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 amendment filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 03/13/2026.
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 claimed feature "wherein the base adhesive layer covers an entire first surface of the moisture-locking interior layer" in claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 03/13/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: "polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)" in para. 0016.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 21, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the base adhesive layer covers an entire first surface of the moisture-locking interior layer".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "polyvinyl alcohol". However, the disclosure fails to set forth the feature. The original disclosure does not provide what "PVA" stands for. As is known in the art, the abbreviation PVA may stand for a plurality of different materials, such as polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate or polyvinyl acrylate. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "wherein the base adhesive layer covers an entire first surface of the moisture-locking interior layer". However, the disclosure fails to set forth the feature. The original specification is silent regarding this feature. It is noted that Fig. 3 is an exploded view of a guard, which only shows the base adhesive layer 303 is below the moisture-locking interior layer 302 from a single view, and one cannot determine whether layer 303 covers an entire surface of layer 302 from the single view. As such, Fig. 3 cannot serve as a basis for "wherein the base adhesive layer covers an entire first surface of the moisture-locking interior layer". Indeed, the instant drawings do not show a base adhesive layer and a moisture-locking interior layer from different views. Therefore, claiming the limitation must be cancelled from the claim, since the claim appears to be new matter.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (GB 2508630 A).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a moisture-absorbing guard (figs. 1-5; abstract; p. 6, ll. 15-20) comprising:
an outer absorbent layer (lower layer 3 made of breathable, absorbent cotton; fig. 3; p. 6, ll. 21-25) comprising a network of interconnected pores (as made from breathable, absorbent cotton and comprising a plurality of apertures; fig. 3; p. 6, ll. 21-25; p. 8, ll. 8-10),
a base adhesive layer (adhesive layer 11; fig. 3; p. 7, ll. 1-6), and
a moisture-locking interior layer (upper layer 2 made of breathable, absorbent cotton; fig. 3; p. 6, ll. 21-25) between the outer absorbent layer and the base adhesive layer (fig. 3), wherein the moisture-locking interior layer comprises an absorbent material (absorbent cotton; p. 6, ll. 21-25).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is sized to be applied to fingers, hands, wrists, forearms, biceps, or a shoulder area (an underarm area; fig. 6; p. 6, ll. 12-13).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the absorbent material comprises cotton (absorbent cotton; p. 6, ll. 21-25), cellulose, wool, nylon, rayon, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyester, polystyrene, silicone, surfactants, proteins, block copolymers, amphiphilic gels, microfibers, a fluff pulp, a nonwoven fabric, an acquisition and distribution layer, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, and further discloses the moisture-absorbing guard further comprising a protective liner (a transfer paper; p. 5, ll. 4-6) attached to the base adhesive layer (p. 5, ll. 4-6).
Regarding claim 9, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the protective liner comprises silicone-coated paper (p. 5, ll. 4-6), a polyethylene film, a polypropylene film, wax-coated paper, a polyvinyl chloride film, fluoropolymer-coated paper, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is breathable (the upper and lower layers 2,3 made of breathable cotton and comprising a plurality of apertures; fig. 3; p. 6, ll. 21-25; p. 8, ll. 8-10).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, and further discloses the moisture-absorbing guard further comprising a scent-neutralizing layer (the moisture-absorbing guard comprising further layers including a layer providing odor control; p. 2, ll. 6-7; p. 7, ll. 27-32).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses a method of using a moisture-absorbing guard (a method of using an absorbent pad 1; figs. 1-3, 6; p. 1, ll. 2-6; p. 6, ll. 15-27; p. 9, ll. 10-30) comprising:
removing a protective liner of the moisture-absorbing guard (removing transfer paper from the absorbent pad; fig. 6; p. 9, ll. 15-17),
positioning the moisture-absorbing guard onto a body of a user (fig. 6; p. 9, ll. 15-17), and
applying the moisture-absorbing guard to the body of the user via a base adhesive layer of the moisture-absorbing guard (adhesive layer 11; figs. 3, 6; p. 7, ll. 1-6; p. 9, ll. 15-17),
wherein the moisture-absorbing guard further comprises an outer absorbent layer (lower layer 3 made of breathable, absorbent cotton; fig. 3; p. 6, ll. 21-25) having a network of interconnected pores (as made of breathable, absorbent cotton and comprising a plurality of apertures; fig. 3; p. 6, ll. 21-25; p. 8, ll. 8-10) and a moisture-locking interior layer (upper layer 2 made of breathable, absorbent cotton; fig. 3; p. 6, ll. 21-25) between the outer absorbent layer and the base adhesive layer (fig. 3).
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 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 5, 10-14, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB 2508630 A).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the network of interconnected pores are distributed uniformly across a surface of the outer absorbent layer. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the network of interconnected pores to be distributed uniformly across a surface of the outer absorbent layer, in order to efficiently and uniformly discharge absorbed moisture to the outer environment. Such a configuration is within the one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, except for wherein the moisture-absorbing guard has a teardrop shape. However, Thomas does disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is anatomically shaped and is comfortable and/or discreet to wear (p. 5, ll. 6-8). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the garment art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the shape of the moisture-absorbing guard as claimed, for conforming to a specific area of a human skin, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Regarding claim 11, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, except for wherein the moisture-absorbing guard has a butterfly shape. However, Thomas does disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is anatomically shaped and is comfortable and/or discreet to wear (p. 5, ll. 6-8). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the garment art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the shape of the moisture-absorbing guard as claimed, for conforming to a specific area of a human skin, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Regarding claim 12, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, except for wherein the moisture-absorbing guard has an hourglass shape. However, Thomas does disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is anatomically shaped and is comfortable and/or discreet to wear (p. 5, ll. 6-8). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the garment art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the shape of the moisture-absorbing guard as claimed, for conforming to a specific area of a human skin, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Regarding claim 13, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, except for wherein the moisture-absorbing guard has a rectangular shape. However, Thomas does disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is anatomically shaped and is comfortable and/or discreet to wear (p. 5, ll. 6-8). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the garment art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the shape of the moisture-absorbing guard as claimed, for conforming to a specific area of a human skin, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Regarding claim 14, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, except for wherein the moisture-absorbing guard has an oval shape. However, Thomas does disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is anatomically shaped and is comfortable and/or discreet to wear (p. 5, ll. 6-8). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the garment art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the shape of the moisture-absorbing guard as claimed, for conforming to a specific area of a human skin, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Regarding claim 19, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is free of active ingredients. However, Thomas does not disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard comprises any medical or therapeutical substance or hypoallergenic substance, and Thomas further discloses wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is free of fragrance (abstract; claim 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the moisture-absorbing guard as disclosed by Thomas, with wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is free of active ingredients, in order to provide a moisture-absorbing guard configured to absorb perspiration and odour without generating any other negative effect to a human user (p. 1, ll. 12-22; p. 9, ll. 10-12).
Regarding claim 21, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, except for wherein the base adhesive layer covers an entire first surface of the moisture-locking interior layer. However, Applicant, in the original disclosure, does not set forth any criticality for wherein the base adhesive layer covers an entire first surface of the moisture-locking interior layer. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the moisture-absorbing guard of Thomas, with wherein the base adhesive layer covers an entire first surface of the moisture-locking interior layer, in order to secure the moisture-absorbing guard to a target surface in a specific application and prevent the moisture-absorbing guard from separating from the target surface when in use (Thomas; p. 1, ll. 1-4; p. 5, ll. 12-14). A change in size/proportion is an obvious variation of engineering design and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Mere changes of dimensions/proportions are not considered to be patentably distinct limitations. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Claims 3, 7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (GB 2508630 A) in view of Cotton (GB 2527617 A).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the absorbent material comprises one or more superabsorbent polymers and/or a hydrophilic polyurethane foam. However, Cotton, in an analogous art, teaches wherein a moisture-absorbing guard (a wound dressing 100; fig. 3; p. 15, ll. 11-23) comprising an absorbent material (an absorbent body 110 comprising an absorbent material; fig. 3; p. 15, ll. 11-23) comprises superabsorbent polymers and/or a hydrophilic polyurethane foam (p. 15, ll. 11-23; p. 16, ll. 30-33; p. 17, ll. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the absorbent material as disclosed by Thomas, with wherein the absorbent material comprises one or more superabsorbent polymers and/or a hydrophilic polyurethane foam as taught by Cotton, in order to improve the absorbent material for efficiently absorbing a large amount of sweat from a user's skin thereby providing comfort to the user. Also, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the base adhesive layer comprises an adhesive (fig. 3; p. 7, ll. 1-4).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive is acrylic, silicone-based, hydrocolloid, polyurethane-based, a hydrogel, collagen-based, or a combination thereof. However, Cotton teaches wherein an adhesive for contacting a human skin is silicone-based, polyurethane-based, or a hydrogel (a polyurethane adhesive, a hydrogel or, most preferably, a silicone adhesive; p. 19, ll. 12-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material for the adhesive as disclosed by Thomas, with wherein the adhesive is silicone-based, polyurethane-based, or a hydrogel as taught by Cotton, in order to use a soft, tactile and conformable as well as skin-friendly adhesive for the base adhesive layer (Cotton; p. 19, ll. 14-30). Also, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard consist of hypoallergenic materials. However, as discussed above, Thomas does disclose wherein the outer absorbent layer and moisture-locking interior layer are made of cotton. In addition, Thomas further discloses wherein the moisture-absorbing guard is free of fragrance (abstract; claim 14). Further, Cotton teaches wherein an adhesive for contacting a human skin is made of a hypoallergenic material (a polyurethane adhesive, a hydrogel or, most preferably, a silicone adhesive; p. 19, ll. 12-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material for the adhesive as disclosed by Thomas, with wherein the adhesive is silicone-based, polyurethane-based, or a hydrogel as taught by Cotton, in order to use a soft, tactile and conformable as well as skin-friendly adhesive for the base adhesive layer (Cotton; p. 19, ll. 14-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected all the materials of the moisture-absorbing guard, in order to provide a moisture-absorbing guard suitable for all kind of skin conditions and prevent any allergic reactions. Also, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 16, Thomas discloses the moisture-absorbing guard of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the moisture-absorbing guard consist of biodegradable materials. However, as discussed above, Thomas does disclose wherein the outer absorbent layer and moisture-locking interior layer are made of cotton which is biodegradable. In addition, Cotton teaches wherein an adhesive for contacting a human skin is a hydrocolloid adhesive which is generally biodegradable for human use (p. 19, ll. 12-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material for the adhesive as disclosed by Thomas, with wherein the adhesive is a biodegradable hydrocolloid adhesive as taught by Cotton, in order to use a both skin-friendly and environmental-friendly adhesive for the base adhesive layer (Cotton; p. 19, ll. 14-30). Also, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: with respect to limitation "PVA" in claim 4, Applicant asserts that PVA is routinely and exclusively used by those skilled in the art used to refer to polyvinyl alcohol.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is known in the art, the abbreviation PVA may stand for a plurality of different materials, such as polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate or polyvinyl acrylate. Polyvinyl alcohol has also been commonly designated by PVOH by one of ordinary skill of the art, not only PVA. The several patents Applicant cited cannot serve as support for Applicant's argument that "PVA is routinely and exclusively used by those skilled in the art used to refer to polyvinyl alcohol". For example, "PVA" has been used to refer to polyvinyl acetate in patents US 7,828,055 B2, US 9,999,226 B2, US 10,658,091 B1, US 11,053,161 B2, and US 2024/0277611 A1 among many of others. In fact, in US 7,828,055 B2, PVA is referring to polyvinyl acetate, and PVAI or PVOH is referring to polyvinyl alcohol. In addition, "PVA" has also been used to refer to polyvinyl acrylate in US 6,206,963 B1, US 6,470,128 B1, US 6,906,018 B1, US 6906023 B1 and US 7,721,749 B2 among many of others. Therefore, Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's remarks: with respect to claim 1, Applicant asserts that Thomas does not disclose an outer absorbent layer comprising a network of interconnected pores.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Thomas discloses an outer absorbent layer made from breathable, absorbent cotton and comprising a plurality of apertures (p. 6, ll. 21-25; p. 8, ll. 8-10). The term "absorbent cotton" has a common definition "fluffy wadding of a kind originally made from raw cotton, used for cleansing wounds, removing cosmetics, and padding delicate objects" per Oxford Languages. One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a "fluffy wadding" of cotton comprises nonwoven cotton fibers defining a network of interconnected pores, and a "breathable absorbent cotton" comprising a plurality of apertures further ensures a network of interconnected pores that is crucial for being "breathable" and "absorbent". Therefore, the outer absorbent layer of Thomas does comprise a network of interconnected pores.
Conclusion
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732