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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-12, 14, 16-21 and 24-31 are pending in this application. Claims 1-2, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 24, and 27-29 have been amended. Claims 13 and 15 have been cancelled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 9/2/2026.
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.
Claims 1-9, 14, 16, 18, 24-25, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liou (US 5226188 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Liou discloses a mattress core (See Fig. 1, seat 20) for reclining furniture, including a children's mattress, comprising: at least one mattress frame element (See Fig. 1, seat 20); and at least one mattress insert element (See Fig. 2, pad 10), wherein the at least one mattress frame element includes at least one recess on at least a partial area of an outer surface of the mattress core formed as a lying surface for a user (See Fig. 2, recess 21), (See Fig. 1-2, pad 10 fits within recess 21 of seat 20), wherein one or both of the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element includes a plurality of air channels (See Fig. 2, holes 12 and ventilation holes 22), and wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element are arranged such that they form a common channel in pairs (See Fig. 2 and 7B, holes 12 and holes 22 forming common channels in pairs).
Regarding Claim 2, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1, wherein the at least one recess is formed to correspond to a geometry of the at least one mattress insert element such that the at least one mattress insert element is at least partially, received in the at least one recess (See Fig. 1-2, pad 10 fits within recess 21 of seat 20).
Regarding Claim 3, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mattress insert element is insertable into and/or removable from the at least one recess of the at least one mattress frame element via the outer surface of the mattress core formed as a lying surface for the user (See Fig. 1-2, outer surfaces of pad 10 fits within recess 21 of seat 20 to form a surface for the user).
Regarding Claim 4, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1, wherein the at least one recess is configured such that the at least one mattress frame element surrounds and/or encloses the mattress insert element at least along part of an outer circumference (See Fig. 1-2, seat 20 encloses the pad 10 along outer circumference of said pad).
Regarding Claim 5, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1 wherein the at least one mattress insert element is accommodatable in a close- fitting and/or flush manner in the at least one recess (See Fig. 1-2, pad 10 fits within recess 21 in a flush manner).
Regarding Claim 6, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mattress insert element is accommodatable and/or arrangeable in the at least one recess such that an outer side of the at least one mattress insert element is flush with an outer side of the at least one mattress frame element (See Fig. 1-2, pad 10 fits within recess 21 in a flush manner).
Regarding Claim 7, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1 wherein an outer side of the at least one mattress insert element and an outer side of the at least one mattress frame element together form the lying surface for the user (See Fig. 1, pad 10 and seat 20 forming a surface for the user).
Regarding Claim 8, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1 wherein the at least one mattress insert element is accommodated in the at least one recess such that it is in contact with the at least one mattress frame element on all outer sides except an outer side of the at least one mattress insert element provided as part of a lying surface for the user (See Fig. 1-2, pad 10 fits within recess 21 of seat 20 forming a surface for the user, top side of pad 10 not in contact with seat 20).
Regarding Claim 9, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1, wherein the at least one mattress insert element is received in the at least one recess to prevent slipping (See Fig. 1-2, pad 10 fits firmly into recess 21 and cannot slip while within said recess).
Regarding Claim 14, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim [[13]] 1, wherein the plurality of air channels of of the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element are arranged in several rows (See Fig. 2, holes 12 and ventilation holes 22 arranged in rows).
Regarding Claim 16, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim [[13]] 1, wherein the air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and of the at least one mattress insert element each extend completely through the at least one mattress frame element and/or the at least one mattress insert element (See Fig. 7, holes 12 and holes 22 extending through the pad 10 and seat 20, respectively).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim [[13]] 1, wherein the at least one mattress insert element includes a head section, a foot section and a middle section, wherein the plurality of air channels are arranged only in the middle section (See Fig. 2, holes 12 of pad 10 only arranged in the middle section of pad 10).
Regarding Claim 24, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1, wherein the at least one recess is formed to correspond to a geometry of the at least one mattress insert element such that the at least one mattress insert element is substantially completely received in the at least one recess (See Fig. 1-2, pad 10 fits within recess 21 completely due to the corresponding geometries).
Regarding Claim 25, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1, wherein the at least one recess is configured such that the at least one mattress frame element surrounds and/or encloses the mattress insert element completely along an outer circumference (See Fig. 1-2, seat 20 encloses the pad 10 along outer circumference of said pad).
Regarding Claim 27, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim [[13]] 1, wherein the plurality of air channels of of the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element are arranged in several rows parallel to one another (See Fig. 2, holes 12 and ventilation holes 22 arranged in parallel rows).
Regarding Claim 31, Liou discloses the mattress according to claim 19, wherein the mattress is a children's mattress (intended use of seat 20 could be for that of children’s use).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 5226188 A) in view of Kardeh (US 20220031086 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mattress insert element includes a compression hardness of approximately 2 kPa to 8 kPa.
However, Kardeh teaches wherein the at least one mattress insert element includes a compression hardness of approximately 2 kPa to 8 kPa (“the degree of hardness of the comfort layer 18 is 2.5 kPa±0.35 kPa”; [0048]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by implementing a compression hardness level such as taught by Kardeh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to optimally adapt the section of the reserve region to all body types such that this section of the mattress optimally supports different body types”; (Kardeh, [0009]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 26, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mattress insert element includes a compression hardness of approximately 2.5 kPa to 3.5 kPa.
However, Kardeh teaches wherein the at least one mattress insert element includes a compression hardness of approximately 2.5 kPa to 3.5 kPa (“the degree of hardness of the comfort layer 18 is 2.5 kPa±0.35 kPa”; [0048]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by implementing a compression hardness level such as taught by Kardeh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to optimally adapt the section of the reserve region to all body types such that this section of the mattress optimally supports different body types”; (Kardeh, [0009]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 5226188 A) in view of Berger (WO 2010030174 A2).
Regarding Claim 11, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mattress insert element includes a hydrophobic, washable and/or boilable foam material.
However, Berger teaches wherein the at least one mattress insert element includes a hydrophobic, washable and/or boilable foam material (“parts are more preferably washable in a washing machine”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by using washable materials as taught by Berger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress “can hereby be cleaned in practical manner in a normal household”; (Berger). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim 1.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein of the at least one mattress insert element and the at least one mattress frame element includes an open-pored foam material.
However, Berger teaches wherein of the at least one mattress insert element and the at least one mattress frame element includes an open-pored foam material (“reticulated foam more preferably has a wholly open-cell structure”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by using open-cell foam as taught by Berger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress so “the ventilation is hereby optimized”; (Berger). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 17, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 5226188 A) in view of Hawkins (US 20110067183 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim [[13]] 1.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and/or the at least one mattress insert element each have a radius of approximately 0.1 cm to approximately 5 cm.
However, Hawkins teaches wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and/or the at least one mattress insert element each have a radius of approximately 0.1 cm to approximately 5 cm (“a ventilated cushioning device is featured, embodiments include a perforation hole size of 0.375'' (0.9 cm) diameter to 2'' (5.08 cm) diameter”; [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by sizing the air channels as taught by Berger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress for “having ventilation means”; (Hawkins, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 28, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim [[13]] 1.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and/or the at least one mattress insert element each have a radius of approximately 0.2 cm to approximately 3 cm.
However, Hawkins teaches wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and/or the at least one mattress insert element each have a radius of approximately 0.2 cm to approximately 3 cm (“a ventilated cushioning device is featured, embodiments include a perforation hole size of 0.375'' (0.9 cm) diameter to 2'' (5.08 cm) diameter”; [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by sizing the air channels as taught by Berger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress for “having ventilation means”; (Hawkins, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 29, Liou discloses the mattress core according to claim [[13]] 1.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and/or the at least one mattress insert element each have a radius of approximately 0.5 cm to approximately 1.5 cm.
However, Hawkins teaches wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and/or the at least one mattress insert element each have a radius of approximately 0.5 cm to approximately 1.5 cm (“a ventilated cushioning device is featured, embodiments include a perforation hole size of 0.375'' (0.9 cm) diameter to 2'' (5.08 cm) diameter”; [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by sizing the air channels as taught by Berger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress for “having ventilation means”; (Hawkins, [0018]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 19, 21, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 5226188 A) in view of Daly (US 20060162088 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Liou discloses a mattress, comprising: a mattress core according to claim 1 (Seat 20).
Liou fails to explicitly disclose a cover, wherein the cover completely surrounds the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element.
However, Daly teaches a cover, wherein the cover completely surrounds the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element (See Fig. 1-4, cover 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by adding the cover taught by Daly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress for “to enclose the composite foam structure”; (Daly, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21, Liou discloses the mattress according to claim 19.
Liou fails to disclose wherein the cover includes a closure which is secured against unintentional opening.
However, Daly teaches wherein the cover includes a closure which is secured against unintentional opening (“opening 24 may be secured by means such as a zipper”; [0033]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by adding the cover taught by Daly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress for “to enclose the composite foam structure”; (Daly, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 30, Liou discloses the mattress according to claim 20.
Liou fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least the upper layer of the cover fabric is formed from a 3D weft-knitted fabric.
However, Daly teaches wherein at least the upper layer of the cover fabric is formed from a 3D weft-knitted fabric (“One suitable material for the outer cover 22 is Dartex P091 Polyamide fabric (polyurethane transfer coating on a weft knitted fabric)”; [0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by adding the 3D weft-knitted fabric cover taught by Daly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress because it is “washable, dry cleanable, and is capable of being HF welded”; (Daly, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 5226188 A) in view of Daly (US 20060162088 A1), further in view of Myers (US 20200359814 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Liou, as modified, teaches the mattress according to claim 19.
Liou fails to explicitly teach wherein the cover includes a cover fabric with at least an upper layer and a lower layer, wherein the upper layer and the lower layer are arranged at least partially one above the other; wherein at least the upper layer of the cover fabric is formed from a weft-knitted fabric, and wherein at least on an outer side of the upper layer facing away from the lower layer, a plurality of cover fabric recesses are formed.
However, Daly teaches wherein the cover includes a cover fabric with at least an upper layer and a lower layer, wherein the upper layer and the lower layer are arranged at least partially one above the other; wherein at least the upper layer of the cover fabric is formed from a weft-knitted fabric (“One suitable material for the outer cover 22 is Dartex P091 Polyamide fabric (polyurethane transfer coating on a weft knitted fabric)”; [0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou by using a multi-layer 3D weft-knitted fabric cover taught by Daly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress because it is “washable, dry cleanable, and is capable of being HF welded”; (Daly, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Liou in view of Daly fails to explicitly teach wherein at least on an outer side of the upper layer facing away from the lower layer, a plurality of cover fabric recesses are formed.
However, Myers teaches wherein at least on an outer side of the upper layer facing away from the lower layer, a plurality of cover fabric recesses are formed (“the breathable fabric layer comprises a layer body and a plurality of holes; the plurality of holes traversing through the layer body; and the plurality of holes being uniformly distributed across the layer body”; [Claim 3]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Liou in view of Daly by adding the recesses taught by Myers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the mattress because “to allow the baby to breath freely, even when their face is lying against the surface of the fabric”; (Myers, [0024]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Liou fails to explicitly describe or suggest the features of claim 1, specifically the paired common channels: See Pages 9-10 of remarks, “Liou operates on a pumping principle: when the user sits, the pad and seat deform and eject air upward, and when the load is removed they recover their shape and draw in fresh air through the check valve 24 (see Liou, col. 2, ll. 28-34; Figs. 7A-7C). Accordingly, the ventilation holes 22 of Liou's seat are cross connected into a shared, valve-controlled plenum; they are not paired one-to-one with the through holes 12 of the pad to define individual common channels. In contrast, amended Claim 1 instead recites that "the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element are arranged such that they form a common channel in pairs." In other words, each relevant air channel of the insert element is aligned with and continues into a corresponding air channel of the frame element to form a common channel. Liou's interconnected, check-valve-based pumping arrangement neither discloses nor suggests such paired common channels. Modifying Liou to provide paired, one-to-one channels between the pad and the seat would materially alter the disclosed interconnected, valve-controlled ventilation arrangement and its operating principle. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1, and claims depending therefrom, patentably distinguish over Liou.
“Moreover, the claimed features have significant advantages not found in any of the cited references. For instance, the plurality of air channels in both the frame element and the insert element form a common, in particular continuous, channel in pairs. Further, a through- channel is defined across both parts of the mattress core, further improving the supply of fresh air and the removal of used air (see e.g., a non-limiting example in the specification page 16, lines 5-9). The air channels lead to improved ventilation of the mattress core. In addition, the air channels ensure that the user is supplied with sufficient oxygen, especially when lying/sleeping on their stomach (see e.g., a non-limiting example in the specification page 19, lines 29-31). This is particularly relevant for a children's mattress, since small children often lie/sleep on their stomachs, i.e., face-down.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Liou fails to explicitly disclose the mattress and frame element forming a common channel in pairs, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the examiner interprets the limitation, wherein the plurality of air channels of the at least one mattress frame element and the at least one mattress insert element are arranged such that they form a common channel in pairs” as the two elements forming a common channel and the common channel includes one air channel from each of the elements. In looking at Fig. 7B of Liou, the conical ventilation holes 22 of the seat 20 are in fluid communication with two of the small conical through holes 12 of pad 10, essentially forming two air channels, denoted by air flow arrows in Fig. 7B, and two pairs, even though the same hole 22 is used for two holes 12. Thus, Liou does read upon the limitation of the paired common channels, the argument is found unpersuasive, and the claim rejection is respectfully maintained.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Claimed features having advantages over the prior art references, unless clearly stated as limitations within the claims, do not carry any patentable weight and therefore do not overcome claim rejections. Thus, the arguments regarding the advantages detailed on pages 9 and 10 of the remarks are respectfully found unpersuasive and the claim rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20050188467 A1: Woolfson discloses a mattress with an outer casing, a foam core within the outer case, and a cover surrounding both the outer casing and the foam core.
US 20140143955 A1: Nishimura discloses a mattress comprising a plurality of cores residing within a closed bottom frame.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
