DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 3, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 5, 8, 11, and 17 have been amended, claims 4 and 6-7 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5, and 8-18 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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: “communications module” in claim 11. The “communications module” is defined in the specification to include “a void 52, which is positioned in a respective temple 20. A microprocessor 54, a battery 56, and a transceiver 58 are positioned in the void 52.”
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 § 103
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel et al. (US 7,475,982) in view of LaCombe (US 2022/0054870) and Angkititrakul et al. (US 2022/0238129) hereinafter Ang.
Regarding claim 1, Welchel discloses a face masking device (fig. 5B, 10) comprising:
A frame (fig. 5B, upper portion of conventional facemask 58) comprising:
A bridge (fig. 5A, portion of 58 over the nose), and
A pair of bars (fig. 5A, portion of 58 going across the face), each bar extending arcuately from a respective opposed end of the bridge (fig. 5A, 58 shown following contour of 34), such that the bar is positioned below an associated eye of a user when the bridge is positioned on a nose of the user (fig. 5A, shows positions of bridge and bars in use), and
A pair of temples (fig. 5A, earpieces 26), each temple being engaged to (fig. 5B engaged via 16) and extending substantially perpendicularly from a respective bar distal from the bridge (fig. 5A shows 26 extending towards the ears while the bars extend across the face) wherein the temple is configured for engaging a respective ear of the user for engaging the frame to a head of the user (fig. 5A); and
A panel engaged to and extending from the bridge and the bars (fig. 5A, conventional facemask 58), such that the panel is positioned over a nose and mouth of the user (fig. 5A).
a framework engaged to and extending from the frame (fig. 5A, the bottom portion of the mask), the framework comprising:
A pair of side members (fig. 5A, 58 portion that extends down the side of the face), each side member being engaged to and extending substantially perpendicularly from a respective bar distal from the bridge (fig. 5A, side members are perpendicular from the bars), such that the side members bracket the nose and mouth of the user (fig. 5A); and
A bottom member (fig. 5A, bottom portion of 58) engaged to and extending between the side members distal from the bars (fig. 5A, connects the side members on the bottom of the mask), such that the bottom member is positioned below a chin of the user (fig. 5A), the panel being engaged to and extending between the frame and the framework (fig. 5A, show 58 covering the space made by the frame and framework), such that the panel covers the nose and mouth of the user (fig. 5A).
Welchel does not expressly disclose the panel being air permeable, wherein the panel is configured for filtering particulates from air during inhalation and exhalation.
However, LaCombe teaches of a mask in which the panel is configured for filtering particulates from the air ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel (conventional facemask 58) of Welchel with the mask as taught by LaCombe so that the mask filters out filter out various pathogens.
Welchel is silent on the panel being removable engageable to the frame and the framework, such that the panel is removable for cleaning and replacement, and is silent on the face masking device including a first fastener engaged to the panel and extending around a circumference of the panel; and a second fastener engaged to the bridge, the bars, and the framework, the second fastener being complementary to the first fastener, such that the second fastener is positioned for selectively engaging the first fastener for removably engaging the panel to the frame and the framework.
However, Ang teaches of a mask in which a panel (fig. 3, filter 62) is removable from the frame and framework (fig. 3, back frame 52) for replacement of the panel ([0040]). The panel is attached via a first fastener extending around the circumference of the panel (fig. 3, border 60) which attaches to a second fastener that surrounds the frame and framework (fig. 3, border 58) to allow removal of the panel ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel (conventional facemask 58) of Welchel with the facemask as taught by Ang to allow access to the filter and allow easy replacement (Ang [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the temple is arcuate distal from the respective bar (Welchel fig. 6, earpieces 26 curve downwards to fit over the ears of a user), wherein the temple is configured for hooking over the respective ear of the user (Welchel fig. 5B, earpieces 26 fit over the ears of the user).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the framework, the bridge, and the bars are resiliently flexible (fig. 5A and 5B show how 58 can resiliently deform), wherein the framework, the bridge, and the bars are configured for conforming to contours of a face of the user (fig. 5A, shows 58 conforming to the face of the user).
9. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe and Ang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brunner (US 2,281,744).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on the panel (Welchel fig. 5A, conventional facemask 58) being various conventional shapes (col. 5, lines 35-35). However, the modified device of Welchel is silent on the panel being made of one or more of cloth, gauze, cellulose, or polypropylene.
However, Brunner teaches of a face mask device that makes use of a cotton gauze material (col. 1, lines 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel (Welchel fig. 5A, conventional facemask 58) of the modified device of Welchel with the cotton gauze material as taught by Brunner so that the panel can adequately filter out dust pollen or the like while being inexpensive and efficient (Brunner col. 1, lines 6-7 and 10-12).
10. Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe and Ang, and further in view of Westberg et al. (US 3,521,630).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further reads on a strap positioned at the bottom of the mask (Welchel fig. 5A, 58) loops around the ears, but does not expressly disclose that the strap engaged to and extending between the side members distal from the bars, wherein the strap is configured for positioning around a neck of the user for removably engaging the framework to the user.
However, Westberg teaches of a face mask device that includes an elastic head strap (fig. 1, elastic head strap 3) that clips onto the side members of the mask using studs (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the existing strap and connection of Welchel with the studs and strap as taught by Westberg to increase the security of the mask to the user by providing another location for the mask to be secured on the face.
The modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of having a strap engaged distal from the bars with the side members (Westberg fig. 1, the straps are shown engaged with the mask away from the upper portion, and it would be obvious to put them distal from the bars because the bars are already secured to the face via the temples), wherein the strap is configured for positioning around a neck of the user for removably engaging the frame (Westberg fig. 1, shows the straps going below the ears around the neck of the user).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 8 and further reads on a pair of first connectors engaged singly to opposing termini of the strap (Westberg col. 3, line 74- col. 4, line 2); and a pair of second connectors engaged to the framework (Westberg fig. 2, studs 4), the second connectors being complementary to the first connectors (Westberg col. 3, line 74- col. 4, line 2), such that each second connector is positioned for selectively engaging a respective first connector for removably engaging the strap to the framework (Westberg fig. 1-2, shows the strap engaged to the framework and removable from the framework).
11. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe, Ang, and Westberg as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Austin (US 2021/0329987).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 8 and reads on the head band being adjustable (Westberg col. 2, lines 51-52). The modified device of Welchel is silent on a method of adjustment such as a cord lock engaged to the strap defining a primary loop and a secondary loop, the cord lock being slidably engaged to the strap, such that the primary loop is selectively size adjustable.
However, Austin teaches of a face mask device that includes a cord lock (fig. 3, bungee cord lock 20) on the strap (fig. 3, bungee cord 16) which defines a primary and secondary loop (fig. 1, primary loop is located around the neck of the user and the secondary loop is extended from the primary loop) that are size adjustable ([0040] states the tightness of mask portion to the face is dependent on the adjusting of the cord locks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the strap of the modified device of Welchel with the cord lock as taught by Austin for the purpose of allowing an easy adjustment of the strap (Austin [0042] states that adjustment requires pressing of a button and sliding rather than the expected buckle adjustment of Westberg) which allows the tightness of the mask (Austin [0040]) to be increased which would improve the seal quality.
12. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe and Ang, and further in view of Fisher et al. (US 2016/0299569).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a communications module engaged to the frame and the framework, the communications module being configured for wirelessly engaging an electronic device of the user, such that two-way communication between the communications module and the electronic device is enabled.
However, Fisher teaches of eyeglass frames that is able to connect to other electronic devices ([0149] states that the device can pair with other modules and devices). The temples of the eyeglass frames of Fisher contain a microprocessor (fig. 9A, processor 130), a battery (fig. 9A, battery 128), and a transceiver is not explicitly mentioned but implied by the devices ability to communicate with other devices ([0025] which states it can transmit video) and its ability to do so over the internet (fig. 14, depicts the device connecting to a WIFI transmitter-receiver 503). The microprocessor and battery elements are positioned in the temple which further implies a void to house the structures. The microprocessor is understood to be operationally engaged to the battery and microprocessor for the purpose of using power and operating the transceiver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified device of Welchel with the internal communications module and temples (Fisher fig. 2A: control buttons 110 for the module, fig. 4A: tethered earbuds 112, fig. 9A: processor 130, battery 128) as taught by Fisher for the purpose of allowing convenient control and use of other electronic devices (Fisher [0149]).
13. Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe, Ang, and Fisher as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Adams (US 2021/0345695).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 11 and further reads on the communications module comprising a void (Fisher fig. 9A, shows the inside of glasses 100) which contains a microprocessor (Fisher fig. 9A, processor 130), a battery (Fisher fig. 9A, battery 128), and a transceiver (Fisher fig. 9A, wifi-mobile communications device 126) which are operationally engaged and a pair of earbuds (Fisher fig. 4B, includes tethered earphones 112), each earbud being tethered to and extending from a respective temple (Fisher fig. 4B, depicts the attachment of the earbuds to the temple), such that the earbud is configured for engaging an associated ear of the user (Fisher fig. 4A, shows the earbuds engaging the ear of the user), the earbuds being operationally engaged to the microprocessor (Fisher fig. 2A, depicts control buttons 110 to communicate with the processor which implies the earbuds are operationally engaged to the microprocessor); and a controller engaged to the respective temple and being operationally engaged to the microprocessor (Fisher fig. 2A control buttons 110). The modified device of Welchel is silent on having a microphone engaged to the bottom member substantially equally distant from the side members, such that the microphone is positioned proximate to the mouth of the user, the microphone being operationally engaged to the microprocessor and the controller being configured for inputting commands into the microprocessor for actuating the transceiver and adjusting volume of the earbuds.
However, Adams teaches of a mask that has an audio control panel that can adjust the volume of the attached earbuds (fig. 1J, volume up button 132L and volume down button 136L).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace two of the buttons on the controller of the modified device of Welchel with the volume up and down buttons as taught by Adams for the purpose of allowing convenient control of the earphone volume. The modified device of Welchel is silent on having a microphone engaged to the bottom member substantially equally distant from the side members, such that the microphone is positioned proximate to the mouth of the user, the microphone being operationally engaged to the microprocessor and the controller being configured for inputting commands into the microprocessor for actuating the transceiver
Further, LaCombe teaches of a mask device with a microphone (fig. 1, microphone 120) that is in communication with a phone ([0039] states the microphone is connected to electronic device 500) via a wireless module (fig. 3, wireless module 302) which can be turned on an off using a power button (fig. 3, power button 140) that is in communication with the microprocessor to actuate the transceiver (fig. 3, power button 140 communicates with microphone 120, processor 306, and wireless module 302). LaCombe further teaches that the microphone position can be along any portion of the mask ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace a third button on the controller of the modified device of Welchel with a power button as taught by LaCombe to allow manual connection of the device to the microphone or other elements of the device (LaCombe fig. 3). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the innermost mask surface of the modified device of Welchel to include a microphone as taught by LaCombe to transmit voice signals to an electronic device (LaCombe [0016] states that voice signals can be transmitted to a connected device). As the position of the microphone does not matter (LaCombe [0040]) it would be obvious to dispose it centrally near the mouth to receive the best signal from the user.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Welchel above reads on the limitations of claim 12 and further includes the battery being rechargeable (Fisher fig. 2B, charging port 113 implies the battery is rechargeable) and a port communicating with the battery (Fisher fig. 2B, charging port 113) on the respective temple for charging the battery (Fisher fig. 2B, shows charging port 113 on each temple).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Welchel above reads on the limitations of claim 12 and further includes a power button (LaCombe fig. 3, 140 wired to the Fisher fig. 2A, control buttons 110) for operationally engaging the microprocessor to the battery (LaCombe fig. 3, power button 140 controls processor 306 and battery 303) and for signaling the microprocessor for signaling the transceiver for pairing with the electronic device (LaCombe fig. 3, 140 allows battery 303 to power wireless module 302); a first button, the first button being depressible, wherein the first button is configured for depressing for signaling the microprocessor for increasing a volume of the earbuds (Adams fig. 1J, 132L wired to the Fisher fig. 2A, control buttons 110); and a second button, the second button being depressible, wherein the second button is configured for depressing for signaling the microprocessor for decreasing a volume of the earbuds (Adams fig. 1J, 136L wired to the Fisher fig. 2A, control buttons 110).
14. Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe, Ang, Fisher, and Adams as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Suhami (US 2012/0282976).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 12, but is silent on having a camera engaged to the frame and being operationally engaged to the microprocessor, wherein the camera is configured for capturing an image of an area proximate to the user.
However, Suhami discloses an eyeglass frame meant to couple with the cellphone which uses a camera (fig. 1, camera 25) to take a picture or video of a person with the wearer is having a conversation with ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bridge of the eyeglass frame of the modified device of Welchel with the camera as taught by Suhami for the purpose of imaging or recording a person with whom the wearer is having a conversation with ([0074]).
The modified device of Welchel reads on the recited limitations as it is operationally engaged to the microprocessor for the purpose of controlling the camera and it able to capture an image of an area proximate to the user as evidenced by the ability to record a person who the user is conversing.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 15 and further reads on the limitation that the camera is engaged to the bridge (Suhami fig. 11, shows the camera 25 engaged to the bridge portion of the eyeglass frame).
15. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe, Ang, Brunner, Westberg, Austin, Fisher, and Adams.
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Welchel reads on the limitations of claim 1 and can be further modified to read on the limitations of claim 17, see the rejections to claims 3, 8-9, and 11-12 above.
16. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchel in view of Lacombe, Ang, Brunner, Westberg, Austin, Fisher, and Adams as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Suhami.
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Welchel presented in claim 17 can be further modified by Suhami as presented in claim 15 to read on the limitations of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
18. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11 of 15, filed June 3, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Welchel not having anything specific to do with masking the nose and mouth (see Remarks page 11 of 15 section 6 paragraph 2), fig. 5A of Welchel shows a facemask 58 being used to mask the nose and mouth of a user 12.
19. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (see remarks page 11 of 15 section 6 paragraph 2), 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).
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lawrence (US 2022/0192291) discloses a face mask assembly which is connected to the bottom rim of a frame (fig. 5, mask pad 202 is connected to frame 204).
21. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Z CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (Every other Friday) 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached at (571)272-4835. 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.
/THOMAS Z CHANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785