DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 83 and 86 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 83 appears to include a typographical error. Specifically, “claim78” appears to have been used in error.
Claim 86 depends from claim 78, however the claimed term “the parameters” is not claimed in claim 78. On the other hand, claim 85 include “the parameters”. Therefore, claim 86 should depend from claim 85 instead.
For the purpose of this office action, the Examiner would assume that the claim 86 depends from claim 85 instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 78, 89, 92, 95 and 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al.
As to claim 78, Cook teaches a method of manufacturing a wearable equipment customized for a user, comprising:
performing a three-dimensional (3D) scan of a body part of the user to obtain 3D model data of the body part (“...The measurement device may be as simple as a ruled measurement tool, or as complex as a three-dimensional laser scanner. One common ruled measurement device is the Brannock.TM. device which provides linear toe-to-heel, heel-to-ball and width measurements for each foot. The Brannock size may be used as the sizing system for the present invention. Alternatively, a shoe size can be calculated from the foot measurements obtained from a scan of the wearer's feet...three-dimensional foot scanner 48...” paragraphs 0014/0073/0106).
Cook is silent with reference to obtaining 3D model data of a base mold,
determining at least one mold attachment feature based on the 3D model data of the body part and the 3D model data of the base mold and
producing at least one mold attachment for the wearable equipment based on the at least one determined mold attachment feature.
Towns teaches obtaining 3D model data of a base mold (Mould 70),
determining at least one mold attachment feature based on the 3D model data of the body part and the 3D model data of the base mold (Exchangeable Parts 76/77) and
producing at least one mold attachment for the wearable equipment based on the at least one determined mold attachment feature (Adjustable Mould 75) (“…Figure 17 shows an example of a mould 70 that has been shaped to enable production of an upper with a tongue and facing parts of the vamp such that the facing parts overlap the tongue at the final article. This can be provided by a mould that has an over dimensioned frontal part 72 so that when the formed sheet material is cut there is enough sheet material to provide facing parts of the vamp overlapping the tongue. According to an aspect a dynamic mould or last is provided. Figure 18 shows an example of an adjustable mould 75 with exchangeable parts 76 and 77 by mean of which the shape of the mould can be altered. In this aspect the mould can be adjusted according to a foot. In accordance with a possibility differently sized and/or shaped lasts are provided by modular moulds. Differently sized and/or shaped parts altering the size and/or shape of the mould can be attached to a base mould part by e.g. magnets or other fast attachment means. According to a possibility deformable and/or extendable mould is provided based on hydraulic arrangements. For example, the external shape of the mould be can be provided from rubber that is hard enough to resist the pressure from the vacuum forming while at the same time allowing extension of the external dimensions thereof by application of fluid, e.g. water or other suitable fluid for generating hydraulic pressure, underneath the rubber skin…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook with the teaching of Towns because the teaching of Towns would improve the system of Cook by providing an adjustable mold that allows for components are used to deform and/or extend a mould (Towns).
As to claim 89, Towns teaches the method of claim 78, wherein each of the at least one mold attachment includes one or more built-in projections (Exchangeable Parts 76/77) (“…Figure 17 shows an example of a mould 70 that has been shaped to enable production of an upper with a tongue and facing parts of the vamp such that the facing parts overlap the tongue at the final article. This can be provided by a mould that has an over dimensioned frontal part 72 so that when the formed sheet material is cut there is enough sheet material to provide facing parts of the vamp overlapping the tongue. According to an aspect a dynamic mould or last is provided. Figure 18 shows an example of an adjustable mould 75 with exchangeable parts 76 and 77 by mean of which the shape of the mould can be altered. In this aspect the mould can be adjusted according to a foot. In accordance with a possibility differently sized and/or shaped lasts are provided by modular moulds. Differently sized and/or shaped parts altering the size and/or shape of the mould can be attached to a base mould part by e.g. magnets or other fast attachment means. According to a possibility deformable and/or extendable mould is provided based on hydraulic arrangements. For example, the external shape of the mould be can be provided from rubber that is hard enough to resist the pressure from the vacuum forming while at the same time allowing extension of the external dimensions thereof by application of fluid, e.g. water or other suitable fluid for generating hydraulic pressure, underneath the rubber skin…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook with the teaching of Towns because the teaching of Towns would improve the system of Cook by providing an adjustable mold that allows for components are used to deform and/or extend a mould (Towns).
As to claim 92, Cook teaches the method of claim 78, the method is performed by a computing device where an image acquisition device is integrated (“...The measurement device may be as simple as a ruled measurement tool, or as complex as a three-dimensional laser scanner. One common ruled measurement device is the Brannock.TM. device which provides linear toe-to-heel, heel-to-ball and width measurements for each foot. The Brannock size may be used as the sizing system for the present invention. Alternatively, a shoe size can be calculated from the foot measurements obtained from a scan of the wearer's feet...three-dimensional foot scanner 48...” paragraphs 0014/0073).
As to claims 95 and 96, see the rejection of claim 1, expect for a processor, a storage, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Cook teaches a processor, a storage, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (figure 25/Computer C).
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of W.O. No. 2009057890 A1 to Kim.
As to claim 82, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to wherein the obtaining the 3D model data of the base mold comprises receiving an input that selects the base mold from a plurality of base molds.
Kim teaches wherein the obtaining the 3D model data of the base mold comprises receiving an input (receiving three-dimensional modeling data of a new product) that selects the base mold from a plurality of base molds (determining a structure of a desired mold according to the analyzed shape, retrieving and applying mold data suitable to the desired mold from the design knowledge database module) (“…According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided an automatic three-dimensional design system, which includes: a design knowledge database module to extract and store design data and various design knowledge of previous molds; a design module, receiving three-dimensional modeling data of a new product, analyzing a shape of the product based on the received data, determining a structure of a desired mold according to the analyzed shape, retrieving and applying mold data suitable to the desired mold from the design knowledge database module; and a control module controlling the mold data applying process. According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided an automatic three-dimensional mold design method using the system, which includes: extracting various design information from previously or newly finished molds; storing design knowledge data; inputting three-dimensional data of a newly modeled product; analyzing, classifying and storing data about a shape of the product and a kind of a desired mold based on the three-dimensional data; and applying previous design data suitable to a structure of the desired mold and designing the mold according to the applied design data…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Kim because the teaching of Kim would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a technique for designing and modeling mold for specific shoe fabrication.
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of K.R. No. 100434168 B1 to Choi.
As to claim 83, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to evaluating closeness between the 3D model data of the base mold and the 3D model data of the body part by comparing the 3D model data of the base mold and the 3D model data of the body part.
Choi teaches evaluating closeness between the 3D model data of the base mold and the 3D model data of the body part by comparing the 3D model data of the base mold and the 3D model data of the body part (“…A method for manufacturing a custom fit shoe liner is provided to prevent a foot from slipping in a shoe when walking for a long time by making the overall foot sole surface contacted with the top surface of the shoe liner. CONSTITUTION: The method comprises the steps of: acquiring a three-dimensional shape of a wearer's foot sole including toes by a shape acquisition unit and outputting a corresponding shape data(S100); outputting a mold data of the standard mold closest to the shape of the wearer's foot sole among various prepared standard molds(S200) upon receipt of the shape data output from the shape acquisition unit through a storage unit; and manufacturing a shoe liner by the mold manufactured according to the shape of the shoe liner(S300)…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Choi because the teaching of Choi would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing flexibility of dynamically selecting a closest mold for footwear fabrication.
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of U.S. No. 2011/0016752 A1 to Koyess et al.
As to claim 84, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to wherein the wearable equipment includes a skate boot or a mask.
Koyess teaches wherein the wearable equipment includes a skate boot or a mask (Skate boot 12) (“…It should be understood that the methods described above allow for the production of a skate boot 12 having a customized appearance in a cost-efficient manner. In further variations of the methods described above, a database is provided, for containing at least one information record corresponding to at least one customized boot design. A customer can thereby be given the option to personalize the appearance of his skate boot 12, by either selecting one of a number of pre-existing designs from the database, combining pre-existing design components from the database to form an original design, or providing his own design to the database in a suitable digital format. A selected customized graphic element 20 corresponding to the customer's desired design is retrieved from the database and printed on the sheet 14 or 24 at step 105, 210, or 305 (as the case may be), preferably using a method of digital printing such as ink jet or laser printing, to create the customized skate boot 12…” paragraph 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Koyess because the teaching of Koyess would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a technique for fabricating skate boots for ice hockey.
Claim 85 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of U.S. No. 2008/0104778 A1 to Drake et al.
As to claim 85, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to receiving parameters associated with the user; and
selecting the base mold based on the received parameters.
Drake teaches receiving parameters associated with the user (Block 430); and
selecting the base mold based on the received parameters (Block 435) (“…At block 430, a second set of data may be determined which may represent this enlarged shape. At block 435, a mold shape may be fabricated using the second set of data. At block 440, material and resin may be laid in the mold shape (or laid around mold shape in embodiments which produce a male mold shape). A gas filled bladder may thereafter be inserted into the bold shape at block 445. At block 450, the resin may be allowed to harden…” paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Drake because the teaching of Drake would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a technique for selecting the best fit information for shoe fabrication.
As to claim 86, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to where the parameters comprise at least one of: text; graphics; nominal skate size; gender; desired fit; and foot directionality.
Drake teaches where the parameters comprise at least one of: text; graphics; nominal skate size; gender; desired fit; and foot directionality (Block 430) (“…At block 430, a second set of data may be determined which may represent this enlarged shape. At block 435, a mold shape may be fabricated using the second set of data. At block 440, material and resin may be laid in the mold shape (or laid around mold shape in embodiments which produce a male mold shape). A gas filled bladder may thereafter be inserted into the bold shape at block 445. At block 450, the resin may be allowed to harden…” paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Drake because the teaching of Drake would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a technique for selecting the best fit information for shoe fabrication.
Claim 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of W.O. No. 9117708 A1 to White et al.
As to claim 87, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to displaying the body part of the user via a 3D application on a screen.
White teaches displaying the body part of the user via a 3D application on a screen (Display 122) (“…Referring now more particularly to Figure 4A, by starting at the open menu/screen display 200 (shown in Figure 6) a user is given a choice to select from a plurality of options including an option to go to a scan foot menu/screen display 202. Upon selecting with an input device 126 (hereinafter referred to as selecting) either scan left foot or scan right foot options from open menu/display screen 200, a scan foot menu/screen display 202 such as the one shown in Figure 7 is presented on the display 122. At this point a user may choose to select scanning of foot which is bare, which has a light sock, or which has a dark sock. After selecting a foot scanning option, a foot is scanned by scanner 134. As the foot is scanned, the information is processed by central computer 120 and the scanned foot image 204 is displayed on display 122. Preferably, as the scanner scans through the length of a particular foot proximate scanner 134, display screen 204 (not shown) displays the portion of the particular foot which has already been scanned. By displaying the image of the scanned foot or screen display 204 as scanner 134 scans the particular foot, a user will focus their attention on the scanned image rather than the length of time that it actually takes to scan the foot, thereby causing the scanning of the foot to be relatively quick from a user's point of view. After scanning and displaying the scanned foot image, open menu/screen display 200 is presented to the user once again. After scanning both the left and right foot in a substantially similar manner as described above, the user may choose to calculate information about the scanned feet…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of White because the teaching of White would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a display technique for users to visually consume information of computer processing.
Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of WO No. 2008070537 A2 to Weng et al.
As to claim 88, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to wherein the body part of the user includes a foot with a sock, the 3D scan of the body part of the user is performed by:
obtaining a preliminary 3D model of the body part with the sock on;
determining a thickness of the sock; and
generating the 3D model data that represents the body part by modifying the 3D model of the body part to compensate the thickness of the sock.
Weng teaches wherein the body part of the user includes a foot with a sock, the 3D scan of the body part of the user is performed by:
obtaining a preliminary 3D model of the body part with the sock on (3-D foot model);
determining a thickness of the sock (sock thickness); and
generating the 3D model data that represents the body part by modifying the 3D model of the body part to compensate the thickness of the sock (sock thickness) (“...Once the foot features are obtained from the 3-D foot model, they may be adjusted according to the wearer's wearing need, such as sock thickness and the wearer's preference for shoe tightness. Given the wearer's preference for the style of the footwear, the foot features are then used as the inputs of a last lookup process for the best-fit last in the custom last database. The last look-up process is fully automatic and is guided by a set of fitting algorithms derived from the rules of an expert system. The expert system contains knowledge bases and rules used to judge the fitting between a last of the desired style and the foot. As the searching result, the best- fit last is fetched from physical last storage for later use. In some cases, the best-fit last may need further tune-up or optimization if a small portion of the fitting indices of the last are beyond a set tolerance, or any foot deformities have to be accommodated. If the last look-up process was not able to find a best- fit last after searching the last table, a fully customized last would be made. The finalized custom last is used for making the custom shoe upper...” paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Weng because the teaching of Weng would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a technique for adjusted shoe fabrication according to the wearer's wearing need in order to accommodate a sock and provide comfort to the wearer.
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of W.O. No. 2009072000 A2 to Shi.
As to claim 90, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to generating a production specification for the at least one determined mold attachment feature; and storing the production specification in non-transitory memory or sending the production specification over a network.
Shi teaches generating a production specification for the at least one determined mold attachment feature (“...generate a representative shoe last geometry for a foot in a given style of shoe...With the wide-spread use of CAD systems, nowadays many shoe lasts are designed in a CAD environment and hence the 3D digital model of shoe lasts is quite often available, or alternatively the 3D digital model of shoe lasts can be acquired by various 3D scanning solutions. Therefore shoe last measurements can be extracted from 3D model or measured from the physical shoe last itself…Shoe last 3D model can be stored in various 3D file formats. Alternatively, only shoe last measurements can be stored, which will save storage space. Later on when a shoe last 3D model is required, it can be reconstructed from the stored shoe last measurements through a technique known as "morphing" from a standard shoe last model…A shoe last is generated based on 3D foot plus heel-height, toe-spring and toe box shape adjustments. Different style of shoes will have different heel-height, toe-spring and toe-box shape, resulting in different shoe last geometry for the same customer…”), and
storing the production specification in non-transitory memory or sending the production specifications over a network (storage space) (“...Shoe last 3D model can be stored in various 3D file formats. Alternatively, only shoe last measurements can be stored, which will save storage space. Later on when a shoe last 3D model is required, it can be reconstructed from the stored shoe last measurements through a technique known as "morphing" from a standard shoe last model…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Shi because the teaching of Shi would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a technique for designing and modeling shoe last for shoe fabrication.
Claim 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8,005,558 B2 to Waatti et al.
As to claim 91 Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the displaying a 3D model of the base mold via a 3D application on a screen;
receiving commands that indicate displaying the 3D model of the base mold on the screen in a specific angle; and
modifying the 3D model data to be displayed on the screen in the specific angle based on the commands.
Waatti teaches the displaying a 3D model of the base mold via a 3D application on a screen (generating a three-dimensional last structure on the computer display (e.g., from a commercial source, having the appearance of a conventional footwear last structure, etc.));
receiving commands that indicate displaying the 3D model of the base mold on the screen in a specific angle; ((b) receiving user input indicating plural offset values for plural zones of the three-dimensional last structure) and
modifying the 3D model data to be displayed on the screen in the specific angle based on the commands ((c) generating a three-dimensional design last for the footwear on the computer display based at least in part on the three-dimensional last structure and the user input indicating the plural desired offset values) (“…Aspects of the present invention relate generally to computer-implementable methods for generating three-dimensional design lasts for footwear on a computer display. Such methods may include: (a) generating a three-dimensional last structure on the computer display (e.g., from a commercial source, having the appearance of a conventional footwear last structure, etc.); (b) receiving user input indicating plural offset values for plural zones of the three-dimensional last structure, wherein the user input indicates plural desired offset values in at least one region of an article of footwear selected from the group of: a toe region of the article of footwear, a heel region of the article of footwear, an ankle region of the article of footwear, a forefoot region of the article of footwear, a tongue region of the article of footwear, and an instep region of the article of footwear, wherein the user input indicating the offset values need not indicate a constant offset value over the plural zones and/or over the entire three-dimensional last structure; and (c) generating a three-dimensional design last for the footwear on the computer display based at least in part on the three-dimensional last structure and the user input indicating the plural desired offset values. The three-dimensional design last may constitute a version of the three-dimensional last structure that has been modified to have an increased thickness to simulate a desired thickness of an upper material placed on the last structure and/or to more closely simulate an appearance of an actual footwear upper…” Col. 3 Ln. 6-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Waatti because the teaching of Waatti would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a graphical user interface designing and modeling shoe last for shoe fabrication.
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. in view of W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al. as applied to claim 78 above, and further in view of W.O. No. 03063634 A1 to Nevala et al.
As to claim 93, Cook as modified by Towns teaches the method of claim 78, however it is silent with reference to scanning markers on a pre-determined object proximate to the body part to provide a common reference.
Nevala teaches scanning markers on a pre-determined object proximate to the body part to provide a common reference (reference points) (“…As regards the invention, it is essential that standard measurement data (102) relevant to production can be determined from the foot shape stored in the memory. The first measurement data consist of certain reference points which need to be determined from the foot so as to be able to produce a fitting shoe. Thus the data system attached to the foot scanner, such as software executable by a computer PC, searches for standardized reference points in the three-dimensional foot image and determines first measurement data for the foot from the reference points…The measurement data determined from the reference points include at least the foot length, foot width at the widest point and several foot circumference measures measured from the predetermined standardized reference points. The reference points are preferably determined as percentage relations with respect to the foot length. These percentage relations are determined in advance so that the foot circumference measurements made from the points concerned provide relevant measures for the production of fitting footwear. In addition, a measurement angle in relation to the sole level is also preferably determined in advance for the foot circumference measurements to be performed from the reference points, which ensures that the desired circumference is measured. If the measurement angle has not been determined and the circumference is measured e.g. from the top of the instep, where the foot clearly starts to curve, the circumference to be measured in vertical direction provides a result which differs considerably from the circumference measured at an angle of 30 degrees, for instance. To obtain an accurate measurement result, it is thus important to determine the measurement angle in advance…” paragraphs 0016/0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Cook and Towns with the teaching of Nevala because the teaching of Nevala would improve the system of Cook and Towns by providing a technique for measuring shoe fabrication information in order to provide accurate measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 79-81 and 94 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of records, (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275392 A1 to Cook et al. and W.O. No. 2017103107 A1 to Towns et al.) taken alone or in combination do not specifically disclose or suggest the claimed recitations (claims 79-81 and 94), when taken in the context of claims as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES E ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-3757. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fir. 9-6pm.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/CHARLES E ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights