DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on May 19, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-3 and 7-20 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow.
Specification
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: Applicant has amended the claim to recite “wherein a vertical length of the respective left and right shoulder flaps on [the] front torso portion is equal to or greater than a front armhole depth of the respective left and right sleeves”. None of these limitations, regarding the vertical length of the shoulder flaps in relation to the depth of the armholes of the sleeves, are recited in the written Specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9: “the the front torso portion” should recite “the front torso portion”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1 (and claims 2-20 at least due to dependency from claim 1) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended the claim to recite “wherein a vertical length of the respective left and right shoulder flaps on [the] front torso portion is equal to or greater than a front armhole depth of the respective left and right sleeves” (emphasis added). While the illustrations appear to show the only originally-filed support for a vertical length of the shoulder flaps to be greater than a similar dimension of the arm holes, there does not appear to be any support for the vertical length of the shoulder flaps to be “equal” to “a front armhole depth of the respective left and right sleeves”. Therefore, this is deemed new matter. Also, Examiner notes that the disclosure never describes any dimensions or details using the word “depth”, upon review of the disclosure. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best as can be understood, when applying any prior art thereagainst.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-20 at least due to dependency from claim 1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant amended the claim to recite “wherein a vertical length of the respective left and right shoulder flaps on [the] front torso portion is equal to or greater than a front armhole depth of the respective left and right sleeves”. The originally-filed disclosure never describes what is meant by “front armhole depth” as it pertains to the left and right sleeves. Which dimension corresponds to “depth”? Since the shoulder flaps are described as having “vertical length”, it would seem that “depth” would be a different type of measurement than “vertical length” when comparing these dimensions between the armhole and their associated sleeves. Correction is required. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best as can be understood giving the broadest reasonable interpretation when applying any prior art thereagainst.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the left and right shoulder flaps having a respective lip area on its perimeter that is able to be gripped during a training session”. As noted in the previous Office Action, the term “its” is indefinite. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “the left and right shoulder flaps each having a respective perimeter, the left and right shoulder flaps each having a respective lip area on said respective perimeters that is able to be gripped during a training session” as one potential remedy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1 and 3-8, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer et al. (hereinafter “Blauer”) (USPN 6,128,783) in view of Mickle (USPN 7,748,056).
Regarding independent claim 1, Blauer discloses an American football training garment (configuration #58 of sweater garment; Figs. 7 and 8; Examiner notes that the phrase “American football training” is an adjective phrase that describes the intended use of the garment, which does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense) comprising: a collar (#88); a left sleeve (#64; Fig. 7) having a left upper arm portion (see Fig. 7, wherein the sleeve #64 has an arbitrary upper arm portion; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); a right sleeve (#66) having a right upper arm portion (see Fig. 7, wherein the sleeve #66 has an arbitrary upper arm portion); a torso portion (bodice #62) extending between the left and right sleeves and adjacent to the collar (see Fig. 7; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); i.e. all elements of the garment are adjacent one another, at least to some degree); and a left shoulder flap between the collar and the left sleeve (cloth patch #92 is a shoulder flap; Figs. 7-8) and a right shoulder flap between the collar and the right sleeve (cloth patch #94 is a shoulder flap; Figs. 7-8), the left and right shoulder flaps extending over a front and back of the torso portion (as shown in Figs. 7-8, the cloth patches extend onto both a front and back of the bodice, over the shoulders of the garment), the left and right shoulder flaps having a respective lip area on its perimeter that is able to be gripped during a training session (each cloth patch has an arbitrary perimeter area that is a “lip area” (i.e. generally along the seam between the patch and the surrounding bodice and sleeve fabric), inasmuch as the lip area has been defined, structurally, in the claim; Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); the arbitrary lip “area” is at least capable of being gripped (since it is at least exposed to the exterior environment) during a hypothetical training session); wherein the training garment does not include plastic shell materials (there are no plastic shell materials in the garment, at least in the same context as Applicant describes plastic shell materials as being “hard”, as in impact-dispersing football shoulder pads (see ¶ 0005 of Applicant’s Specification)). Blauer appears to be silent to the limitation “wherein a vertical length of the respective left and right shoulder flaps on [the] front torso portion is equal to or greater than a front armhole depth of the respective left and right sleeves”, as best as this new limitation can be understood.
Mickle teaches an upper torso garment that is reinforced with general high-friction areas (#104; Fig. 1A of Mickle) that are disposed on both the left and right shoulders, wherein the high-friction areas extend from an upper shoulder area to down below the bottommost point of the respective left and right arm holes in the garment (see Fig. 1A of Mickle).
Blauer and Mickle teach analogous inventions in the field of upper torso garments with reinforcement areas at the shoulders. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to “a vertical length of the respective left and right shoulder flaps on [the] front torso portion [being] equal to or greater than a front armhole depth of the respective left and right sleeves” (this limitation is not even described (nor are any benefits therefrom) in the original written disclosure), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have increased the vertical length of the patches #92, #94 of Blauer to extend farther below the arm holes (as such a length is taught by Mickle) in order to provide additional reinforcement coverage to the upper left and upper right front torso area beneath the shoulders, and further since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, wherein a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). As a result of the modification, a vertical length of the respective left and right shoulder flaps on [the] front torso portion would be equal to or greater than a front armhole depth of the respective left and right sleeves (via the increased vertical length of the existing shoulder flaps of Blauer, in view of the teachings of Mickle, as explained above).
Regarding claim 3, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the training garment comprises a jersey-type garment (absent further structurally-distinguishing language regarding what constitutes a “jersey-type” garment, the sweater garment of Blauer (#58 configuration) is a “jersey-type” garment, inasmuch as the jersey-type garment has been defined in the claim; Blauer teaches that the garment fabric can include jersey material (Col. 4, Line 32 and Col. 5, Line 30 of Blauer)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the collar comprises a crew neck collar (as shown in Figs. 7-8 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 5, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the torso portion comprises a first layer of fabric and the left and right shoulder flaps comprises a second layer of fabric that is stitched onto the first layer of fabric (Col. 5, Lines 51-52 of Blauer describe how the patches are stitched onto the base fabric of the sweater; Col. 5, Lines 12-22 of Blauer describe “patch fabric” (i.e. the patches are the flaps); “knitting” of a plain jersey stitch (Col. 5, Line 30; Col. 4, Lines30-32 of Blauer)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the lip area is approximately 1 inch in width (as explained above, there is a lip “area” at the perimeter of the patches where the patches are sewn to surrounding bodice and sleeve material; also as noted above, the term “area” is very broad, absent further distinguishing structural language regarding any particular boundaries for the lip area; therefore, the approximately 1 inch width of the perimetric seams of the patches would constitute the lip area, which would be approximately 1 inch in width).
Regarding claim 7, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the garment comprises a cotton material (patches are a cotton blend (Col. 5, Lines 12-18 of Blauer)).
Regarding claim 8, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as set forth above, and further that the cotton material comprises a single weave material (patch fabric (i.e. with the cotton blend) is a 2x1 twill weave (Col. 3, Lines 33-34 and Col. 5, Lines 15-16 of Blauer), which is a type of single weave material).
Claim 2, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosenstein (USPN 2,263,544).
Regarding claim 2, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the garment further comprises fasteners extending a length of a center of the front of the torso portion that are configured to fasten two front halves of the torso portion of the training garment.
Rosenstein teaches a sweater garment that is reversible (Col. 1, Line 3 of Rosenstein; similarly as Blauer’s sweater), wherein the sweater includes fasteners extending a length of a center of a front of the torso portion that are configured to fasten two front halves of the torso portion of garment (slide fastener #4 shown in Figs. 1-2 of Rosenstein).
Modified Blauer and Rosenstein teach analogous inventions in the field of upper body garments. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the slide fastener #4 from Rosenstein into the front center of the sweater of Blauer in order to provide the user with capability to open and close the sweater to adapt to different temperatures for improved comfort, as is very well-known in the art.
Claim 9, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of NPL to Fabric Blog (hereinafter “Fabric Blog”) (URL = “https://blog.fabricuk.com/understanding-fabric-weight/”).
Regarding claim 9, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8, as set forth above, but does not teach that a weight of the cotton material is between 300 and 550 grams/meter².
Fabric Blog teaches that twill weaves, a heavyweight fabric, can have a weight of 350+ gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided).
Modified Blauer and Fabric Blog teach analogous inventions in the field of fabrics, including twill weaves. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a 350 gsm twill denim weave (taught by Fabric Blog) as the twill weave of choice for the cotton/polyester blended fabric of the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to further reinforce the shoulders with a heavier fabric that has greater durability, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 10 and 11, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of NPL to Powered By She (hereinafter “PBS-Double”) (URL = “https://poweredbyshe.com/2018/06/17/gi-weaves-102-single-weave-gi-and-double-weave-gi-mystery/”).
Regarding claim 10, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as set forth above, but does not teach that the cotton material comprises a double weave material.
PBS-Double teaches a fabric for use in garments, which can include a double weave material with a weight ranging from 750-950 gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided).
Modified Blauer and PBS-Double teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the double weave material of PBS-Double as the woven material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 11, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle and PBS-Double, as applied to claim 10 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10, as set forth above, and further that a weight of the cotton material is between 550 and 900 grams/meter² (see Page 2 of the NPL document of PBS-Double, wherein the disclosed range of 750-950 gsm overlaps with the claimed range of 550-900 gsm).
Claims 12 and 13, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of NPL to Powered By She (hereinafter “PBS-Gold”) (URL = “https://poweredbyshe.com/tag/gold-weave/”).
Regarding claim 12, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as set forth above, but does not teach that the cotton material comprises a gold weave material.
PBS-Gold teaches a fabric for use in garments, which can include a gold weave cotton material with a weight of 550 gsm (see Page 8 of the NPL document provided).
Modified Blauer and PBS-Gold teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the gold weave material of PBS-Gold as the woven material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer), which will also feel soft over time, as taught by PBS-Gold.
Regarding claim 13, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle and PBS-Gold, as applied to claim 12 above), renders obvious that a weight of the cotton material is between 450 and 800 grams/meter² (see Page 8 of the NPL document provided, which teaches that the gold weave has a weight of 550 gsm, which is inside the claimed range).
Claims 14 and 15, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of NPL to Powered By She (hereinafter “PBS-Pearl”) (URL = “https://poweredbyshe.com/tag/pearl-weave/”).
Regarding claim 14, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as set forth above, but does not teach that the cotton material comprises a pearl weave material.
PBS-Pearl teaches a fabric for use in garments, which can include a pearl weave material with a weight ranging from 450-550 gsm, but can be made as light as 390 gsm (see Page 11 of the NPL document provided).
Modified Blauer and PBS-Pearl teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the pearl weave material of PBS-Pearl as the woven material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 15, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle and PBS-Pearl, as applied to claim 14 above), renders obvious that a weight of the cotton material is between 300 and 550 grams/meter² (see Page 11 of the NPL document provided, which discloses a weight of 390 gsm, which is within the claimed range).
Claims 16 and 17, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Filteau (CA 3,173,586 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the training garment comprises a hemp material.
Filteau teaches a reinforcement material for a garment (Abstract of Filteau, and throughout the disclosure). Filteau teaches that the material can include textiles, which include natural fibers such as hemp (Page 11, Line 15 of Filteau). Filteau also teaches that the fabric weight can range from about 540 gsm to about 680 gsm (Page 5, second-to-last paragraph of Filteau).
Modified Blauer and Filteau teach analogous inventions in the field of garment reinforcement fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the hemp reinforcement material (as taught by Filteau) as the material of choice for the reinforcement cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 17, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle and Filteau, as applied to claim 16 above), renders obvious that a weight of the hemp material is between 400 and 800 grams/meter² (see Page 5, second-to-last paragraph of Filteau, which discloses a weight range of 540-680 gsm, which is within the claimed range).
Claims 18 and 19, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL to TenCate (hereinafter “TenCate”) (URL = “https://apac.tencatefabrics.com/outershell-advance-220”).
Regarding claim 18, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the training garment comprises a ripstop material.
TenCate teaches a strong woven material for garment fabric, which can be made of a ripstop twill, with a weight of 220 gsm (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided).
Modified Blauer and TenCate teach analogous inventions in the field of garment fabrics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the ripstop twill (as taught by TenCate) as the twill material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Regarding claim 19, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle and TenCate, as applied to claim 18 above), renders obvious that a weight of the ripstop material is between 200 and 400 grams/meter² (see Page 2 of the NPL document provided, which discloses a weight of 220 gsm, which is within the claimed range).
Claim 20, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauer in view of Mickle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schottenstein (US 2022/0346477).
Regarding claim 20, the modified garment of Blauer (i.e. Blauer in view of Mickle, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach that the training garment comprises a canvas material.
Schottenstein teaches a garment with reinforcement patches that can be formed from canvas (¶ 0052, second-to-last sentence of Schottenstein).
Modified Blauer and Schottenstein teach analogous inventions in the field of reinforcements in garments via patches. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used canvas (as taught by Schottenstein) as the material of choice for the cloth patches #92/94 in Blauer in order to provide an alternative known strong fabric material that can reinforce the shoulders in the garment, as shoulder reinforcement is desired by Blauer (Col. 4, Line 33-35 of Blauer).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Regarding the limitation of “lip area”, Applicant argues that Blauer’s garment’s shoulder patch “does not have a respective lip area on its perimeter that is able to be gripped during a training session…since Blauer shows stitching at the outer edges of a perimeter of the shoulder patch”. This is not found persuasive because the claims do not structurally describe what constitutes the “lip area” in a manner that overcomes the applied interpretation of an arbitrary lip area at the perimeter of Blauer’s patches. The only structural limitation for the “lip area” in the claims is in claim 6, which merely describes “the lip area is approximately 1 inch in width”. Since there is an arbitrary area at the perimeter of Blauer’s patches that would be “approximately 1 inch in width”, all of the structural limitations of the lip area have been addressed in view of the prior art, inasmuch as the claims have defined it. Since the arbitrary approximately-1-inch lip area of the patches is exposed to the environment, it is at least capable of being gripped during a training session.
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 JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at (571)272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights