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 of Group I, Species 1 and subspecies 1A, Species J, and Species i and subspecies i(a) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-22 were withdrawn by Applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 6, 8-11 are also withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim, for the reasons described below.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the coating is configured to increase the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the first surface without a coating”. This claim is clearly drawn to unelected subspecies i(b), see page 8 of Restriction Requirement mailed 11/3/2025, and is therefore withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “wherein in at least one of the first and second areas of a region of the first surface, the surface is abraded in order to increase the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the unabraded first surface”. This claim is clearly drawn to unelected Species ii, see page 8 of Restriction Requirement mailed 11/3/2025, and is therefore withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein at least one of the first and second areas of a regio of the first surface is provided with plural protrusions that engage with the second surface to increase the effective static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction in comparison to the first surface without protrusions”. This claim is clearly drawn to unelected Species iii, see page 9 of Restriction Requirement mailed 11/3/2025, and is therefore withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the component on which the first surface is provided is formed as a layer formed from different materials in the first and second areas respectively”. This claim is clearly drawn to unelected Species iv, see page 9 of Restriction Requirement mailed 11/3/2025, and is therefore withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “wherein the component on which the first surface is provided is formed from a base layer made from a first material, covered by a layer of a second material; and the first areas correspond to openings in the layer of second material exposing the first material to provide part of the first surface”. This claim is clearly drawn to unelected Species v, see page 9 of Restriction Requirement mailed 11/3/2025, and is therefore withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-13 are therefore presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and second components are provided in a connector that connects the first and second shells together but permits movement of the first shell relative to the second shell by sliding at the sliding interface within the connector” (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “6” (figures 1, 2), “20” (figures 4, 9).
The drawings are further objected to for the following informalities:
Reference number “7” is only present one time on figure 7, but the specification refers to “7” as “sliding layer” (page 11) and “outer plate” (page 17), so it is unclear which component is being referred to in figure 7.
Figure 11 is simply a series of unconnected lines and it is unclear how these lines are intended to be connected or implemented into a wider structure. How is the “first component” line connected to the “first surface” line? Is the first surface a surface of the first component? Similar questions arise for the “second component” and “second surface”.
Figure 12 is also a series of unconnected shapes, and it is unclear how these shapes are intended to be connected or implemented into a wider structure. Additionally, the reference numbers “52” appear to be pointing to nothing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not in narrative form (it is essentially a copy of claim 1, so it includes legal phraseology used in patent claims (comprising, comprises)), and it is more than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 7, 12-13 objected to because of the following informalities: The dependent claims 2-5, 7, 12-13 all begin with “An item of protective apparel” but should start with “The item of protective apparel” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “first and second components are provided in a connector that connects the first and second shells together but permits movement of the first shell relative to the second shell by sliding at the sliding interface within the connector”. This limitation includes subject matter failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Although the specification includes a broad statement that the sliding interfaces “may be applied to sliding interfaces provided within connectors” on page 19, it is not clear how the sliding interface, which is only described in detail in regards to being located between two shells of a helmet, would function if put “within a connector” as claimed. The connectors are described on pages 10-11 as follows: “Typically, a connector 5 comprises first and second attachment parts respectively configured to attach to first and second parts of the helmet and a deformable part between the first and second attachment parts that enables the first and second attachment parts to move relative to each other to enable movement between the first and second parts of the helmet of the helmet. Connectors 5 may absorb some impact energy by deforming.” Thus, it is unclear how the connectors would be able to perform their described function of connecting two layers of the helmet and deforming to enable movement and absorb some impact energy while also having a sliding interface somehow included within them. The specification does not describe how the connectors would function with a sliding interface “within” them (Do the connectors still deform? Do they deform and slide? Do they only slide and no longer deform? Do the connectors need to be split into two parts to have the sliding interface provided somewhere in the middle or would the sliding interface provided at one of the ends?) and the drawings also do not provide any insight or clarification because they do not show what the connectors would look like with a sliding interface within them, therefore the written description of this feature is lacking. Due to the lack of clarity in the claim and the written description (as described in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of this claim above), this claim has not been rejected over prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5, 7, 12-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a sliding interface provided between the first and second components; wherein the sliding interface comprises first and second surfaces that oppose each other and are configured to slide relative to each other”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the sliding interface is. It appears based on the disclosure that the sliding interface is referring to a general space between the first and second components, and the first and second surfaces “of the sliding interface” are actually the surfaces of the first and second components that slide against each other; however, the claim as written would appear to require an actual additional structure (i.e., the “sliding interface” is its own layer) to be present between the first and second components that includes first and second surfaces SEPARATELY from the surfaces of the first and second components. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “sliding interface” has been interpreted as referring to the interface between a first surface of the first component and a second surface of the second component.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the first and second areas are evenly distributed across the first region”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear whether “the first and second areas” refers to the first and second area of the first region or the first and second area of the second region. Examiner notes that it is possible that the first region and second region could overlap, in which case a first/second area of the first region could also be within the perimeter of the second region, and vice versa. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to the first and second areas of the first region.
Further regarding claim 2, it is unclear what it means for the first and second areas to be “evenly distributed”. Evenly distributed in what way? In number? In size? In shape? Any/all of the above? Also, is the “even distribution” intended to be a collective distribution (i.e., the first areas and second areas taken together are collectively are evenly distributed in the first region) or is the distribution of the first areas and the second areas considered separately (i.e., the first areas have one distribution, and the second areas have a different distribution, but both individually are evenly distributed in the first region)? The limitation is further unclear because it is unclear whether multiple first areas and multiple second areas are required. Claim 1 only requires “at least first and second areas” which only requires one first area and one second area, so it is unclear whether a “even distribution” can be present if there is only one first area and one second area or if multiple first areas and second areas are now required.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the first and second areas are provided in a repeating pattern across the first region”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear whether “the first and second areas” refers to the first and second area of the first region or the first and second area of the second region. Examiner notes that it is possible that the first region and second region could overlap, in which case a first/second area of the first region could also be within the perimeter of the second region, and vice versa. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to the first and second areas of the first region. The limitation is further unclear because it is unclear whether multiple first areas and multiple second areas are required. Claim 1 only requires “at least first and second areas” which only requires one first area and one second area, so it is unclear whether a “repeating pattern” can be present if there is only one first area and one second area or if multiple first areas and second areas are now required.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the ratio of the first area to the second area is selected…”. It is unclear what ratio is being referred to here. Ratio of their size? Surface area? Number?
Further regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “such that the area-weighted average of the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface in the first region is a desired level”. The scope of the claim is unclear because it cannot be determined what “level” is considered to be “desired”. Desired by whom? What makes a “level” of “area-weighted average of the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface in the first region” more desirable?
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “in at least one of the first and second areas of a region of the first surface”. It is unclear whether “a region” is referring to one of the previously defined first region or second region or if this “a region” is an entirely new region that has not yet been defined. For the purpose of examination, this “region” has been interpreted as referring to one of the previously defined first region or second region.
Further regarding claim 5, the recitation “in at least one of the first and second areas of a region of the first surface, a coating is provided” is confusing because if both of the areas have the same coating, then it would appear that the requirement of claim 1 that the first and second areas have different static and/or dynamic coefficients of friction from each other would not hold true anymore.
Further regarding claim 5, the recitation “a coating is provided that changes the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the first surface without a coating” is confusing because it appears to be referring to an intermediate stage of manufacturing of the product. In claim 1, the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction is already “changed”, so to speak, because the first and second areas already need to have different coefficients of friction, so it is confusing for the claim to recite that the coefficient of friction is “changing” when in fact in the final product the coefficient of friction is already determined. It appears that the claim is attempting to recite that the previously claimed difference in coefficient of friction is provided by either the first area or the second area HAVING a coating.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “the coating is configured to reduce the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the first surface without a coating” is confusing because it appears to be referring to an intermediate stage of manufacturing of the product. In claim 1, the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction is already “reduced”, so to speak, because the first and second areas already need to have different coefficients of friction, so it is confusing for the claim to recite that the coefficient of friction is “reduced” when in fact in the final product the coefficient of friction is already determined. It appears that the claim is attempting to recite that the coating is a low friction coating.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “first and second components are provided in a connector”. It is unclear whether these “first and second components” are the same “first and second components” that were previously introduced in claim 1 or if they are separate, additional first and second components. The claim also recites “the sliding interface within the connector” but the claim has not previously defined or described that there must be a sliding interface within the connector, and it is unclear whether this “sliding interface” is the same “sliding interface” that was previously introduced in claim 1 or if it is a separate, additional sliding interface. Due to the lack of clarity in the claim and the written description (as described in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of this claim above), this claim has not been rejected over prior art.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirshon (US 2021/0378342).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel comprising: first (headgear liner 14) and second components (helmet shell 12) that are configured to move relative to one another (“upon impact of a load on the helmet shell in the vicinity of the at least one interface element, allowing the helmet shell to move relative to the headgear liner and/or interface element” paragraph 29); and a sliding interface provided between the first and second components (the sliding interface is the interface between the first and second components, as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above); wherein the sliding interface comprises first (20 and 22) and second surfaces (18) that oppose one another and are configured to slide relative to each other (“a plurality of interface elements or “pads” 22 may be provided to surface 20 to provide at least some reduction in friction between internal surface 18 of helmet shell 12 and the external surface of headgear liner 16” paragraph 80); the first surface has at least a first region which is divided into at least first and second areas that are configured such that at least one of the static coefficient of friction and the dynamic coefficient of friction for the first area against the second surface is different from the second area against the second surface (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80); the first surface has a second region configured such that the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface is different in the first region from the second region (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80; given that the second region includes a greater surface area of the interface element 22 than the first region, the second region’s overall static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction would be different from the overall static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first region); the second region is divided into at least first and second areas that are configured such that at least one of the static coefficient of friction and the dynamic coefficient of friction for the first area against the second surface is different from the second area against the second surface (see annotated figure 2 annotated below; the interface element 22 has a reduced friction as described in paragraph 80); and the arrangement of the first and second areas in the first region is different from the arrangement of the first and second areas in the second region (see annotated figure 2 annotated below, as shown in the figure, the arrangement of the first and second areas in the first region is clearly different from the arrangement of the first and second areas in the second region).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Kirshon showing the first region and its first and second areas; since the first area is on the interface element, while the second area is not on the interface element, their coefficient of frictions are different
PNG
media_image2.png
339
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Kirshon showing the second region and its first and second areas; since the first area is on the interface element, while the second area is not on the interface element, their coefficient of frictions are different
Regarding claim 2 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein the first and second areas are evenly distributed across the first region (see annotated figure 2 of Kirshon provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the first region; the first and second areas are evenly distributed insofar as can be understood because they exhibit mirror symmetry about the dashed line in the annotated figure).
Regarding claim 3 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein the first and second areas are provided in a repeating pattern across the first region (see annotated figure 2 of Kirshon provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing the first region; the first and second areas are provided in a repeating pattern as can be understood because they exhibit mirror symmetry about the dashed line in the annotated figure).
Regarding claim 4 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel according to claim 1, in which the ratio of the first area to the second area is selected such that the area-weighted average of the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface in the first region is a desired level (as described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above, it is unclear what a “desired level” is, however it is understood that the first area and second area as defined by the Examiner (see 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above) have been selected such that that the area-weighted average of the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction of the first surface against the second surface in the first region is a “desired level” insofar as has been defined by Applicant because the two areas have the claimed difference in static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction).
Regarding claim 12, Kirshon discloses: An item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein the item is a helmet (10); and the first and second components are first (12) and second shells (14), respectively, configured such that in response to an oblique impact on the helmet the first shell can move relative to the second shell by sliding at the sliding interface (“a plurality of interface elements or “pads” 22 may be provided to surface 20 to provide at least some reduction in friction between internal surface 18 of helmet shell 12 and the external surface of headgear liner 16” paragraph 80; “upon impact of a load on the helmet shell in the vicinity of the at least one interface element, allowing the helmet shell to move relative to the headgear liner and/or interface element” paragraph 29).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirshon in view of Pradeep (US 2019/0159540).
Regarding claim 5 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon does not explicitly disclose: An item of protective apparel according to claim 1, wherein, in at least one of the first and second areas of a region of the first surface, a coating is provided that changes the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the first surface without a coating.
However, Pradeep teaches a helmet with a sliding interface provided by either a piece of material or a low friction coating (“the padding layer 702 can be coated, impregnated with a substance or treated in some manner to form the interface layer 704 and change the properties of the padding layer 702 at the outer shell layer interface, such as to reduce friction. In yet another embodiment, the interface layer 704 can be formed from a separate material, which is coupled to the padding layer in some manner, such as adhesively bonded or mechanically attached” paragraph 80).
Pradeep teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the interface elements of Kirshon a coating of low friction material on the liner because, as taught by Pradeep, it would be the simple substitution of known equivalent structures for reducing friction that would yield only the predictable result of reducing friction between the helmet shell and the liner.
Regarding claim 7 as best understood by Examiner, Kirshon as modified discloses: An item of protective apparel according to claim 5, wherein the coating is configured to reduce the static and/or dynamic coefficient of friction against the second surface in comparison to the first surface without a coating (as modified, the coating is a low-friction coating and therefore reduces the coefficient of friction compared to the first surface without a coating insofar as understood).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Piper (US 2004/0250340) and Pomering (US 2019/0328074) teach headwear with slidable components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732