on the user, by adjusting the belt location via the belt height adjustment guides per Col. 3 lines 30-52, and/or by rotating it 180 degrees to be upside down to allow for vertical adjustment of the height of the backing plate, see e.g. Col. 3 lines 52-57), wherein the at least one opening is disposed through the backing plate.
With Respect to Claim 16
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 10, wherein the connect and disconnect position is configured to not be reachable when the leg strap adapter is strapped to the leg of a user (FIGS. 21-23, a user’s body is not capable of moving to the connect and disconnect position while the structure is worn in that configuration as e.g. the user’s torso would interfere with the leg reaching the vertical position).
With Respect to Claim 17
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 16, wherein the leg strap adapter comprises about 355 degrees of movement outside of the connect and disconnect position (as shown it can rotate to almost 360 degrees less the size of the connect and disconnect position which is a small location).
With Respect to Claim 18
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 8, further comprising a strap (47) configured to pass through the two slots disposed along the second horizontal axis of the leg strap adapter plate (see, e.g. FIGS. 21-23 and description).
With Respect to Claim 19
The leg strap adapter and belt engaging member assembly of claim 8, further comprising a holster (45 and related structure) operatively mounted to the belt engaging member and not mounted to the leg strap adapter (FIG. 5 shows this configuration).
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to attach the holster to the belt engaging member (e.g. to 1) in order to locate the gun higher on the user while in the thigh mount configuration, to hold the gun in a single position and not have it move with the user’s leg, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to add a second holster operatively mounted to the belt engaging member (for clarity, either an identical shroud or any other suitable holster structure) in order to hold a second gun/firearm or other object for use, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights