DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Application Status
Claims 104-126 are pending in this application. Claim 124 has been withdrawn in response to the restriction requirement. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 3/25/2026. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 1/12/2026, 2/11/2026, 2/27/2026, and 4/7/2026 have been considered by the office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 3/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 124 is withdrawn.
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: It is unclear to the examiner what specific limitations are being described in the claim when referencing the numerical portions and numerical plurality of portions. The specification fails to assert proper antecedent basis for the numerical portions and numeral plurality of portions detailed in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 126 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 126 recites the abbreviation “PVC” which is not spelled out prior to use of the abbreviation within the claims or specification. Examiner suggests amending this claim limitation to recite, “Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 105-114, 119-123, and 125-126 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.
Claims 105-114, and 119 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the portions being referred to within the claim language. It is unclear to the examiner what specific limitations are being described in the claim when referencing the numerical portions and numerical plurality of portions.
Claims 120-123 and 125-126 are further rejected as being dependent on any of the above rejected claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 104-120, 122, 123, and 125 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Song (CN 201790383 U) in view of Pennel (US 3683431 A).
Regarding Claim 104, Song discloses an inflatable product (See Fig. 2, cushion body 2), comprising: a first sheet (top wall 22); a second sheet (bottom wall 23); a plurality of spaced apart internal tensioning structures (pull device 3), each of the plurality of internal tensioning structures comprising: a plurality of weld strips including a first portion and a second portion (See Fig. 2 and 3, upper piece 31 and lower piece 32 welded to top wall 22 and bottom wall 23 respectively), the first portion of the plurality of weld strips including a first side directly welded to the first sheet and a second side opposite the first side, the second side of the first portion facing the second sheet (See Fig. 2 and 3, top side of connection part 311 welded to top wall 22 and bottom side of part 311 facing bottom wall 23) and the second portion of the plurality of weld strips including a first side and a second side, the second side of the second portion directly welded to the second sheet and the first side of the second portion facing the first sheet (See Fig. 2 and 3, bottom side of connection part 321 welded to bottom wall 23 and top side of part 321 facing top wall 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
648
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Song fails to explicitly disclose a strand wound back and forth multiple times between the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second portion of the plurality of weld strips, wherein a first plurality of portions of the strand are fixed between the second side of the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the first sheet, a second plurality of portions of the strand are fixed between the first side of the second portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second sheet, and a third plurality of portions of the strand extend between the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second portion of the plurality of weld strips, the third plurality of portions including a first portion and a second portion angled relative to the first portion when viewed from a first longitudinal side of the respective tensioning structure when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches a strand wound back and forth multiple times between the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second portion of the plurality of weld strips (See Fig. 1 and 2, coils 11 are continuously wound around bands 6 and 7), wherein a first plurality of portions of the strand are fixed between the second side of the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the first sheet, a second plurality of portions of the strand are fixed between the first side of the second portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second sheet (See Fig. 1 and 2, coils 11 are adhered fastened between their respective bands 6 and 7 by the complementary bands 12 and 13 fixing them between walls 1 and 2 respectively), and a third plurality of portions of the strand extend between the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second portion of the plurality of weld strips (See Fig. 1 and 2, middle portion of coils 11 between bands 6 and 7), the third plurality of portions including a first portion and a second portion angled relative to the first portion when viewed from a first longitudinal side of the respective tensioning structure when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, looking at windings 11a, 11b, and 11c, a first portion is angled with respect to a second portion).
PNG
media_image3.png
600
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 105, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 104.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein a first length of the strand includes the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of portions with a first one of the second plurality of portions interposed between the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of portions.
However, Pennel teaches wherein a first length of the strand includes the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of portions with a first one of the second plurality of portions interposed between the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of portions (See Fig. 1 and 2, length of coil 11 including said portions).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 106, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 105.
Song fails to teach wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions makes an acute angle with the first portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions makes an acute angle with the first portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, second and first portions of portion 11c make an acute angle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the angled coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 107, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 104.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the third plurality of portions of the strand includes a third portion and a fourth portion, the fourth portion angled relative to the third portion and a second length of the strand includes the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of portions with a first one of the second plurality of portions interposed between the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of strands, the third portion of the third plurality of portions with a first one of the first plurality of portions interposed between the second portion of the third plurality of portions and the third portion of the third plurality of portions, and the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions with a second one of the second plurality of portions interposed between the third portion of the third plurality of portions and the fourth portion of the third plurality of strands.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the third plurality of portions of the strand includes a third portion and a fourth portion, the fourth portion angled relative to the third portion (See Fig. 14, angled portions of windings 11a) and a second length of the strand includes the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of portions with a first one of the second plurality of portions interposed between the first portion of the third plurality of portions and the second portion of the third plurality of strands, the third portion of the third plurality of portions with a first one of the first plurality of portions interposed between the second portion of the third plurality of portions and the third portion of the third plurality of portions, and the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions with a second one of the second plurality of portions interposed between the third portion of the third plurality of portions and the fourth portion of the third plurality of strands (See Fig. 14, angled portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c are interposed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the angled coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 108, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 107.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions makes an acute angle with the first portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions makes an acute angle with the first portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, angled portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the angled coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 109, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 108.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the first portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the third portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the first portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the third portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, parallel portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the parallel coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 110, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 109.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, parallel portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the parallel coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 111, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 108.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, parallel portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the parallel coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 112, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 107.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the first portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the third portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the first portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the third portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, parallel portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the parallel coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 113, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 112.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, parallel portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the parallel coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 114, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 107.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions is parallel to the fourth portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, parallel portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the parallel coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 115, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 104, wherein the first portion of the plurality of weld strips includes a first weld strip directly welded to the first sheet and the second portion of the plurality of weld strips includes a second weld strip directly welded to the second sheet (See Fig. 3, “upper connector 31 comprises two mutually parallel and high-cycle melting manner welded to top wall 22 in joint part of the wall surface 311. and a two connection portion 311 and top wall 22 inner wall surface separating part 312, lower connector 32 comprises two mutually parallel and high-cycle melting manner is welded at the connection part of the bottom wall 23 inner wall surface 321”; [0012]).
Regarding Claim 116, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 115, wherein the first weld strip has an outer perimeter including a first longitudinal side and a second longitudinal side opposite the first longitudinal side (See Fig. 2 and 3, parts 311 and 321 having opposite longitudinal sides).
Song fails to explicitly teach the strand extends beyond the outer perimeter on each of the first longitudinal side of the first weld strip and the second longitudinal side of the first weld strip.
However, Pennel teaches the strand extends beyond the outer perimeter on each of the first longitudinal side of the first weld strip and the second longitudinal side of the first weld strip (See Fig. 2, portions 11a, 11b, extend across bands 6 and 7 which act like the weld strips of Song).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by extending the coil strands beyond the bands as taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 117, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 115, wherein the first portion of the plurality of weld strips includes a third weld strip welded to the first weld strip of the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second portion of the plurality of weld strips includes a fourth weld strip welded to the second weld strip of the second portion of the plurality of weld strips (See Fig. 3, 311 separated into two parts welded at connection part 312 while 321 separated into two parts welded at connection 322).
Regarding Claim 118, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 117, wherein the first plurality of portions of the strand are positioned between the first weld strip of the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the third weld strip of the first portion of the plurality of weld strips and the second plurality of portions of the strand are positioned between the second weld strip of the second portion of the plurality of weld strips and the fourth weld strip of the second portion of the plurality of weld strips (See Fig. 2, belt bodies 332 and connecting end 333 placed between connection points of parts 311 and 321).
Regarding Claim 119, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 104.
Song fails to explicitly teach wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions makes an acute angle with and the first portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated.
However, Pennel teaches wherein the second portion of the third plurality of portions makes an acute angle with and the first portion of the third plurality of portions when the inflatable product is inflated (See Fig. 14, angled portions of windings 11a, 11b, and 11c).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song by adding the angled coil strands taught by Pennel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “enable the strength of the thread to be employed fully”; (Pennel, [Col. 1, Line 37]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 120, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 104, wherein the first sheet is coupled to the second sheet independent of the plurality of internal tensioning structures to form an inflatable interior of the inflatable product (See Fig. 2, surrounding wall 24 connects walls 22 and 23 to form closed space 21 of cushion body 2).
Regarding Claim 122, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 120, wherein the inflatable product is an air mattress (“utility model claims an air mattress”; [abstract]).
Regarding Claim 123, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 122, wherein the plurality of spaced apart internal tensioning structures are welded to the inner surfaces of the first and second sheets along a plurality of linear paths (See Fig. 2, multiple pull devices 3 welded in linear fashion of walls 22 and 23)
Regarding Claim 125, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 104, wherein the first portion of the plurality of weld strips includes at least one reinforcement strand (See Fig. 3, belt body 331).
Claims 121 and 126 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Song (CN 201790383 U) in view of Pennel (US 3683431 A), further in view of DeLuca (US 20070266494 A1).
Regarding Claim 121, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 120, wherein the first sheet is coupled to the second sheet through a band (See Fig. 2, surrounding wall 24 connects walls 22 and 23 to form closed space 21 of cushion body 2).
Song in view of Pennel fails to explicitly teach the band being welded to the first sheet and the band being welded to the second sheet.
However, DeLuca teaches the band being welded to the first sheet and the band being welded to the second sheet (“edges of mating surfaces and walls can be fused using such processes as radio frequency (RF) welding, ultrasonic welding, heat welding”; [0120]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song in view of Pennel by utilizing welding for the exterior connection as taught by DeLuca. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the edges of mating surfaces and walls can be fused”; (DeLuca, [0120]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 126, Song, as modified, teaches the inflatable product (cushion body 2) of claim 104.
Song in view of Pennel fails to explicitly teach wherein the first sheet, the second sheet, and the plurality of weld strips are made of PVC.
However, DeLuca teaches wherein the first sheet, the second sheet, and the plurality of weld strips are made of PVC (“material for the top surface, bottom surface, side walls and end walls can be formed from a flexible and resilient material, such as polyvinyl chloride sheeting (PVC)”; [0120]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Song in view of Pennel by utilizing PVC for the exterior as taught by DeLuca. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because PVC is “flexible and resilient”; (DeLuca, [0120]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7694372 B1: Boyd discloses an air mattress with reinforcing strands within the internal structure of said mattress.
US 7727350 B2: Hawkins discloses internal filamentary articles threaded at an angle and held in place to edges of loops using welding.
CN 202175165 U: Song discloses an air inflation device with reinforcing pull belts and a welding reinforcement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
4/15/2026
Prosecution Insights