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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on July 27, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow.
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 following subject matter must be shown (i.e. defined with a reference numeral and identified with leading lines in the drawings) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“mother buckles” and “sub buckles” (see claim 1) Further, since no distinct mother buckles or sub buckles are identified, the limitation in claim 1 that “the buckles have mother buckles penetrating the holes from a bottom of the holes to a top of the holes, and sub buckles penetrating the breathable layer and connecting to the mother buckles, and the breathable layer is sandwiched between the sub buckles and the mother buckles” is likewise not clearly shown. No new matter should be entered.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks (on Pages 4-6 of 11) regarding the pending Drawing objections detailed in the previous Office Action mailed on June 3, 2026. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s Declaration filed on July 27, 2026. Applicant declares that “mother buckles” should be understood to mean a “female” part of a buckle and “sub buckles” should be understood to mean a “male” part of a buckle. Examiner does not disagree that female and male fastening components are well-known concepts in the art of mechanical fasteners. However, the terms “mother buckle” and “sub buckle” are not in fact well-known terms of art. Examiner acknowledges that Applicant as a right to be their own lexicographer. However, when such terms are not well-established terms of art, the components associated with those terms must clearly be articulated for adequate understanding. Applicant states in point 9 of the Declaration that “[i]f the Examiner nevertheless requires a separate figure explicitly showing the mother buckle and sub buckle, I confirm that such a figure would merely be an enlarged or labeled version of the originally disclosed buckle structure, and would not introduce any new structural features beyond what was originally disclosed”. Examiner would very much welcome and accept such a drawing as a new figure (i.e. an enlarged version of what is originally illustrated, with the supposed mother buckle and sub buckle labeled with a defined reference numeral in the Specification) and it would satisfy the Drawing requirements for showing and identifying at least this particular claimed subject matter (i.e. what the mother buckle and sub buckle actually are, structurally). As originally filed, only the overall buckle is identified with a reference numeral “21”.
“sub buckles penetrating the breathable layer” and “the breathable layer is sandwiched between the sub buckles and the mother buckles”
Figs. 4, 8 and 9 are the only figures that show both the breathable layer #3 drawn along with the buckles #21 (which are constituted by the “mother buckles” and “sub buckles”, as Applicant contends)
In each of Figs. 4, 8 and 9, the breathable layer #3 is shown to be entirely above the buckles #21; the breathable layer #3 is not shown to be “sandwiched by” any part of buckles #21, nor is the breathable layer #3 shown to ever be penetrated by the sub buckles
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12: “the buckles” should recite “the plurality of buckles”
Claim 1, lines 12-13: each instance of “the holes” should refer to “the at least some of the holes” since this is the manner in which the holes with buckles is first recited in lines 8-9 earlier in the claim
Claim 8, line 2: “each of” should be added before “a lateral side”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-8 at least due to dependency from claim 1) is 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, as noted previously and is being maintained, the concept what is structurally meant by “mother buckle” and “sub buckle”, in the context of Applicant’s disclosure as originally-filed, is unclear, since these terms are atypical, they are not clearly shown in the drawings, nor are they clearly explained in the Specification. The “mother buckles” and “sub buckles” will be interpreted as best as can be understood when applying any prior art against the claims when addressing such features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarantakos et al. (hereinafter “Sarantakos”) (USPN 8,109,012) in view of Kershaw et al. (hereinafter “Kershaw”) (WO 2006/125997 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sarantakos discloses an anti-slip breathable slipper (footwear #100; see Fig. 1) comprising a shoe upper (upper #102); and a shoe sole (sole #104), wherein: a top of the shoe sole is provided with a concavity (see Figs. 8-9; Col. 5, Line 62 through Col. 6, Line 9 describe various concave shapes possible with the top of the sole); a breathable layer and a surface layer are sequentially stacked in the concavity (ribbed element #108 is a breathable layer with drainage holes #112; Col. 5, Lines 25-27; ribbed element may be made from a plurality of materials, such as a relatively stiff material coated or covered with a softer material; i.e. the softer material covering constitutes “a surface layer” and the relatively stiff material constitutes the “breathable layer”); and a bottom of the concavity is provided with breathable grooves which crisscross each other (see Fig. 3, the bottom of the sole #104 (i.e. bottom of the concavity) has grooves that cross transversely in between treads #109 and Fig. 3 shows unlabeled longitudinal curved grooves that cross the transverse grooves), multiple breathable holes are distributed in the breathable grooves (Fig. 3 shows at least two of the holes #112 are distributed in the transverse grooves between treads #109). Sarantakos is silent to at least some of the breathable holes being inserted with a plurality of buckles for penetrating and fixing the breathable layer, wherein the plurality of buckles includes two buckles that are separately installed at each of a front end of the shoe sole, a middle portion of the shoe sole, and a rear end of the shoe sole, the [plurality of] buckles have mother buckles penetrating the [at least some of the holes] from a bottom of the [at least some of the holes] to a top of the [at least some of the holes], and sub buckles penetrating the breathable layer and connecting to the mother buckles, and the breathable layer is sandwiched between the sub buckles and the mother buckles.
Kershaw teaches a shoe sole with multiple layers that are joined together by fasteners that include a plurality of first members #8 which respectively couple with a plurality of second members #10, wherein the first and second members press-fit together (as a buckle arrangement), such that central projection #11 of first member #8 fits into a central socket #15 of second member #10. As best as the terms “mother buckle” and “sub buckle” can be understood, the first #8 and second mating members #10 are, together, a set of a mother buckle and a sub buckle, inasmuch as the “mother buckle” and “sub buckle” are structurally defined in claim 1. Kershaw shows that there can be two sets of fasteners at a front end, a middle portion and a rear end of the sole (Fig. 2 of Kershaw).
Sarantakos and Kershaw teach analogous inventions in the field of soles with multiple layers joined together. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have affixed the ribbed element (including its stiffer material and its softer material covering; i.e. the stiffer material being a breathable layer and the softer material being a surface layer, as explained above) to the outsole #106 via the mating concentric first #8 and second #10 members taught by Kershaw, such as in at least part of the pattern taught by Kershaw in Fig. 2, in order to mechanically secure the sole layers together via a known mechanism dispersed evenly throughout the longitudinal and transverse direction of the sole, wherein the first/second members #8/10 of Kershaw provide a known alternative type of sole layer coupling, which provides interchangeability options between sole portions (Page 10, second paragraph of Kershaw). As a result of the modification, as best as can be understood, there would be at least some of the breathable holes being inserted with a plurality of buckles for penetrating and fixing the breathable layer (i.e. introducing the fasteners from Kershaw would provide for additional holes, which would be breathable holes that are inserted with the buckles’ pairs of first/second members #8/10 from Kershaw into Sarantakos), wherein the plurality of buckles includes two buckles that are separately installed at each of a front end of the shoe sole, a middle portion of the shoe sole, and a rear end of the shoe sole (as noted above), the [plurality of] buckles have mother buckles penetrating the [at least some of the] holes from a bottom of the [at least some of the holes] to a top of the [at least some of the holes], and sub buckles penetrating the breathable layer and connecting to the mother buckles, and the breathable layer is sandwiched between the sub buckles and the mother buckles (as best as these limitations can be understood, both first and second members #8/10 would penetrate the holes, from at least a bottom of the respective holes to the top of the respective holes and would connect together (i.e. a mother buckle would connect to a sub buckle), and the breathable layer would be positioned between the fastener components (i.e. the stiffer material, which is the breathable layer, would be between the two buckle components (i.e. sandwiched therebetween))).
Regarding claim 7, the modified slipper of Sarantakos (i.e. Sarantakos in view of Kershaw, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that the shoe sole and the breathable layer are both made of Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) material (“in some embodiments, ribbed element #108 may be made from the same material as outsole #106” (Col. 5, Lines 7-8 of Sarantakos); Col. 8, Lines 36-38 describe that the sole can be formed with thermoplastic urethane (TPU); while Col. 8, Line 36-38 describes a different embodiment, it would at least have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the ribbed element #108 (i.e. breathable layer) and the outsole #106 to both be formed from TPU in order to provide components that are supportive in maintaining their shape in use, while also permitting some flexibility during walking).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarantakos in view of Kershaw as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shorten et al. (hereinafter “Shorten”) (US 2019/0150553).
Regarding claim 2, the modified slipper of Sarantakos (i.e. Sarantakos in view of Kershaw, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Modified Sarantakos teaches that the ribbed element #108 (i.e. which includes the breathable layer) includes multiple circular holes (Col. 5, Lines 32-33 of Sarantakos), but is silent to specifying any dimensions for the holes, and is therefore silent to the holes’ diameter being between 1.5 mm and 3 mm. Sarantakos does teach that “[d]rainage holes #112 may have any desired size” (Col. 5, Line 37 of Sarantakos).
Shorten teaches a shoe with a sole that has drainage holes, wherein the drainage holes can have a diameter of at least 2.0 millimeters (¶ 0054 of Shorten).
Modified Sarantakos and Shorten teach analogous inventions in the field of footwear with drainage holes. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a 2.0 mm diameter size for the drainage holes #112 in the ribbed element in order to provide a hole size that can permit water to pass therethrough, since Sarantakos teaches that its drainage holes can be any desired size (as noted above), and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As a result of the modification, the holes would have a diameter of 2.0 mm, which is in the claimed range of 1.5 mm to 3 mm.
Regarding claim 6, the modified slipper of Sarantakos (i.e. Sarantakos in view of Kershaw, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Modified Sarantakos teaches that the ribbed element #108 (i.e. which includes the breathable layer) includes breathable holes that can be elliptical in shape (Col. 5, Lines 32-33 of Sarantakos), but is silent to specifying any dimensions for the holes, and is therefore silent to the elliptical holes’ long axis being between 10 mm and 20 mm. Sarantakos does teach that “[d]rainage holes #112 may have any desired size” (Col. 5, Line 37 of Sarantakos).
Shorten teaches a shoe with a sole that has drainage holes, wherein the drainage holes can have a diameter of 1.0 to 50.0 centimeters (i.e. 10 mm to 500 mm), as well as holes including a cross-sectional opening width of between 0.25 inch to 2.0 inches (i.e. 6.35 mm to 50.8 mm) (¶ 0054 of Shorten).
Modified Sarantakos and Shorten teach analogous inventions in the field of footwear with drainage holes. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a 1.0 cm long axis size for the elliptical drainage holes #112 in the ribbed element in order to provide a hole size that can permit water to pass therethrough, since Sarantakos teaches that its drainage holes can be any desired size (as noted above), and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As a result of the modification, the elliptical holes would have a long axis of 1.0 cm, which is equal to 10 mm, which is in the claimed range of 10 mm to 20 mm.
Claim 3, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarantakos in view of Kershaw as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenawalt (USPN 6,510,626).
Regarding claim 3, the modified slipper of Sarantakos (i.e. Sarantakos in view of Kershaw, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Modified Sarantakos teaches that the ribbed element #108 (i.e. which includes the surface layer) can include the softer covering material, but is silent to specifying what this material is, and it cannot be determined whether the softer covering material is genuine leather.
Greenawalt teaches a footwear footbed insert that includes a pair of layers, wherein the foot-facing layer is a thinner layer of leather and is placed above a urethane pad layer, and further teaches that both layers may be perforated for aeration purposes (Col. 3, Lines 41-49 and claim 1 of Greenawalt).
Modified Sarantakos and Greenawalt teach analogous inventions in the field of foot support layers. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the perforated leather material taught by Greenawalt as the material of choice for the softer material covering in the ribbed element #108 of Sarantakos in order to provide a known soft material comfortable for the foot to rest on, while maintaining the capability of draining to occur, due to the presence of the perforations in the layers.
Claim 4, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarantakos in view of Kershaw as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore, III et al. (hereinafter “Moore”) (USPN 5,733,647).
Regarding claim 4, the modified slipper of Sarantakos (i.e. Sarantakos in view of Kershaw, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but is silent as to how the softer covering material (i.e. surface layer) is attached to the underlying stiffer component of the ribbed element #108 (i.e. breathable layer), and it cannot be determined from Sarantakos alone whether the breathable layer’s edge region is provided with a sewing groove (Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), and the surface layer is sewn onto the breathable layer along the sewing groove.
Moore teaches a multilayer insole that has a peripheral region defining a groove, wherein the grooved peripheral region includes stitching #12 therethrough to affix the different layers of the insole together (see Figs. 2-3; Col. 2, Lines 14-16 of Moore).
Modified Sarantakos and Moore teach analogous inventions in the field of multilayer sole components. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have affixed the softer covering layer and the stiffer underlying layer of the ribbed element #108 (i.e. the surface layer and the breathable layer) with a stitched groove region at the perimeter region (i.e. edge region) of the layers, stacked together, in order to provide a secure means for mechanically affixing the layers together, and further since the concept of a perimeter stitch groove joining sole layers together is already very well-known in the art.
Claim 5, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarantakos in view of Kershaw as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horvath et al. (hereinafter “Horvath”) (US 2020/0170335).
Regarding claim 5, the modified slipper of Sarantakos (i.e. Sarantakos in view of Kershaw, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that a bottom surface of the shoe sole is provided with triangular anti-slip patterns.
Horvath teaches a shoe outsole layer #16 with a bottom surface that may include different shapes of recurring three-dimensional tread structures #40, including triangular shapes (¶ 0044 of Horvath).
Modified Sarantakos and Horvath teach analogous inventions in the field of outsoles. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of at least some of the rib shape treads #109 pattern in Sarantakos to have recurring 3D triangular shapes, as taught by Horvath, in order to provide an alternative capable gripping tread shape for the outsole, since it has been held that modifying the shape of an element would be obvious absent evidence that the particular shape of the element of the claimed invention was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 8, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarantakos in view of Kershaw as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Menghi (USPN 6,122,845).
Regarding claim 8, the modified slipper of Sarantakos (i.e. Sarantakos in view of Kershaw, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but is silent to a triangular hole being respectively provided on a lateral side and a medial side of the shoe upper.
Menghi teaches an open-toed footwear that has a front upper (pair of strap ends #3a/3b; similar to Sarantakos’ upper #102), wherein the upper includes, on both sides, a respective triangular hole (incisions # I), for purposes of transpiration (Col. 2, Lines 16-19 of Menghi).
Modified Sarantakos and Menghi teach analogous inventions in the field of slippers with water/sweat management. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the triangular incisions of Menghi to the sides of the upper #102 of Sarantakos in order to promote transpiration therethrough of water/sweat, as taught by Menghi, which would improve the breathability and moisture management of the upper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the Drawing objections are addressed in the Drawing objection section above.
With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicant argues (in points 1 and 2 on page 10 of the Remarks) that since Kershaw teaches that its first and second members #8 and #10 are intended to directly inter-engage two respective substrates and do not teach sandwiching a layer therebetween, that the fastener pairs #8/10 cannot be relied upon for applying the teaching to Sarantakos, as such a modification is applied by Examiner, wherein there would be no motivation to perform such a modification. Examiner notes that Kershaw is not being relied upon for sandwiching the layers, but instead only being relied upon for teaching the use of a two-part buckle system wherein both parts of the buckle (i.e. a mother buckle and sub buckle, as best as these terms can be understood) are coextensive cross-sectionally, wherein Kershaw is analogous in the art of attaching several sole layers together. Kershaw does not necessitate that the engagement members #8/10 are integrally formed with their respective substrates, only that such integral molding is “preferable” (Page 4, Lines 11-14 of Kershaw). Nevertheless, Sarantakos already teaches the multiple layers being present (a top surface layer (i.e. softer material of ribbed element), an intermediate breathable layer (i.e. stiffer material of ribbed element) and a shoe sole (outsole #106 of overall sole #104), with the intermediate breathable layer being sandwiched between the surface layer and the shoe sole). Kershaw’s teachings are being applied as a known mechanism for affixing all of the sole layers together, wherein the resulting application of the engagement members #8/10 of Kershaw into Sarantakos would result in the stiffer element (i.e. breathable layer) being sandwiched between the mother buckle and sub buckle, as best as this limitation can be understood, since the mother and sub buckles would be present above the breathable layer and below the breathable layer. Regarding point 3 on Page 10, Applicant argues that the claimed buckle structure provides unexpected advantages, such as allowing the breathable layer to be flexible secured and replaced, whereas Kershaw’s fasteners are designed for joining entire sole and upper portions, not for securing a replaceable breathable layer within a sole concavity. This is not found persuasive because the concept of securing different sole layers together in a removable manner is not a new concept in the art of footwear. While the intended use of Applicant’s device may be to enable the user to use different materials dependent on different seasonal temperatures, the resulting structure is still a known concept of attaching sole layers together in a removable manner. Accordingly, the combination is deemed proper and is maintained against the claims, as best as the current claims can be understood.
Examiner further notes that Applicant’s own drawings do not appear to show that the breathable layer is sandwiched between any supposed two parts of buckle #21, nor does it appear to be penetrated by the sub buckle, since breathable layer #3 is shown to be completely above the buckles in Figs. 4, 8 and 9 (i.e. the only figures that show the buckles #21 and the breathable layer #3 together). Applicant’s disclosure and drawings appear to be lacking critical details that would be beneficial in clarifying the claim language and clearly illustrating what constitutes their supposed inventive concept (i.e. explanation and illustration of what the “mother buckles” and “sub buckles” are, structurally, which is not clear, as is evident by the fact that the terms are not found used together in the same context of attachment and sandwiching of layers together anywhere in the US Patent or US Pre-Grant Publication databases).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights