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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 10 in the reply filed on 09/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/03/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 2004/0143880).
Regarding Claim 1, Clark et al. teaches a storm hooded garment (1) for selectively extending over a neck and/or a head of a person (fig. 1 shows the garment being sized and shaped such that it would extend over the neck and head of a wearer), the garment comprising: a torso portion (2) having a neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the torso portion (2) having a neck opening); a storm hood (10) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (annotated fig. 1 shows the storm hood (10) extending from the torso portion and around the neck opening), the storm hood having front neck portions (12) configured to extend in front of a neck of the person wearing the storm hooded garment when the storm hood is deployed over the head of the person wearing the garment (figs. 1 and 2 shows the front neck portions being configured to extend in front of a wearer’s neck when the garment is worn with the hood deployed), the front neck portions having a first vertical stiffness (fig. 2 shows the front neck portions (12) having a structure (200) that provides a vertical stiffness); and a collar (4) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the collar (4) extending from the torso portion (2) and around the neck opening), the collar comprising side portions (see annotated Fig.) directly connected to the front neck portions of the storm hood above the neck opening to vertically support the front neck portions when the storm hood is undeployed (annotated fig. 1 shows the side portions directly connected to the front neck portions (12) of the storm hood (10), therein clearly providing vertical support to the front neck portions when the storm hood is undeployed), the collar having a second vertical stiffness that is greater than the first vertical stiffness (figs. 1 and 4 show the collar having structure (100) that provides a second vertical stiffness; paragraph [0050] teaches “the sleeve 102 is made of a material such as TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) and, again in a particular non-limiting embodiment, of a material having a greater rigidity than that of the rod. Depending upon the desired ease of release, the materials of the male and female parts may be of similar or the same rigidity,” wherein the sleeve is part of structure 100 and the rod is referring to structure 200 (see figs. 6-8), therein the second vertical stiffness of the collar is clearly greater than the first vertical stiffness of the front neck portions).
Regarding Claim 13, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front neck portions (12) are directly connected to the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) from a top edge of the front neck portions to the neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (figs. 1 and 4 show the front neck portions (12) and the front side portions being directly connected at the top edge of the collar down to the neck opening).
Regarding Claim 14, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) and the front neck portions (12) of the storm hood are releasably connected (annotated fig. 1 and 4 show the releasable connections (100, 200) positioned along the front side portions and the front neck portions; paragraph [0039] teaches “First and second connecting members, respectively 100, 200, cooperate together to allow a removable connection of the front flaps 12 of the hood with the front part of the collar.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) and the front neck portions (12) of the storm hood (10) are fixedly connected (fig. 4 shows the front side portions and the front neck portions being fixedly connected as the connection is meant to stay fixed as long as the wearer desires).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
562
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2004/0143880).
Regarding Claim 2, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches a zipper (7) extending vertically along a vertical axis along the torso portion, along and between the front neck portions and along and between the front side portions of the collar (fig. 1 shows the zipper (7) extending vertically along a vertical axis along the torso portion, along and between the front neck portions (12) and front side portions), wherein the front side portions of the collar are directly connected to the front neck portions of the storm hood along second axes that are parallel to the vertical axis on opposite sides of the zipper (annotated fig. 1 shows the front side portions and front neck portions being directly connected to one another along second axes. Clark et al. does not teach explicitly where the first and second axes are parallel to one another, however they appear to be parallel to one another, and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark et al. such that the first and second axes are parallel to one another to improve the aesthetic of the garment by utilizing clean, non-intersecting lines, and further to avoid any fasteners from overlapping with each other).
Regarding Claim 3, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the second axes (see annotated Fig.) extend adjacent to opposite sides of the zipper (7) (annotated fig. 1 shows the second axes being adjacent to opposite sides of the zipper (7)).
Regarding Claim 4, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front neck portions (12) are directly connected to the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) along vertical lengths of at least 2 inches along the second axes (figs. 1 and 4 appear to show the front neck portions being directly connected to the front side portions of the collar (4) along vertical lengths of at least 2 inches along the second axes, but does not explicitly disclose the length of the attachment. Further, it should be noted that the length of the attachment is a result effective variable. The length must be long enough to provide sufficient attachment between the collar and the hood, but not so long as to impede the comfort and mobility of the wearer while wearing garment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with attachment of at least 2 inches since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the security of the attachment and the comfort of the wearer.
Regarding Claim 5, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front neck portions (12) are directly connected to the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) at locations beginning no greater than 1 inch down from a top edge of the collar (figs. 1 and 4 show the front neck portions (12) and the front side portions being directly connected at the top edge of the collar, and therein not more than 1 inch down from the top edge).
Regarding Claim 6, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front neck portions (12) are directly connected to the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) from a top edge of the front neck portions to the neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (figs. 1 and 4 show the front neck portions (12) and the front side portions being directly connected at the top edge of the collar down to the neck opening).
Regarding Claim 7, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) and the front neck portions (see annotated Fig.) of the storm hood are releasably connected along the second axes (annotated fig. 1 and 4 show the releasable connections (100, 200) positioned along the second axes; paragraph [0039] teaches “First and second connecting members, respectively 100, 200, cooperate together to allow a removable connection of the front flaps 12 of the hood with the front part of the collar.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front side portions (see annotated Fig.) of the collar (4) and the front neck portions (12) of the storm hood (10) are fixedly connected along the second axes (fig. 4 shows the front side portions and the front neck portions being fixedly connected along the second axes as the connection is meant to stay fixed as long as the wearer desires).
Regarding Claim 10, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the second axes (see annotated Fig.) are transversely spaced from the zipper (7) on opposite sides of the zipper (annotated fig. 1 shows the second axes being transversely spaced from the zipper (7) on opposite sides of the zipper).
Regarding Claim 11, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not teach wherein the second axes are transversely spaced by a distance that is less than 0.5 inch from opposite sides of the zipper. However, Clark et al. does teach the second axis being spaced by some distance from opposite sides of the zipper. Further, it should be noted that the specific spacing distance is a result effective variable. The distance must be far enough to allow the zipper to function properly and easily without being crowded by the axis, but close enough to provide sufficient coverage for the wearer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the second axes transversely spaced by a distance that is less than 0.5 inch from opposite sides of the zipper since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the function and coverage of the hood, collar, and zipper.
Regarding Claim 12, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Clark et al. further teaches wherein the front neck portions (12) of the storm hood (10) comprise a left front neck portion (see annotated Fig.) and a right front neck portion (see annotated Fig.), wherein the front side portions of the collar comprise a left front side portion (see annotated Fig.) directly connected to the left front neck portion at a first location and a right front side portion (see annotated Fig.) directly connected to the right front neck portion at a second location (annotated fig. 4 shows the left front neck portion and left front side portion directly connected at a first location and a right front neck portion and right front side portion directly connected at a second location).
Clark et al. does not teach explicitly wherein the first location and the second location are transversely spaced by no greater than 1 inch when the left front neck portion and the right front neck portion are closed together. However, Clark et al. appears to show the first and second locations being transversely spaced by about one inch when the left and right front neck portions are closed together. Further, it should be noted that the spacing distance is a result effective variable. The distance must be far enough to allow the zipper to function properly and easily without being crowded by the axis, but close enough to provide sufficient coverage for the wearer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the first location and the second location transversely spaced by no greater than 1 inch when the left front neck portion and the right front neck portion are closed together since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the function and coverage of the hood, collar, and zipper.
Regarding Claim 17, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the collar has a height of at least 2 inches. However, Clark et al. appears to show the collar height being at least two inches. Further, it should be noted that collar height is a result effective variable. The collar height must be high enough to provide sufficient coverage and protection from the elements for the wearer, but low enough such that it will not bunch uncomfortably under the wearer’s chin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the collar has a height of at least 2 inches since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coverage provided by the collar and the wearer’s comfortability.
Regarding Claim 18, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not teach wherein the second vertical stiffness is at least twice the amount of the first vertical stiffness. However, Clark et al. does teach the second vertical stiffness being greater than the first vertical stiffness (paragraph [0050] teaches “the sleeve 102 is made of a material such as TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) and, again in a particular non-limiting embodiment, of a material having a greater rigidity than that of the rod. Depending upon the desired ease of release, the materials of the male and female parts may be of similar or the same rigidity,” wherein the sleeve is part of structure 100 and the rod is referring to structure 200 (see figs. 6-8), therein the second vertical stiffness of the collar is clearly greater than the first vertical stiffness of the front neck portions). Further, it should be noted that relative vertical stiffness is a results effective variable. The second vertical stiffness must be high enough to allow the storm hood to be easily attached to the collar, but not so high as to make the collar uncomfortably rigid (paragraph [0048] teaches “With this construction, it is guaranteed that the sleeve 102 will not impart too much rigidity to the collar to which it is attached” and paragraph [0050] teaches “In a particular embodiment, the sleeve 102 is made of a material such as TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) and, again in a particular non-limiting embodiment, of a material having a greater rigidity than that of the rod. Depending upon the desired ease of release, the materials of the male and female parts may be of similar or the same rigidity.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the second vertical stiffness is at least twice the amount of the first vertical stiffness since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the comfort of the collar for the wearer and the ease of connection between the collar and hood.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2004/0143880) in view of Armstrong (US 5560043).
Regarding Claim 9, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not teach an inner hood extending from the collar.
Attention is drawn to Armstrong, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Armstrong teaches a storm hooded garment (10) for selectively extending over a neck and/or a head of a person (fig. 1 shows the garment (10) being shaped and sized to selectively extend over a neck and head of a wearer), the garment comprising: a torso portion (see annotated Fig.) having a neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the torso portion having a neck opening); a storm hood (26) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the storm hood (26) extending from the torso portion around the neck opening); and a collar (13) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (figs. 1 and 3 show the collar (13) extending from the torso portion and around the neck opening) and a zipper (40) extending vertically along a vertical axis along the torso portion (fig. 1 shows the zipper (40) extending vertically along a vertical axis along the torso portion). Armstrong further teaches an inner hood (20) extending from the collar (col. 2 ll. 23-25 teaches “An inner hood 20 is attached around the collar 13 for engaging over the head and around the sides of the face of the wearer.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark et al. to include the teachings of Armstrong such that the garment includes an inner hood extending from the collar so as to allow the wearer greater flexibility in the type and level of protection desired by the hood, by allowing the wearer to choose one or both hoods to wear at any given time.
Regarding Claim 16, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not teach an inner hood extending from the collar.
Attention is drawn to Armstrong, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Armstrong teaches a storm hooded garment (10) for selectively extending over a neck and/or a head of a person (fig. 1 shows the garment (10) being shaped and sized to selectively extend over a neck and head of a wearer), the garment comprising: a torso portion (see annotated Fig.) having a neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the torso portion having a neck opening); a storm hood (26) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the storm hood (26) extending from the torso portion around the neck opening); and a collar (13) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (figs. 1 and 3 show the collar (13) extending from the torso portion and around the neck opening). Armstrong further teaches an inner hood (20) extending from the collar (col. 2 ll. 23-25 teaches “An inner hood 20 is attached around the collar 13 for engaging over the head and around the sides of the face of the wearer.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark et al. to include the teachings of Armstrong such that the garment includes an inner hood extending from the collar so as to allow the wearer greater flexibility in the type and level of protection desired by the hood, by allowing the wearer to choose one or both hoods to wear at any given time.
PNG
media_image3.png
584
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2004/0143880) in view of Hall (US 5369809).
Regarding Claim 19, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not teach at least one drawstring extending along a brim of the storm hood, the at least one drawstring extending through an opening in the collar and configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood.
Attention is drawn to Hall, which is an analogous article of apparel. Hall teaches a storm hooded garment (Fig. 1) for selectively extending over a neck and/or a head of a person, the garment comprising: a torso portion (see annotated Fig.) having a neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the torso portion having a neck opening); a storm hood (10) extending about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the hood (10) extending around the neck opening); and a collar (12) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the collar extending from the torso portion around the neck opening). Hall further teaches at least one drawstring (36) extending along a brim of the storm hood (col. 4 ll. 25-27, “The face opening drawcord 36 is disposed in a face opening drawcord passageway 38 formed between inner shell 24 and outer shell 26,” fig. 1 further shows the draw string extending around the brim of the hood (10)) the at least one drawstring extending through an opening (40) in the collar (col. 4 ll. 30-34, “Face opening drawcord 36 exits face opening passageway 38 at opposite sides of collar 12, and then passes from the inside to the outside of outer collar panel 23 through eyelets 40.”) and configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood (col. 4 ll. 35-36 teaches “Each end of face opening drawcord 36 may have a cordlock 42 to allow adjustment of the drawcord,” therein the brim can clearly be constricted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark et al. to include the teachings of Hall such that at least one drawstring extends along a brim of the storm hood, the at least one drawstring extending through an opening in the collar and configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood so as to allow the wearer to tighten the hood and collar snugly to their face, therein providing greater protection from the elements.
Regarding Claim 20, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 19, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not teach wherein the at least one drawstring is configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood without altering a shape of the collar.
Attention is drawn to Hall, which is an analogous article of apparel. Hall teaches a storm hooded garment (Fig. 1) for selectively extending over a neck and/or a head of a person, the garment comprising: a torso portion (see annotated Fig.) having a neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the torso portion having a neck opening); a storm hood (10) extending about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the hood (10) extending around the neck opening); and a collar (12) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the collar extending from the torso portion around the neck opening), and at least one drawstring (36) extending along a brim of the storm hood (col. 4 ll. 25-27, “The face opening drawcord 36 is disposed in a face opening drawcord passageway 38 formed between inner shell 24 and outer shell 26,” fig. 1 further shows the draw string extending around the brim of the hood (10)) the at least one drawstring extending through an opening (40) in the collar (col. 4 ll. 30-34, “Face opening drawcord 36 exits face opening passageway 38 at opposite sides of collar 12, and then passes from the inside to the outside of outer collar panel 23 through eyelets 40.”) and configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood (col. 4 ll. 35-36 teaches “Each end of face opening drawcord 36 may have a cordlock 42 to allow adjustment of the drawcord,” therein the brim can clearly be constricted). Hall further teaches wherein the at least one drawstring (36) is configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood without altering a shape of the collar (fig. 1 shows the drawstring (36) extending along the brim, therein the drawstring can clearly be pulled to some extent such that the brim is constricted while the shape of the collar is not altered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark et al. to include the teachings of Hall such that the at least one drawstring is configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood without altering a shape of the collar so as to allow the hood to be snugged tightly around the face while the collar remains standing.
Regarding Claim 21, Clark et al. teaches all of the limitations of the storm hooded garment of Claim 19, as discussed in the rejections above.
Clark et al. does not teach wherein when the garment is worn and the hood is deployed, the drawstring is not visible on the exterior of the garment.
Attention is drawn to Hall, which is an analogous article of apparel. Hall teaches a storm hooded garment (Fig. 1) for selectively extending over a neck and/or a head of a person, the garment comprising: a torso portion (see annotated Fig.) having a neck opening (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the torso portion having a neck opening); a storm hood (10) extending about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the hood (10) extending around the neck opening); and a collar (12) extending from the torso portion about the neck opening (fig. 1 shows the collar extending from the torso portion around the neck opening), and at least one drawstring (36) extending along a brim of the storm hood (col. 4 ll. 25-27, “The face opening drawcord 36 is disposed in a face opening drawcord passageway 38 formed between inner shell 24 and outer shell 26,” fig. 1 further shows the draw string extending around the brim of the hood (10)) the at least one drawstring extending through an opening (40) in the collar (col. 4 ll. 30-34, “Face opening drawcord 36 exits face opening passageway 38 at opposite sides of collar 12, and then passes from the inside to the outside of outer collar panel 23 through eyelets 40.”) and configured to be pulled to constrict the brim of the storm hood (col. 4 ll. 35-36 teaches “Each end of face opening drawcord 36 may have a cordlock 42 to allow adjustment of the drawcord,” therein the brim can clearly be constricted). Hall further teaches wherein when the garment is worn and the hood is deployed, the drawstring is not visible on the exterior of the garment (col. 4 ll. 36-39 teaches “Attached to the outside of outer collar panel 23 are side flaps 44 which protectively cover each of the eyelets 40 and conceal cordlocks 42,” therein the drawstring would clearly be hidden and therein not visible on the exterior of the garment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark et al. to include the teachings of Hall such that when the garment is worn and the hood is deployed, the drawstring is not visible on the exterior of the garment such that the drawstring cannot be snagged accidentally while the garment is being warn.
PNG
media_image4.png
556
838
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732