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
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 12/16/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-16 and 19 were canceled, claims 17-18, 20-30 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 17-18 and 20-30 are pending for this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and thus are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “securing mechanism for removably securing the casing to the patient interface” in claims 18 and 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 18 and 28 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.
Claim limitation “securing mechanism” in claims 18 and 28 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2023/0414976) in view of Allaire (CN 1228140, see attached machine translation), Tatkov (US 11,253,663) and Ahmad (US 2014/0261426).
Regarding claim 17, Jensen teaches (Fig 3-4) an air delivery system (blower/filter unit 22) comprising:
a casing (comprising housing unit 30 and filter cartridge 48) having an air-flow port couplable to a patient interface (“air mask”, paragraph [0112]);
an air blower (comprising motor 38 and impeller 42) contained within the casing;
processing circuitry (controller 78) coupled to the air blower (see Fig. 3), the processing circuitry having computing logic for modulating the speed of the air blower (paragraph [0035]); and
a power source (power source 46, i.e. a battery pack, paragraph [0030]).
an air-pressure sensor (“pressure sensor” 69 contained within the casing, the air-pressure sensor 69 communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry 78 (Fig. 4), the air-pressure sensor configured to detect an air pressure between the air blower and the air-flow port (paragraph [0036]);
the processing circuitry is capable of modulating the speed of the air blower based on information detected by the air-pressure sensor (paragraph [0036]).
Jensen discloses processing circuity, but does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further capable of modulating the speed of the air blower based on a state-space model; and wherein the state-space model includes the speed of the air blower.
However, Allaire teaches (Fig. 16a-16b) processing circuitry capable of modulating the speed of the air blower based on a state-space model (control algorithm uses state space method that utilizes rotation speed of impeller as a variable, see page 12 paragraph 5); and wherein the state-space model includes the speed of the air blower (page 12 paragraph 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 modify the processing circuitry of Jensen to be capable of modulating the speed of the air blower based on a state-space model; and wherein the state-space model includes the speed of the air blower, as taught by Allaire, for the purpose of providing optimal control of the air blower to meet the patient’s needs.
Modified Jensen discloses the processing circuitry modulates speed of the air blower, but does not disclose the speed of the blower is modulated based on detection of user breathing.
However, Tatkov teaches (Fig. 1A-1B) a respiratory device comprising a blower (blower unit 2a) and a processing circuitry (controller 12), wherein the processing circuitry modulates speed of the air blower based on detection of user breathing (detects whether user is awake or asleep based on detection of user breathing rate, tidal volume, etc, and thus based on detection of user breathing, and modulates the speed of the fan based on this to better suit patient condition. See Col. 1 lines 32-37, Col. 13 lines 50-68 and claims 6 and 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing circuitry of modified Jensen such that the speed of the blower is modulated based on detection of user breathing, as taught by Tatkov, for the purpose of adjusting operation of the device based on the awake state of a user so that user comfort is enhanced.
Modified Jensen does not disclose a second air-pressure sensor contained within the casing, the second air-pressure sensor communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry, the second air-pressure sensor configured to detect a second air pressure between the air blower and the air-flow port; a first air-flow state associated with a first difference between the first air pressure and the second air pressure consistent with inhalation and a second air-flow state associated with a second difference between the first air pressure and the second air pressure consistent with exhalation.
However, Ahmad teaches (Fig. 1-10) a first air pressure sensor (valve pressure sensor 34) and a second air-pressure sensor (mask pressure sensor 36) contained within the casing (ventilation unit 14, paragraph [0031]), the second air-pressure sensor communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry (processor 70, paragraph [0041]), the second air-pressure sensor configured to detect a second air pressure between the air blower and the air-flow port (between blower 24 and port 28 of ventilation interface 12, paragraph [0044]); a first air-flow state associated with a first difference between the first air pressure and the second air pressure consistent with inhalation (inhalation state determined by a specific change in pressure value between the sensors, paragraph [0062]) and a second air-flow state associated with a second difference between the first air pressure and the second air pressure consistent with exhalation (inhalation state determined by a specific change in pressure value between the sensors, paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Jensen to include a second air-pressure sensor contained within the casing, the second air-pressure sensor communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry, the second air-pressure sensor configured to detect a second air pressure between the air blower and the air-flow port; a first air-flow state associated with a first difference between the first air pressure and the second air pressure consistent with inhalation and a second air-flow state associated with a second difference between the first air pressure and the second air pressure consistent with exhalation, as taught by Ahmad, for the purpose of providing optimal breathing therapy by determining user breath cycle and adjusting pressure accordingly (paragraph [0062] Ahmad).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jensen discloses wherein the casing is constructed from air-filter material (casing comprises filter cartridge 48 which includes air-filter material, paragraph [0030] Jensen).
Regarding claim 21, modified Jensen further comprising a plurality of sensors (paragraph [0034] Jensen); wherein the processing circuitry is communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors (paragraph [0034]); and wherein the computing logic is further configured for handling information detected by the plurality of sensors (paragraphs [0034]-[0036] Jensen).
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2023/0414976) in view of Allaire (CN 1228140), Tatkov (US 11,253,663), and Ahmad, and further in view of Klockseth (US 2013/0087151).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, modified Jensen discloses the processing circuitry is deposed within the casing (controller 78 of Jensen disposed in housing unit 30 of Jensen, see Fig. 3), the power source comprises a battery (power source 46, i.e. a battery pack, paragraph [0030] Jensen), but does not disclose the casing comprises a securing mechanism for removably securing the casing to the patient interface.
However, Klockseth teaches (Fig. 1-3) a casing (comprising upper and lower parts 28,29 of blower unit 2) including securing mechanism (snap hook element 26) for removably securing the casing to the patient interface (hook element removably secured to seat 27 of patient interface, see Fig. 2 and para [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casing of modified Jensen to further include securing mechanism for removably securing the casing to the patient interface, as taught by Klockseth, for the purpose improving portability by allowing the casing to be disposed within the mask while also having reduced fan noise and providing the ability to control the pressure inside a full patient interface, and preferably to maintain a positive pressure inside the mask (paragraph [0011] Klockseth).
Regarding claim 28, modified Klockseth discloses the securing mechanism is constructed to fit a connecting port of a personal protective equipment face mask (fits port 27 of face mask, see Fig. 2 and para [0036] Klockseth).
Claims 22, 24-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2023/0414976) in view of Allaire (CN 1228140) and Tatkov (US 11,253,663) and Ahmad (US 2014/0261426), and further in view of Takatori (US 2023/0335252).
Regarding claim 22, modified Jensen discloses a plurality of sensors, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes a two-electrode echocardiogram sensor.
However, Takatori teaches (Fig. 1-8) a patient monitoring device that includes a respiratory device (ventilation device 30) and a plurality of sensors which include a two-electrode echocardiogram sensor (ECG sensor 16 which includes at least two electrodes, paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sensors of Jensen to includes a two-electrode echocardiogram sensor, as taught by Takatori, for the purpose of providing patient heart rate information to operator so that user condition can be monitored (paragraph [0073] Takatori).
Regarding claims 24-25, modified Jensen discloses a plurality of sensors but does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes a blood-oxygen sensor/pulse sensor.
However, Takatori teaches (Fig. 1-8) a plurality of sensors that include a blood-oxygen sensor/pulse sensor (pulse oximeter, paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sensors of Jensen to includes a blood oxygen sensor/pulse sensor, as taught by Takatori, for the purpose of providing patient pulse information to operator so that user condition can be monitored (paragraph [0060] Takatori).
Regarding claim 27, modified Jensen discloses a plurality of sensors but does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes a gas-content sensor.
However, Takatori teaches (Fig. 1-8) a plurality of sensors that include a gas-content sensor (acquires gas concentration data and thus includes a sensor that determines gas content, paragraph [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sensors of Jensen to includes a gas content sensor, as taught by Takatori, for the purpose of providing information on expired gas concentration to operator so that user condition can be monitored (paragraph [0045] Takatori).
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2023/0414976) in view of Allaire (CN 1228140, see attached machine translation) and Tatkov (US 11,253,663) and Ahmad (US 2014/0261426), and further in view of Ewers (US 2018/0049638).
Regarding claims 23 and 26, modified Jensen discloses a plurality of sensors but does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes a skin temperature sensor and a blood pressure sensor.
However, Ewers teaches (Fig. 1-16) a plurality of sensors that include a skin temperature sensor (paragraph [0142]) and a blood pressure sensor (paragraph [0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sensors of Jensen to includes a skin temperature sensor and a blood pressure sensor, as taught by Ewers, for the purpose of monitoring user condition and determine the sleep state of a user (paragraph [0142] and [0160] Ewers).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2023/0414976) in view of Allaire (CN 1228140, see attached machine translation) and Tatkov (US 11,253,663) and Ahmad (US 2014/0261426), and further in view of Whale (US 2022/0016446).
Regarding claim 29, modified Jensen discloses a plurality of sensors but does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes a camera.
However, Whale teaches (Fig. 1-2) a device that delivers airflow to a user comprising a sensor in the form of a camera (motion sensor 112, in the form of a camera, paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sensors of modified Jensen to include a camera, as taught by Whale, for the purpose of detecting orientation and location of a user and adjusting airflow delivered accordingly (paragraph [0035] Whale).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2023/0414976) in view of Allaire (CN 1228140, see attached machine translation) and Tatkov (US 11,253,663) and Ahmad (US 2014/0261426), and further in view of Allard (US 2023/0101020) and Klockseth (US 2013/0087151).
Regarding claim 30, modified Jensen discloses a casing having an airflow port and a first blower, but does not disclose the casing having a second air-flow port couplable to the patient interface; a second air blower contained within the casing; the processing circuitry having computing logic for modulating the speed of the second air blower based on the state-space model; wherein the patient interface further comprises a sealing member configured to maintain a seal between the patient interface and a face of a user, creating an air chamber; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to modulate the speed of the air blower to maintain an air chamber air pressure.
However, Allard teaches (Fig. 1-2) a PAPR device comprising a casing (comprising housing 40 and bases 25a,25b) having a second air-flow port (port of second blower 30b) couplable to the patient interface (paragraph [0040]); a second air blower (blower 30b. First blower is blower 30a) contained within the casing (see Fig. 1);
Regarding the limitation “the processing circuitry having computing logic for modulating the speed of the second air blower based on the state-space model and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to modulate the speed of the air blower to maintain an air chamber air pressure”, because the modified Jensen reference already discloses the processing circuitry having computing logic for modulating the speed of a first air blower based on the state-space model and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to modulate the speed of the air blower to maintain an air chamber air pressure (see rejection of claim 1 above), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply this to the second motor as well, for the purpose of improving regulation of the overall blowing so that a user experience can be improved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casing of modified Jensen to further include a second air-flow port couplable to the patient interface; a second air blower contained within the casing; the processing circuitry having computing logic for modulating the speed of the second air blower based on the state-space model; wherein the patient interface further comprises a sealing member configured to maintain a seal between the patient interface and a face of a user, creating an air chamber; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to modulate the speed of the air blower to maintain an air chamber air pressure, as taught by Allard, for the purpose of allowing two blowers to perform the function of a single motor, resulting in the first blower motor not having to work as hard to achieve the same flow generated by a pair of blower motors.
Modified Jensen discloses a generic patient interface, and thus does not disclose the patient interface is a face mask comprising a sealing member configured to maintain a seal between the patient interface and a face of a user, creating an air chamber, wherein the seal between the face mask and the patient's face is configured to surround the patient's nose and mouth without extending over the patient's eyes.
However, Klockseth teaches (Fig. 1-2) a patient interface further comprises a sealing member (seal 3) configured to maintain a seal between the patient interface and a face of a user (paragraph [0034]), creating an air chamber (chamber formed between mask and face of user due to sealing, paragraphs [0034]-[0035]) wherein the seal between the face mask and the patient's face is configured to surround the patient's nose and mouth (surrounds nose and mouth due to being positioned surrounding longitudinal length of head of user) without extending over the patient's eyes (does not cover eyes and thus does not extend over patient’s eyes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient interface of modified Jensen to further comprise a sealing member configured to maintain a seal between the patient interface and a face of a user, creating an air chamber, wherein the seal between the face mask and the patient's face is configured to surround the patient's nose and mouth without extending over the patient's eyes, as taught by Klockseth, for the purpose of preventing unfiltered air from the environment from entering the mask (Abstract Klockseth).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
The rejection of claim 28 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejection of claims 18 and 28 under 35 USC 112(b), applicant argued (page 7 paragraph 4 Remarks) that the specification provides ample detail for the structure of the securing means and also provides illustration of this means in Fig. 46 i.e. three arch shaped structures protruding from the port 4505.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the structure of the securing means is shown clearly in Fig. 46, interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) requires corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. No such structure is disclosed, only that it can include “standardized or proprietary securing mechanism”, which one of ordinary skill would not know what this means.
To overcome rejection, Applicant is suggested to amend the specification to include language describing what is shown in Fig. 46, or amend the claim so the claim cannot be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant further argued (page 8 paragraph 1 Remarks) that one of ordinary skill would know the structure of the securing means because the specification recites it can include “a standard or proprietary securing mechanism”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as this suggests almost a limitless amount of possible connection structures, which renders interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) unclear and thus rejection under 112(b) because corresponding structures must be explicitly described in the specification in order to guide interpretation of the claim. To overcome rejection, Applicant is suggested to amend the specification to include language describing what is shown in Fig. 46, or amend the claim so the claim cannot be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hallback (US 2020/0384224) discloses a plurality of pressure sensors within a casing used to determine breathing states and for adjusting a blower.
Loser (US 2015/0328417) discloses a ventilation system including a plurality of pressure sensors within a casing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785