Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
“wherein the control box is detachably attached to the connecting belt by an attachment means that includes but is not limited to a Velcro, a magic buckle, a magic tape, or a magnet.”
This language is a bit ambiguous and awkward. It is recommended applicant change to the following:
“wherein the control box is detachably attached to the connecting belt by an attachment means that comprises: a Velcro, a magic buckle, a magic tape, or a magnet.”
“Comprises” is opened ended meaning that the claim suggestion as written requires one or more listed elements, but it can include additional elements with the required one or more listed elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6, 9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5:
claim 5 recites
“wherein the first connector is magnetically coupled with the third connector; or the first connector is a hook-and-loop fastener, and the third connector is a Velcro component”. This limitation is indefinite as it can be interpreted in two different ways. First interpretation: either a first connector is magnetically coupled with the third connector or the first connector is a hook-and-loop fastener. AND in addition to either condition being met, the third connector is a Velcro component. Second interpretation: the first connector is magnetically coupled with the third connector OR the first connector is a hook-and-loop fastener with the third connector being a Velcro component. The second interpretation is interpreted as being recited for this examination. Regardless, if this is the intended interpretation or not, applicant should clarify what is being claimed here.
Regarding claim 6:
claim 6 recites
“wherein the second connector is magnetically coupled with the fourth connector; or the second connector is a first magnetic electrode electrically connected with the light source layer and the fourth connector is a second magnetic electrode that is magnetically coupled with the first magnetic electrode and electrically connected.”
This limitation is indefinite as it can be interpreted in two different ways. First interpretation: either a second connector is magnetically coupled with the fourth connector OR the second connector is a first magnetic electrode electrically connected with the light source layer. AND in addition to either condition being met the fourth connector is a second magnetic electrode that is magnetically coupled as claimed. Second interpretation: a second connector is magnetically coupled with the fourth connector or BOTH the first magnetic electrode is electrode is electrically connected with the light source layer and the fourth connector is a second magnetic electrode that is magnetically coupled with the first magnetic electrode as claimed. The second interpretation is interpreted as being recited for this examination. Regardless, if this is the intended interpretation or not, applicant should clarify what is being claimed here.
Regarding claim 9: claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the treatment pad comprises a plurality of second notches arranged along length of the treatment pad”.
The limitation implies by the use of the term “second notches” that there is/are “first notches”. However, neither claim 9, nor claim 1 on which claim 9 is dependent on recites “first notches” this raises questions. Is “second notches” a typo for “first notches” or did applicant omit “first notches”. For this examination “second notches” is interpreted as a typo for “first notches”. Regardless, if this is applicant’s intended interpretation or not applicant should clarify what is being claimed here.
Regarding claims 13-20:
Claim 13 recites “a second end having one or more electrodes to electrically connect with the treatment pad and a fourth connector to magnetically connect with a second connector on the treatment pad”
There is no first connector or third connector recited previous to this limitation. This raises questions as a fourth connector implies there is a first, second and third connectors. Is “a fourth connector” a typo for a “first connector” or did applicant omit “a first connector” and “a third connector”?. As claim 16 which is dependent on claim 13 recites “a first connector”, it seems applicant intended to use “fourth connector”. Therefore, for the sake of clarity in this office action, examiner will keep applicant’s terminology for this rejection, but applicant should amend to provide the proper order antecedent basis for the connectors to resolve this 112 rejection as the current order leads to different interpretations for the reasons discussed. Claims 14-20 are rejected as well based on dependency to claim 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18968060 (reference application) hereafter known as AP’ 060 as currently amended in the set of claims received on 3/6/2026. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because AP ‘060 anticipates all the limitations as outlined in the table below.
Claim in this application
Where the claim is found in AP ‘060
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 5
Claim 3
Claim 1
Claim 4
Claim 1
Claim 5
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claim 5
Claim 11
Claim 7
Claim 12
Claim 8
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-2 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medendorp et al (US 20170028216) hereafter known as Medendorp.
Independent claim
Regarding claim 1:
Medendorp discloses:
A wearable phototherapy hair growth device [see Fig. 1 and para 3… “This disclosure relates to devices and methods for phototherapeutic treatment of topical dermatological disorders of the scalp, such as androgenetic alopecia, acne, psoriasis, dermatitis, and other conditions.” And para 51… “the light emissions are configured to treat or prevent hair loss of the patient.”], comprising:
a wearable body adapted to fit head of a user [see Fig. 1 element 30 and para 176… “concave shaping member 30”];
a treatment pad configured to emit light to promote hair growth [see Fig. 1 element 10 and para 176… “a FPCB 10 including multiple interconnected panels 12A-12F (e.g., multiple interconnected elements) arranged in a concave configuration.” And para 180… “FIG. 3A is a bottom plan view of the FPCB 10 with light emitters 20 and standoffs 25 arranged thereon.” And para 51… “the light emissions are configured to treat or prevent hair loss of the patient.”];
a control box for controlling functioning of the treatment pad [see Fig. 1 element 40 and para 176… “An electronics housing 40”];
wherein the treatment pad is detachably connected to an inner surface of the
wearable body [see Fig. 1 element 30 (i.e. wearable body) relative to element 10 (i.e. pad)]; and
wherein a first end of the treatment pad facing the wearable body is provided with a connecting portion, which extends through the wearable body and is detachably connected to the control box [see Fig. 1 elements 62A-62D and 32A-32D and para 176… “The fabric covering 60 includes a fabric body 61 and multiple internal pockets 62A-62D arranged to receive portions of the ribs 32A-32D. An opening 68 at the top of the fabric covering 60 is arranged to receive the cover 42.”].
Regarding claim 2,
wherein the treatment pad comprises a light-transmitting layer [see para 136… “a light-transmissive layer (e.g., an encapsulant or lens) may be arranged to cover and/or arranged in contact with at least a portion of a FPCB and any light emitter(s) supported thereon. A preferred encapsulant material is silicone, which may be applied by any suitable means such as molding, dipping, spraying, dispensing, printing, or the like.”], a light source layer [see para 136… “may be arranged to cover and/or arranged in contact with at least a portion of a FPCB and any light emitter(s) supported thereon.”], and a lining layer [see para 136… “the FPCB comprises a flexible polymer film, polyester (PET), polyimide (PI), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyetherimide (PEI), fluropolymers (FEP), copolymers, etc.”]; the light-transmitting layer is connected with the lining layer [see para 136]; the light source layer is located between the lining layer and the light-transmitting layer [see para 136]; and a first connector and a second connector are provided on the lining layer [see para 136… “a FPCB may include a polyimide-containing layer and at least one layer of copper or another electrically conductive material” A conductive material is understood to run between the lights and the controller and therefore is understood to be a first and second connector ]
Regarding claim 7, wherein the light-transmitting layer is a transparent silicone sheet, the lining layer is a silicone sheet [see rejection to claim 2 above which specifically recites … para 136… “a light-transmissive layer (e.g., an encapsulant or lens) may be arranged to cover and/or arranged in contact with at least a portion of a FPCB and any light emitter(s) supported thereon. A preferred encapsulant material is silicone], and the light source layer is a flexible LED light board [see para 136… “a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB)”]
Regarding claim 8, this claim is an apparatus claim. As stated by MPEP 2113 with respect to an apparatus claim, the patentability is not defined by the process, but rather by resulting product (i.e. structure). Therefore, the process of making the apparatus has little patentable weight and is understood to be recited by Medendorp.
Regarding claim 9, see labelled figure directly below the rejection to this claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
701
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, see Fig. 3A element 20 and para 180 [see “FIG. 3A is a bottom plan view of the FPCB 10 with light emitters 20” and “the light emitters 20 include a total of 280 light emitting diodes arranged as 56 strings of 5 LEDs”] which discloses light emitter diodes as claimed.
Regarding claim 11,
wherein the control box comprises a housing [see Fig. 1 element 40 and para 176… “electronics housing 40”], an energy storage element [see Fig. 1 element 50 and para 176… “A battery 50”], and a control panel mounted within the housing [see Fig. 1 element 42A and para 176… “Windows 42A defined in the cover 42 provide access to the cycle counter 43, the control button 44, the charging/data port 45, and the status lamp 46.”], with the control panel being electrically connected to the energy storage element [see para 176… “Windows 42A defined in the cover 42 provide access to the cycle counter 43, the control button 44, the charging/data port 45, and the status lamp 46.”]
Regarding claim 12:
wherein the housing includes a box body [see Fig. 1 element 40] that accommodates the energy storage element and an inner cavity of the control panel [see Fig. 1 element 40 relative to element 50 (i.e. energy storage element)] , and a sealing plate covers the box body [see Fig. 1 element 42 and para 176… “Windows 42A defined in the cover 42 provide access to the cycle counter 43, the control button 44, the charging/data port 45, and the status lamp 46.”], the sealing plate is detachably connected to the connecting portion [see Fig. 1 which shows 42 detachable as claimed]
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medendorp in view of Anderson et al (US 20150238774) hereafter known as Anderson.
Regarding claims 3-6:
Medendorp discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1-2 as outlined above which includes a first and second connector.
However, Medendorp fails to disclose “wherein the wearable body comprises a third connector corresponding to a position of the first connector; and the third connector is detachably connected with the first connector.” as recited by claim 3, “wherein the control box comprises a fourth connector corresponding to a position of the second connector; and the fourth connector is detachably connected with the second connector and the second connector is arranged on the connecting portion” as recited by claim 4, “wherein the first connector is magnetically coupled with the third connector; or the first connector is a hook-and-loop fastener, and the third connector is a Velcro component” as recited by claim 5, or “wherein the second connector is magnetically coupled with the fourth connector; or the second connector is a first magnetic electrode electrically connected with the light source layer and the fourth connector is a second magnetic electrode that is magnetically coupled with the first magnetic electrode and electrically connected” as recited by claim 6.
Anderson discloses in the analogous art of phototherapy devices [see abstract… “Methods and apparatuses for phototherapy to treat skin disorders.”] that magnetic connectors are known elements for connecting different elements of a phototherapy device together [see para 10… “The dressings described herein are generally adapted for use in conjunction with the phototherapy UV light sources; the dressing may be adapted to include one or more connectors (mechanical, magnetic/electromagnetic, etc.) for connecting with a UV light source.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the Medendorp to include third and fourth connectors and to modify the connectors to be magnetic connector to connect between different elements including between the control box and pad(i.e. thereby reciting claims 3-6) similar to that described by Anderson as this is a known way to connect different elements of a phototherapy device together.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medendorp in view of Yoo et al (US 20220241606) hereafter known as Yoo in view of Anderson.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 13:
A wearable phototherapy hair growth device [see Fig. 1 and para 3… “This disclosure relates to devices and methods for phototherapeutic treatment of topical dermatological disorders of the scalp, such as androgenetic alopecia, acne, psoriasis, dermatitis, and other conditions.” And para 51… “the light emissions are configured to treat or prevent hair loss of the patient.”], comprising:
a wearable body adapted to fit the head of a user [see Fig. 1 element 30 and para 176… “concave shaping member 30”];
a treatment pad configured to emit light to promote hair growth [see Fig. 1 element 10 and para 176… “a FPCB 10 including multiple interconnected panels 12A-12F (e.g., multiple interconnected elements) arranged in a concave configuration.” And para 180… “FIG. 3A is a bottom plan view of the FPCB 10 with light emitters 20 and standoffs 25 arranged thereon.” And para 51… “the light emissions are configured to treat or prevent hair loss of the patient.”];
a connecting belt for adjusting the size of the wearable body [see Fig. 1 elements 40, 68, 32A-32D and 62A-62D], the connecting belt
comprising:
a control box [see Fig. 1 element 40] having an upper casing [see Fig. 1 element 42] and a lower casing [see Fig. 1 element 41A] to provide a housing to accommodate a control panel and an energy storage device [see para 176… “A battery 50 and a battery holder 51 are arranged between the FPCB 10 and the concave shaping member 30. An electronics housing 40 is arranged to be received within an opening 31A defined in the frame 31 of the concave shaping member 30. Pivotal coupling elements 41A, 51A (e.g., cylindrical tabs) are arranged to pivotally couple the battery holder 51 to the electronics housing 40. An electronics board 41 is insertable into the electronics housing 40, which is enclosed with a cover 42.”];
a first end having a first connecting member for connecting to a first side of the wearable body [see Fig. 1 element 68 and para 176… “An opening 68 at the top of the fabric covering 60 is arranged to receive the cover 42.”]; and
However, Medendorp fails to disclose the control belt as including:
“a second end having one or more electrodes to electrically connect with the treatment pad and a fourth connector to magnetically connect with a second connector on the treatment pad”.
Yoo discloses in analogous are of wearable phototherapy devices [see abstract… “A system for inducing synthesis of Vitamin D in a body includes a wearable illumination device formed in a structure that is wearable on the body”] that electrode wiring is a known way to deliver power to light emitting devices [see para 68… “In the substrate 112, an electrode wiring 112a is installed to provide a potential necessary for operation to a negative electrode and a positive electrode of the LED, and a connector 112b to which a power cable connected to an external power supply device, that is, the control device 120, is connected is installed and may operate as an electrode pad. In addition, the substrate 112 may include an optical sensor 112c.”]
Anderson discloses in the analogous art of phototherapy devices [see abstract… “Methods and apparatuses for phototherapy to treat skin disorders.”] that magnetic connectors are known elements for connecting different elements of a phototherapy device together [see para 10… “The dressings described herein are generally adapted for use in conjunction with the phototherapy UV light sources; the dressing may be adapted to include one or more connectors (mechanical, magnetic/electromagnetic, etc.) for connecting with a UV light source.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Medendorp so that an electrode connects the control box with Medendorp’s light emitting elements because as described by Yoo as this is a known way to deliver power to the light sources in phototherapy devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the Medendorp in view of Yoo’s belt to include a magnetic connector to connect with the pad (i.e. a fourth connector to magnetically connect with a second connector on the treatment pad) because as described by Anderson as this is a known way to connect different elements of a phototherapy device together.
.
Regarding claim 14, see Fig. 1 element 68 of Medendorp (i.e. connection base) and Fig. 1 element 40 Medendorp (i.e. control box) and Fig. 1 which shows two as being detachably connected.
Regarding claim 15:
Medendorp in view of Yoo in view of Anderson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 13-14 as outlined above which . However, Medendorp in view of Yoo in view of Anderson fails to disclose “wherein the upper casing and the connection base are provided with a pair of holes to allow the one or more electrodes of the control box to electrically connect with the treatment pad.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Medendorp in view of Yoo in view of Anderson by including holes in the upper casing and having the wired electrodes from the controller extend through these holes to the pad because there are a limited number of places through which to connect the controller and the lights of the pad (i.e. upper casing or lower casing of the control box) and the upper casing of the control box is one of those limited number of places of connecting.
Regarding claim 16,
wherein the treatment pad comprises a light-transmitting layer [see para 136… “a light-transmissive layer (e.g., an encapsulant or lens) may be arranged to cover and/or arranged in contact with at least a portion of a FPCB and any light emitter(s) supported thereon. A preferred encapsulant material is silicone, which may be applied by any suitable means such as molding, dipping, spraying, dispensing, printing, or the like.”], a light source layer [see para 136… “may be arranged to cover and/or arranged in contact with at least a portion of a FPCB and any light emitter(s) supported thereon.”], and a lining layer [see para 136… “the FPCB comprises a flexible polymer film, polyester (PET), polyimide (PI), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyetherimide (PEI), fluropolymers (FEP), copolymers, etc.”]; the light-transmitting layer is connected with the lining layer [see para 136]; the light source layer is located between the lining layer and the light-transmitting layer [see para 136]; and a first connector and the second connector are provided on the lining layer [see para 136… “a FPCB may include a polyimide-containing layer and at least one layer of copper or another electrically conductive material” A conductive material is understood to run between the lights and the controller and therefore is understood to be a first and second connector ].
Regarding claim 17, see labeled Fig. 3A of Medendorp and Fig. 3A elements 14 of Medendorp (i.e. primary notches) which recites the pad as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
669
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, see labelled Fig. 3A of Medendorp labelled below.
PNG
media_image3.png
701
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medendorp in view of Yoo in view of Anderson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Petit et al (US 20110219522) hereafter known as Petit.
Medendorp in view of Yoo in view of Anderson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 13 as outlined above. However, Medendorp in view of Yoo in view of Anderson fails to disclose “wherein the wearable body comprises a connecting port and an edge of the wearable body is provided with a first notch located at the connecting port, and a connecting belt is provided for adjusting the size of the first notch.” as recited by claim 19 or “wherein the control box is detachably attached to the connecting belt by an attachment means that includes but is not limited to a Velcro, a magic buckle, a magic tape, or a magnet” as recited by claim 20.
Petit discloses in the analogous art of adjustable electronic headwear [see para 2… “This invention relates generally to carriers for electronic devices and, more particularly, to a carrier adapted for attachment to the adjustment strap or structure at the back of headwear.”] a hook and loop fastener (understood to include Velcro) that can adjust the size and the resulting connecting port that includes a first notch for the purpose of sizing the headwear to fit a person [see Figs. 1-4 element 115 (i.e. belt) and space above element 115 (i.e. portal with notch) and paras 34-35… “The headwear may be any type of headwear that either has a strap or pocket in the rear or can be fitted with a strap or pocket in the rear. The exemplary hat 100 is a baseball cap with a stiff bill or brim 105 extending from a soft crown 110. The hat 100 is not "fitted" to the wearer's head size. Instead, it has an adjustable strap 115 such as a plastic, hook and loop fastener, or elastic adjustment strap so that it can be quickly adjusted to fit different wearers.” And “mechanical fasteners (e.g., snaps, rivets and zippers), hook and loop fasteners (e.g., Velcro.RTM.), stitching and bonding may be used to construct the carrier.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Medendorp in view of Yoo in view of Anderson by including a connecting Velcro belt with a port and a first notch similar to that Petit (i.e. thereby reciting claims 19-20) as this will allow an individual to adjust the headwear to a user’s size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights