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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the claims filed February 19, 2026, in which claims 1-35 were presented for examination, of which claims 29-35 were withdrawn by the Examiner, due to be drawn to a nonelected embodiment.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, Sub-Species A (Fig. 1A-4) in the reply filed on February 19, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The Office has not identified any claim limitation that would require a different field of search between Species I and Species X. Both embodiments relate to knit spacer textiles having apertures and interconnecting tie yarns, and both fall within the same technical field of breathable performance textiles. As stated in paragraph [0075] of the application as filed, "a knit spacer textile can be warp knitted." The warp-knitted embodiment of FIG. 16 includes the same first knit layer, second knit layer, apertures, and interconnecting tie yarns recited in claim 1. Because Species X does not add a structural limitation beyond those recited in the claims, Species X is not patentably distinct from Species I, and claims 1-35 are generic to both embodiments.” This is not found persuasive because Fig. 16 is directed to a warp knitted textile produced on a warp knitting machine, while Fig. 1A-4 shows a spacer textile not created on a warp knitting machine, as evident by Applicants Specification filed July 8, 2025. Although a spacer textile can become a warped textile, that is accomplished through a different mechanical process. This would require a search outside of the CPC and USPC classes that the elected Species falls into, leading to a serious search burden on the Examiner; unless Applicant believes the invention in Fig. 16 is an obvious variant of the elected embodiment.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As MPEP 821 Treatment of Claims Held To Be Drawn to Nonelected Inventions states,
Claims found to be drawn to nonelected inventions, including claims drawn to nonelected species or inventions that may be eligible for rejoinder, are treated as indicated in MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.
All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04. The examiner should clearly set forth in the Office action the reasons why the claims withdrawn from consideration are not readable on the elected invention. Applicant may traverse the requirement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.143. If a final requirement for restriction is made by the examiner, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 for review of the restriction requirement if the applicant made a timely traversal. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 169 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1971). When an election results in the withdrawal of claims such that the assigned examiner believes the C* classification picture is incorrect, the examiner should submit a C* classification challenge prior to an action on the merits of the elected claims to ensure the C* classification picture on the application appropriately reflects the elected invention.
The following claims are withdrawn from consideration as they are directed to a nonelected invention: Claims 29-35. See 37 CFR 1.142(b).
These claims are not drawn to the elected invention as required by the restriction equipment, due to including structural elements/limitations that are not found within Species I, Sub-Species A (Fig. 1A-4) such as “a garment (claim 29), the garment comprising an upper-body garment (claim 30)”.
Therefore, Examiner has withdrawn claims 29-35.
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.
Claims 2-13 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 claims 2-13, the limitation “wherein at least one of the first plurality of yarns, the second plurality of yarns, and the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a denier of at least 70 D (claim 2)” is indefinite because the term “one of” is not proceeded by “and/or”, since the term “one of” can apply to one or more than one of the choices. Claims 3-13 follow the same format.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US Patent 6,630,414).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a knit spacer textile (A, Fig. 1-6) comprising: a first knit layer (1) formed from a first plurality of yarns (Fig. 6, yarns formed by guide bars L1-L3), the first knit layer (1) comprising a first set of apertures (12) having a first opening size (opening of 12, as shown in Fig. 1-3); a second knit layer (2) formed from a second plurality of yarns (Fig. 6, yarns formed by guide bars L5-L7), the second knit layer (2) comprising a second set of apertures (22), the second set of apertures having a second opening size (opening of 22) less than the first opening size (as shown in Fig. 2-3); and a plurality of tie yarns (3) that interconnect the first knit layer and the second knit layer (as shown in Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto discloses at least one of the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a denier of at least 70 D (Col. 21, lines: 43-46, examiner notes a denier of at least 70 is within the range 100-3000 deniers for the tie yarns).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto discloses least one of the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a denier in the range of about 70 D to about 160 D (Col. 21, lines: 43-46, examiner notes the claimed range of deniers falls within the range of deniers listed by the prior art).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a denier of about 80 D (Col. 21, lines: 43-46).
Regarding claim 27, Matsumoto discloses wherein respective apertures of the first set of apertures and the second set of apertures are laterally aligned (as shown in Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 28, Matsumoto discloses the first opening size (opening of 12) is greater than the second opening size (opening of 22) such that at least a portion of the plurality of tie yarns (3) is visible through the first set of apertures when the knit spacer textile is viewed from the side of the first knit layer (Examiner notes each opening tapers gradually from the first layer to the second layer, which shows the first opening size is greater than the second opening size, and the tie yarns can be viewed from the side, as seen in Fig. 3).
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 5-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto discloses the material for the yarns is Nylon (Col. 20, lines: 1-9).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a tenacity in the range of about 3.0 to about 5.0 grams per denier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a tenacity in the range of about 3.0 to about 5.0 grams per denier, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto discloses the material for the yarns is Nylon (Col. 20, lines: 1-9).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a tenacity in the range of about 3.6 to about 4.8 grams per denier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a tenacity in the range of about 3.0 to about 5.0 grams per denier, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto discloses the material for the yarns is Nylon (Col. 20, lines: 1-9).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a tenacity in the range of about 4.0 grams per denier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a tenacity in the range of about 3.0 to about 5.0 grams per denier, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto discloses the material for the yarns is a multifilament yarn (Col. 20, lines: 1-9, examiner notes “nylon” is well known in the art to be a multifilament yarn).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament in the range of about 0.5 to about 2.5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament in the range of about 0.5 to about 2.5, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto discloses the material for the yarns is a multifilament yarn (Col. 20, lines: 1-9, examiner notes “nylon” is well known in the art to be a multifilament yarn).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament of less than 0.75.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament of less than 0.75, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto discloses the material for the yarns is a multifilament yarn (Col. 20, lines: 1-9, examiner notes “nylon” is well known in the art to be a multifilament yarn).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament of about 1.04.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament of about 1.04, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto discloses the material for the yarns is a multifilament yarn (Col. 20, lines: 1-9, examiner notes “nylon” is well known in the art to be a multifilament yarn).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament of about 2.08.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have the multifilament yarn having a denier per filament of about 2.08, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first plurality of yarns, the second plurality of yarns, and the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a moisture regain percentage in the range from about 9.0% to about 13.0%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have at least one of the first plurality of yarns, the second plurality of yarns, and the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a moisture regain percentage in the range from about 9.0% to about 13.0%, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first plurality of yarns, the second plurality of yarns, and the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a moisture regain percentage of about 10%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have at least one of the first plurality of yarns, the second plurality of yarns, and the plurality of tie yarns comprises a yarn having a moisture regain percentage in the range from about 9.0% to about 13.0%, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.02 kgf to about 0.60 kgf.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in ASTM D4032-2008.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ASTM D4032-2008 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.02 kgf to about 0.60 kgf, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.07 kgf to about 0.13 kgf.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in ASTM D4032-2008.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ASTM D4032-2008 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.07 kgf to about 0.13 kgf, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.09 kgf to about 0.11 kgf.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in ASTM D4032-2008.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ASTM D4032-2008 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.09 kgf to about 0.11 kgf, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.101 kgf.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in ASTM D4032-2008.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ASTM D4032-2008 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a stiffness measured according to ASTM D4032-2008 in the range of about 0.101 kgf, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a thickness measured according to ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5, in the range of about 1.10 mm to about 1.60 mm.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a thickness measured according to ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5, in the range of about 1.10 mm to about 1.60 mm, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a thickness measured according to ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5, in the range of about 1.35 mm to about 1.42 mm.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a thickness measured according to ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5, in the range of about 1.35 mm to about 1.42 mm, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a thickness measured according to ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5, in the range of about 1.38 mm.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a thickness measured according to ASTM D1777-2019, Option 5, in the range of about 1.38 mm, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a thickness measured according to ISO 5084-1996 in the range of about 1.50 mm to about 2.10 mm.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described ISO 5084-1996.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ISO 5084-1996 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a thickness measured according to ISO 5084-1996 in the range of about 1.50 mm to about 2.10 mm, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a thickness measured according to ISO 5084-1996 in the range of about 1.70 mm to about 1.80 mm.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described ISO 5084-1996.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ISO 5084-1996 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a thickness measured according to ISO 5084-1996 in the range of about 1.70 mm to about 1.80 mm, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the knit spacer textile has a thickness measured according to ISO 5084-1996 of about 1.75 mm.
However, Matsumoto does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described ISO 5084-1996.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the ISO 5084-1996 limitation the applicant has posed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have a thickness measured according to ISO 5084-1996 of about 1.75 mm, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the second plurality of yarns has an instantaneous heat transfer value in the range of 0.10 W/cm2 to 0.30 W/cm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have the second plurality of yarns has an instantaneous heat transfer value in the range of 0.10 W/cm2 to 0.30 W/cm2, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the second plurality of yarns has an instantaneous heat transfer value in the range of 0.14 W/cm2 to 0.235 W/cm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have the second plurality of yarns has an instantaneous heat transfer value in the range of 0.14 W/cm2 to 0.235 W/cm2, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 26, Matsumoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the second plurality of yarns has an instantaneous heat transfer value of about 0.25 W/cm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have the second plurality of yarns has an instantaneous heat transfer value of about 0.25 W/cm2, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732