DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Application filed on July 29, 2026 in which claims 1-3, 6-8, and 17 are presented for examination. Claims 4, 5, 9-16, 18 and 20 have been withdrawn. Claim 19 has been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 5, 9-16,18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 22, 2026.
Applicant Applicant’s reply filed August 5, 2025 indicated that claims 1-10 and 13-20 were readable on elected Species B. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, Claims 4, 5, 9-16, 18 and 20 appear to be drawn to non-elected Species.
Claims 4 and 5 appear to be drawn to Species D, because claims 4 and 5 recite, “the passive member having an upper perimeter and a lower perimeter, with the upper perimeter sewn to an interior portion of the circumferential edge and the lower perimeter sewn to an exterior portion of the circumferential edge” (claim 4) “the passive member having a first end and a second end, with the first end sewn to a first part of the circumferential edge and the second end sewn to a second part of the circumferential edge”, (claim 5) , which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [019].
Claim 18 appears to be drawn to Species D, because claim 18 recites, “the passive member being sewn into the circumferential channel”, which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [017].
Claims 9, 10 and 20 appear to be drawn to Species C, because claims 9 and 10 and 20 recite, “the passive member being segmented and attached at multiple points along its length to distribute tension uniformly” (claim 9), “the passive member comprising a continuous elastic ring having no free ends, disposed throughout the circumferential edge” and “the passive member and the circumferential channel overlapping at least partially along the circumferential edge”, (claim 20), which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [017].
Claim 10 appears to be drawn to Species C, because claim 10 recites, “the passive member comprising a continuous elastic ring having no free ends, disposed throughout the circumferential edge.” , which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [017] and [018].
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 11, which was withdrawn by applicant in the remarks dated April, 22, 2026 and shown as withdrawn in the claim set dated July 29, 2026.
Therefore, claims 4, 5, 9-16,18 and 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration be the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blum (1,992,285).
Regarding claim 1, Blum teaches, A headwear fitting system (figures 1-3) comprising an article of headwear (figure 1), with the article of headwear comprising a circumferential edge, a circumferential channel, an active member, and a fastening tab (the article of headwear (figure 1) comprising a circumferential edge 17, a circumferential channel 5, an active member 11, and a fastening tab 16, figures 1-3), a) with the article of headwear configured to be worn on a wearer's head, and having a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side;b) with the circumferential edge defining a boundary of the article of headwear and configured to encircle at least a portion of the wearer's head along a front-to-occiput line extending from the wearer's frontal region to the occiput (with the article of headwear (figure 1) configured to be worn on a wearer's head, and having a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side; with the circumferential edge 17 defining a boundary of the article of headwear (figure 1) and configured to encircle at least a portion of the wearer's head along a front-to-occiput line extending from the wearer's frontal region to the occiput (figures 1-3); c) with the circumferential channel formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge, with the circumferential channel comprising an opening disposed approximately at the back side of the article of headwear; d) with the active member disposed within the circumferential channel (with the circumferential channel 5 formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge 7, with the circumferential channel 5 comprising an opening disposed approximately at the back side of the article of headwear; with the active member 11 disposed within the circumferential channel 5, figures 1-3); e) with a portion of the active member having a protruding portion; f) with the protruding portion protruding through the opening of the circumferential channel; g) with the fastening tab coupled to the protruding portion and configured to control a length of the protruding portion protruding through the opening of the circumferential channel (“Through the tubular portion 5 is passed a tape, cord or other inelastic tension member 11, the free ends 12 and 13 of which may be secured together as by any convenient form of clamp 14 or may be left free in order that the ends may be tied together when the size of the hat is adjusted. Preferably, however, an adjusting device in the form of the adjustable clamp 16 may be provided.”, Col. 2 ln. 34-42, therefore, with a portion of the active member 11 having an annotated protruding portion; with the annotated protruding portion protruding through the opening (shown in figure 2) of the circumferential channel 5; with the fastening tab 16 coupled to the annotated protruding portion and configured to control a length of the annotated protruding portion protruding through the opening of the circumferential channel of 5, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Blum teaches, a) with the active member having a first end, a second end, and a middle portion, with the middle portion positioned between the first and second ends; b) with the protruding portion being the middle portion (with the active member 11 having an annotated first end, an annotated second end, and an annotated middle portion, with the annotated middle portion positioned between the annotated first and second ends; with the protruding portion of 11 being the annotated middle portion, annotated figure 2, figures 1 and 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6-8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (1,992,285) in view of Bromberg (6,049,911).
Regarding claim 3, Blum teaches, the circumferential edge (the circumferential edge 17).
Blum fails to teach, further comprising a passive member disposed along the circumferential edge, with the passive member being a substantially flat elastic band.
Bromberg teaches, further comprising a passive member disposed along the circumferential edge, with the passive member being a substantially flat elastic band (“The self-adjustable band comprises at least one portion made of extensible material and another portion made of inextensible material. The self-adjustable band is mounted such that the extensible portion is within the channel allowing the inextensible portion thereof to move telescopically in and out of the channel without exposing the extensible portion in the opening.”, Col. 2-3 ln. 65-4, “The self-adjusting band 44, as shown in FIG. 3, comprises two substantially extensible portions 48 (one shown).”, Col. 4 ln. 10-11, further comprising a 48 disposed along the circumferential edge, with 48 being a substantially flat elastic band, figures 3 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide circumferential edge of Blum with a passive member as taught by Bromberg in order to provide a passive member that “provides a self-adjustable baseball cap, which provides a comfortable fit covering a range of head sizes in an aesthetically pleasing fashion.”, Col. 2 ln. 27-29.
Regarding claim 6, the combined references teach, with the passive member disposed along at least a back portion of the circumferential edge (as combined above as taught by Bromberg, with 48 of Bromberg disposed along at least a back portion of the circumferential edge 17 of Blum, see Bromberg figures 3 and 4, Col. 2-3 ln. 65-4 and Col. 4 ln. 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references teach, with the passive member forming part of the circumferential channel (as combined above as taught by Bromberg, with 48 of Bromberg forming part of the circumferential channel 5 of Blum, see Bromberg figures 3 and 4, Col. 2-3 ln. 65-4 and Col. 4 ln. 10-11).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references teach, with the passive member disposed within the circumferential channel (as combined above as taught by Bromberg, with 48 of Bromberg disposed within the circumferential channel 5 of Blum, see Bromberg figures 3 and 4, Col. 2-3 ln. 65-4 and Col. 4 ln. 10-11).
Regarding claim 17, Blum teaches, A headwear fitting system (figures 1-3) comprising an article of headwear (figure 1), with the article of headwear comprising a circumferential edge, a circumferential channel, an active member, and a fastening tab (the article of headwear (figure 1) comprising a circumferential edge 17, a circumferential channel 5, an active member 11, and a fastening tab 16, figures 1-3); a) with the article of headwear configured to be worn on a wearer's head, and having a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side; b) with the circumferential edge defining a boundary of the article of headwear and configured to encircle at least a portion of the wearer's head along a front-to-occiput line extending from the wearer's frontal region to the occiput (with the article of headwear (figure 1) configured to be worn on a wearer's head, and having a front side, a back side, a left side, and a right side; with the circumferential edge 17 defining a boundary of the article of headwear (figure 1) and configured to encircle at least a portion of the wearer's head along a front-to-occiput line extending from the wearer's frontal region to the occiput (figures 1-3); d) with the circumferential channel formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge and with the passive member forming part of the circumferential channel, and with the circumferential channel, with the circumferential channel comprising an opening disposed approximately at the back side of the article of headwear (with the circumferential channel 5 formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge 7 and with the passive member 11 forming part of the circumferential channel 7 (shown in figures 2-5), d) with the circumferential channel formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge, with the circumferential channel comprising an opening disposed approximately at the back side of the article of headwear (with the circumferential channel 5 formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge 7, with the circumferential channel 5 comprising an opening disposed approximately at the back side of the article of headwear, figures 1-3); e) with the active member disposed within the circumferential channel and having a portion protruding through the opening; f) with the fastening tab coupled to the protruding portion and configured to control a length of the protruding portion protruding through the opening of the circumferential channel (“Through the tubular portion 5 is passed a tape, cord or other inelastic tension member 11, the free ends 12 and 13 of which may be secured together as by any convenient form of clamp 14 or may be left free in order that the ends may be tied together when the size of the hat is adjusted. Preferably, however, an adjusting device in the form of the adjustable clamp 16 may be provided.”, Col. 2 ln. 34-42, therefore, with the active member 11 disposed within the circumferential channel of 5 and having an annotated portion protruding through the opening (shown in figure 2); with the fastening tab 16 coupled to the annotated protruding portion and configured to control a length of the annotated protruding portion protruding through the opening (shown in figure 2) of the circumferential channel of 5, figures 1-3).
Blum fails to teach, the article of headwear comprising a passive member; c) with the passive member being a substantially flat elastic band disposed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge; with the passive member forming part of the circumferential channel, and with the circumferential channel,
Bromberg teaches, an article of headwear comprising a passive member; c) with the passive member being a substantially flat elastic band disposed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge; with the passive member forming part of the circumferential channel, and with the circumferential channel (“The self-adjustable band comprises at least one portion made of extensible material and another portion made of inextensible material. The self-adjustable band is mounted such that the extensible portion is within the channel allowing the inextensible portion thereof to move telescopically in and out of the channel without exposing the extensible portion in the opening.”, Col. 2-3 ln. 65-4, “The self-adjusting band 44, as shown in FIG. 3, comprises two substantially extensible portions 48 (one shown) and a substantially inextensible portion 50. The extensible portions 48 and the inextensible portion 50 are stitched at 52 to form the substantially elongated rectangular self-adjusting band 44.”, Col. 4 ln. 10-15, “The self-adjustable band is mounted such that the extensible portion is within the channel allowing the inextensible portion thereof to move telescopically in and out of the channel without exposing the extensible portion in the opening.”, Col. 3 ln. 19-24, therefore, an article of headwear comprising 48; with 48 being a substantially flat elastic band disposed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge; with 48 forming part of the circumferential channel, and with the circumferential channel, figures 3, 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide circumferential edge of Blum with a passive member as taught by Bromberg in order to provide a passive member that “provides a self-adjustable baseball cap, which provides a comfortable fit covering a range of head sizes in an aesthetically pleasing fashion.”, Col. 2 ln. 27-29.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (ll. Request for Reconsideration of Withdrawal of Claims Readable on Elected Species B) that:
“Applicant does not traverse the original restriction requirement in this reply. Applicant instead respectfully requests reconsideration of the present determination that Claims 4-5, 9-10, 13-16, 18, and2 0 are not readable on elected Species B.”, and
“Claims 4-5 and 9-10 depend from Claim 3 and thereby retain the active member, circumferential channel, rear opening, protruding portion, and fastening tab of Claim 1. Claims 13-16 expressly add the active-member/circumferential-channel arrangement to the passive-member branch. Claims 18 and 20 depend from Claim 17 and retain the complete active-member/circumferential-channel/fastening-tab arrangement. The fact that a claim also recites an additional passive-member limitation associated by the Office Action with another alleged species does not remove that claim from elected Species B. Likewise, Claims 13-16 should be evaluated as complete claims, rather than treated as nonelected.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 4-5, 9-10, 18, and 20 recite structures from a non-elected species. Claims 13-16 depend from withdrawn claim 11 (withdrawn by applicant in the remarks dated April, 22, 2026), and therefore claims 13-16 include structures from a non-elected species
Claims 4 and 5 appear to be drawn to Species D, because claims 4 and 5 recite, “the passive member having an upper perimeter and a lower perimeter, with the upper perimeter sewn to an interior portion of the circumferential edge and the lower perimeter sewn to an exterior portion of the circumferential edge” (claim 4) “the passive member having a first end and a second end, with the first end sewn to a first part of the circumferential edge and the second end sewn to a second part of the circumferential edge”, (claim 5) , which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [019].
Claim 18 appears to be drawn to Species D, because claim 18 recites, “the passive member being sewn into the circumferential channel”, which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [017].
Claims 9, 10 and 20 appear to be drawn to Species C, because claims 9 and 10 and 20 recite, “the passive member being segmented and attached at multiple points along its length to distribute tension uniformly” (claim 9), “the passive member comprising a continuous elastic ring having no free ends, disposed throughout the circumferential edge” and “the passive member and the circumferential channel overlapping at least partially along the circumferential edge”, (claim 20), which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [017].
Claim 10 appears to be drawn to Species C, because claim 10 recites, “the passive member comprising a continuous elastic ring having no free ends, disposed throughout the circumferential edge.” , which is disclosed in Applicant’s Specification in [017] and [018].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
In response to applicant’s argument that:
“III. Blum Does Not Disclose or Suggest the Middle-Portion Arrangement of Claim 2…Claim 2, by contrast, requires that the protruding portion be a middle portion of the active member. That arrangement gives the fastening tab access to a loop or middle portion of the active member rather than requiring the fastening mechanism to capture or join free ends. Blum does not disclose or suggest that middle-portion configuration.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 recites “with the active member having a first end, a second end, and a middle portion, with the middle portion positioned between the first and second ends; b) with the protruding portion being the middle portion.”, in which figures 1, 2 and 3 of Blum, show the active member 11, in which active member 11 has a first end, a second end and a middle portion, the middle portion having a protruding portion and being positioned between the first and second ends as claimed, see annotated figure 2. Therefore, applicants’ argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (IV. The Blum/Bromberg Combination Does Not Render the Claimed Passive-Plus-Active System Obvious) that:
“Neither Blum nor Bromberg identifies this cooperative division of function, explains how the respective systems would be structurally integrated while preserving both, or provides a reason to expect the claimed two-stage fit-control arrangement to result from the proposed modification. Accordingly, the asserted combination rests on hindsight reconstruction rather than an articulated reason to make the claimed arrangement.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the references of Blum and Bromberg each disclose headwear with adjustment. The motivation statements relied on in the Office Action below to combine the references of Blum and Bromberg is a proper teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine such similar references. Therefore, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that:
“V. The Channel-Relationship Limitations Provide Further Structural Distinction…Amended Claim 17 and former Claim 19 require more than an elastic component located somewhere on the headwear. They require the passive member to form part of the circumferential channel that retains the active member. The passive member thus supplies a compliant, elastic portion of the channel itself rather than merely an elastic fitting feature positioned elsewhere on the headwear. Bromberg teaches a channel formed by the sweatband and the crown/panel. Its extensible portions are components of Bromberg's self-adjusting band and are disposed within that channel. Bromberg does not teach an elastic passive member forming the channel that carries a separate active member. The Office Action does not identify a teaching or reason to modify Blum and Bromberg so as to create that claimed channel-forming relationship.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 17 recites “…d) with the circumferential channel formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge and with the passive member forming part of the circumferential channel, and with the circumferential channel…”, in which Bromberg discloses in Col. 4 ln.10-15 “as shown in FIG. 3, comprises two substantially extensible portions 48 (one shown) and a substantially inextensible portion 50. The extensible portions 48 and the inextensible portion 50 are stitched at 52 to form the substantially elongated rectangular self-adjusting band 44.” and discloses in Col. 3 ln. 19-24 “The self-adjustable band is mounted such that the extensible portion is within the channel allowing the inextensible portion thereof to move telescopically in and out of the channel without exposing the extensible portion in the opening.”, see also Col. 2-3 ln. 65-4 and figures 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, as disclosed 48 forms part of the circumferential channel, and with the circumferential channel as claimed. Additionally, the examiner has provided a complete and sufficient obviousness rejection complete with a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Blum and Bromberg. Therefore, applicant’s argument that is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, applicant argues that “Bromberg does not teach an elastic passive member forming the channel that carries a separate active member. The Office Action does not identify a teaching or reason to modify Blum and Bromberg so as to create that claimed channel-forming relationship.”. This particular rejection is made as unpatentable over Blum in view of Bromberg. Amended claim 17 recites “…d) with the circumferential channel formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge and with the passive member forming part of the circumferential channel, and with the circumferential channel…”, Blum is used to show the claimed structure of the circumferential channel formed along at least a portion of the circumferential edge and the separate active member and Bromberg is used to teach the passive member forming part of the channel. The references of Blum and Bromberg each disclose headwear with adjustment. The motivation statements relied on in the Office Action below to combine the references of Blum and Bromberg is a proper teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine such similar references. Therefore, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an elastic passive member forming the channel that carries a separate active member.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, applicant argues that “Bromberg does not teach an elastic passive member forming the channel that carries a separate active member.”, in which the passive member is not recited as “forming the channel” as argued, the passive member is recited as “passive member forming part of the circumferential channel”, in which examiner provides the Bromberg reference to teach this limitation. Further, the references of Blum and Bromberg each disclose headwear with adjustment. The motivation statements relied on in the Office Action below to combine the references of Blum and Bromberg is a proper teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine such similar references. Therefore, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that:
“V. The Channel-Relationship Limitations Provide Further Structural Distinction…This distinction also supports Claims 7 and 8. Claim 7 expressly requires that the passive member form part of the circumferential channel. Claim 8 requires the separate passive member to be disposed within the same circumferential channel as the active member. In the disclosed configuration, this
shared fitting region can permit the passive member to provide compliant resistance to abrupt movement while allowing intentional adjustment of the active member. Bromberg's elastic portions remain part of its own single self-adjusting band; they do not teach the claimed separate passive-and-active arrangement.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This particular rejection is made as unpatentable over Blum in view of Bromberg. Blum is used to show the claimed structure of the circumferential channel with an active member and Bromberg is used to teach the passive member forming part of a circumferential channel. The references of Blum and Bromberg each disclose headwear having a circumferential channel having an adjustment. The examiner has provided a complete and sufficient obviousness rejection complete with a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Blum and Bromberg. Therefore, applicant' s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (“VI. The Withdrawn Dependent Claims Provide Additional Structural Fallbacks.”…) that:
Applicant’s argument (“VI. The Withdrawn Dependent Claims Provide Additional Structural Fallbacks.”…) regarding claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-16, 18 and 20, examiner notes that the above responses to Applicant’s arguments are also in response to claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-16, 18 and 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JILLIAN PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-0553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/Jillian K Pierorazio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
