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 responsive to the amendment filed on 10/03/2025. As directed by the
amendment: claims 1-4, 6, 11, 14, 19, and 20 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
While claim 6 states that the first and second front section differ, it does not specify the respect in which they differ. Accordingly, the recitation in claims 7 and 8 of the first and second front sections having a “first” and “second” material or a “first” and “second” shape does not necessarily require that the sections be composed of different materials or shapes. Rather, the terms “first” and “second” function as identifiers for the respective sections, and is not being interpreted as implying any difference in material or shape.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a facemask assembly (FIG. 2 Mask 1) comprising a facial skirt (FIG. 2 Sealing member 130), a first front section (FIG. 2 Mask cover 30), and a filter assembly (FIG. 3 Filter mechanism 50) comprising a filter material (FIG. 3 Filter member 530) and a filter frame (FIG. 3 Filter body 520 and filter cover 510).
Chung fails to explicitly disclose wherein the facemask assembly comprises an adjustable tilt mechanism, wherein the adjustable tilt mechanism acts as a brake which is released during adjustment of said facemask assembly, and wherein said adjustable tilt mechanism allows a tilt angle of the assemble to be adjusted.
However, Ging teaches an adjustable tilt mechanism (FIG. 1 and 9B Locking clip 82 as set forth in [0129]), wherein the adjustable tilt mechanism acts as a brake which is released during adjustment of said facemask assembly, and wherein said adjustable tilt mechanism allows a tilt angle of the assemble to be adjusted (Ging: The spring tab 106 can then be released so that teeth 108 engage teeth 122 in the desired position within a pitch of the teeth and rotationally lock the locking clip 82 with respect to the yoke 92 as set forth in [0129]; FIG. 10f-g Show different orientations with respect to yoke 92 as set forth in [0128], which would be changing the angle of the strap portion 84 integrated with yoke 92 in respect to the patient interface portion of the apparatus; The latch hooks 116 of the locking clip 82 are received within a respective channels 38 (FIG. 5c) of the frame, In this manner, the respective left and right strap assemblies, including front straps 84, top straps 88, yokes 92 and locking clips 82, can be attached to the frame 20 and the yokes 92 and front straps 84 rotationally adjusted with respect to the frame 20 within an angle of approximately 50-100 degrees, and preferably 75 degrees as set forth in [0132]-[0133]).
Chung and Ging are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of adjustable medical facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mask body (FIG. 2 mask body 10) where the earring parts are received (FIG. 2 Earring parts 120) of Chung to incorporate the teaching of Ging and include an adjustable tilt mechanism (FIG. 1 and 9B Locking clip 82 as set forth in [0129]), wherein the adjustable tilt mechanism acts as a brake which is released during adjustment of said facemask assembly, and wherein said adjustable tilt mechanism allows a tilt angle of the assemble to be adjusted (Ging: The spring tab 106 can then be released so that teeth 108 engage teeth 122 in the desired position within a pitch of the teeth and rotationally lock the locking clip 82 with respect to the yoke 92 as set forth in [0129]; FIG. 10f-g Show different orientations with respect to yoke 92 as set forth in [0128], which would be changing the angle of the strap portion 84 integrated with yoke 92 in respect to the patient interface portion of the apparatus; The latch hooks 116 of the locking clip 82 are received within a respective channels 38 (FIG. 5c) of the frame, In this manner, the respective left and right strap assemblies, including front straps 84, top straps 88, yokes 92 and locking clips 82, can be attached to the frame 20 and the yokes 92 and front straps 84 rotationally adjusted with respect to the frame 20 within an angle of approximately 50-100 degrees, and preferably 75 degrees as set forth in [0132]-[0133]). Doing so would allow for easy adjustment by the patient and allows a broad range of positions to accommodate a wide range of patients' faces (Ging: As set forth in [0129]).
Regarding claim 2, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung further discloses a facemask assembly (FIG. 2 Mask 1) further comprising a mounting bracket (FIG. 1-3 Mask body 10).
Regarding claim 3, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 2 above.
Chung as modified by Ging further teaches wherein said adjustable tilt mechanism is configured to be pushed in to release a loop of a strap system (FIG. 4 and 10a The spring arms 114 are designed to flex within the plane of the locking clip main body, which further improves the ease by which the locking clips 82 are attached and detached. This positioning improves the ergonomics of the release mechanism. The patient's thumb and an opposing finger can be used to readily locate and operate the locking clips 82 as set forth in [0126], a user pushing in the spring arms of the clip 82 would release the clip, yoke, and strap assembly, the strap assembly containing a loop of the strap system).
Regarding claim 11, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung as modified by Ging further teaches, wherein a strap system (Ging: FIG. 1 Front straps 84 and top straps 88) is connected to a mounting bracket via said adjustable tilt mechanism (Ging: FIG. 1 and 5c Locking clips 82, connected to the strap assembly as seen in FIG. 1, are connected to the mask frame via clip receivers 34; in the case of Chung, the clips receivers are connected to the mounting bracket, Chung: FIG. 1 Mask body 10, where the earring parts 120 are connected, as modified for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung further discloses a facemask assembly (FIG. 2 Mask 1) wherein said filter frame (FIG. 3 Filter body 520 and filter cover 510) comprises a top piece (FIG. 3 Filter Cover 510) and a bottom piece (FIG. 3 Filter body 520) configured to sandwich said filter material (FIG. 3 Filter member 530).
Regarding claim 14, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung further discloses a facemask assembly (FIG. 2 Mask 1) wherein said filter frame is curved to fit around a face (FIG. 2. Filter mechanism 50, which comprises the frame: FIG. 3 Filter body 520 and Filter member 530, is clearly curved as shown in Fig. 1 and 2) and is made of a flexible material (Fig. 3 First and second filter bodies 520a and 520b formed of an elastic material as set forth on [Page 5, Paragraph 8]).
Regarding claim 15, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above.
Chung further discloses a facemask assembly (FIG. 2 Mask 1) wherein said filter material (FIG. 3 Filter member 530) has multiple active surfaces (Air must pass through filter cover 510 and then filter member 530, secondary filter set forth in [Page 5, Paragraph 2]).
While the first active surface (FIG. 3 Filter cover 510) isn’t explicitly referred to as being part of the filter material (FIG. 3 Filter member 530), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the filter member is still an active surface for which the air must be filtered through in addition to the other filter material (FIG. 3 Filter member 530). Therefore, the filter is considered to have multiple active surfaces.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1) as applied to claims 1, in view of Byram (US 20030178026 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly further comprising a strap system with a crown section.
However, Byram teaches a facemask assembly further comprising a strap system (Byram: FIG. 5 straps 14 and crown straps 25 and 27) with a crown section (Byram: FIG. 5 Crown member 30).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Byram and include a facemask assembly further comprising a strap system (Byram: FIG. 5 straps 14 and crown straps 25 and 27) with a crown section (Byram: FIG. 5 Crown member 30). Doing so would allow to straps to conform to the user’s head (Byram: As set forth in [0021]) and therefor, provide a more secure fit.
Claims 5, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hironobu (WO 2020075717 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said facial skirt has at least two seal-layers.
However, Hironobu teaches a facemask assembly wherein said facial skirt (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30) has at least two seal-layers (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30 has an inner layer 40, outer layer 50, and an intermediate layer 60. Inner peripheral wall portion 53 has at least 2 seal layers as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chung and Hironobu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical face masks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Hironobu and include wherein said facial skirt (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30) has at least two seal-layers (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30 has an inner layer 40, outer layer 50, and an intermediate layer 60. Inner peripheral wall portion 53 has at least 2 seal layers as shown in the annotated figure). Doing so would ensure the mask’s seal is maintained even while the user’s mouth is moving or wide open (Hironobu: As set forth on [Page 5, Paragraph 4]).
Regarding claim 10, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 5 above.
Chung further discloses a facemask assembly wherein said first front section has a vent (FIG. 2 Cover opening 310).
Regarding claim 12, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said facial skirt has at least three seal-layers.
However, Hironobu teaches a facemask assembly wherein said facial skirt (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30) has at least three seal-layers (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30 has an inner layer 40, outer layer 50, and an intermediate layer 60. Inner peripheral wall portion 53 has at least 3 seal layers as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Hironobu and include wherein said facial skirt (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30) has at least three seal-layers (Hironobu: FIG. 3 Face-contacting body 30 has an inner layer 40, outer layer 50, and an intermediate layer 60. Inner peripheral wall portion 53 has at least 3 seal layers as shown in the annotated figure below). Doing so would ensure the mask’s seal is maintained even while the user’s mouth is moving or wide open (Hironobu: As set forth on [Page 5, Paragraph 4]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Crenshaw (US 20200353296 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly further comprising a second front section, wherein said second front section differs from said first front section, wherein said first front section and said second front section are interchangeable.
However, Crenshaw teaches a facemask further comprising a second front section, wherein said second front section differs from said first front section, wherein said first front section and said second front section are interchangeable (Crenshaw: The decorative cover layer is a user selectable and interchangeable decorative cover that can contain any color, design, pattern, logo, message, etc. that suits the user need and/or preference as set forth in [0015]; the first and second front sections being any two interchangeable cover layers).
Chung and Crenshaw are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Crenshaw and include wherein a facemask further comprises a second front section, wherein said second front section differs from said first front section, wherein said first front section and said second front section are interchangeable (Crenshaw: The decorative cover layer is a user selectable and interchangeable decorative cover that can contain any color, design, pattern, logo, message, etc. that suits the user need and/or preference as set forth in [0015]; the first and second front sections being any two interchangeable cover layers). Doing so would enable the user to quickly and easily change the cover of the medical mask without having to change the entire mask, which could be expensive and time consuming (Crenshaw: As set forth in [0015]).
Regarding claim 7, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 6 above.
Chung as modified by Crenshaw further teaches the facemask assembly wherein said second front section is made of a second material (Crenshaw: The material of the second front section being the “second material” which could be comprised of a re-useable and washable cloth material comprised of cotton, polyester, or other suitable material as set forth in [0029]) and wherein said first front section is made of a first material (Crenshaw: The material of the first front section being the “first material” which could be comprised of a re-useable and washable cloth material comprised of cotton, polyester, or other suitable material as set forth in [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 6 above.
Chung as modified by Crenshaw further teaches the facemask assembly wherein said second front section has of a second shape (Crenshaw: The shape of the second front section being the “second shape” which may be any shape or size that ensures optimal performance during use and/or that suits user need and/or preference including different rigid and non-rigid embodiments of the mask and their accompanying structure as set forth in [0040]) and wherein said first front section has a first shape (Crenshaw: The shape of the first front section being the “first shape” which may be any shape or size that ensures optimal performance during use and/or that suits user need and/or preference including different rigid and non-rigid embodiments of the mask and their accompanying structure as set forth in [0040]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1) as applied to claim 2, in view of Yi (KR 102080754 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 2 above.
Chung does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said first front section has at least one clip to attach to said mounting bracket.
However, Yi teaches a facemask assembly wherein said first front section (Yi: FIG. 6 Outer shell 140) has at least one clip (Yi: Outer shell 140 can be attached to the mask body 110 by various attachment members such as Velcro or snap buttons as set forth in [0026]) to attach to said mounting bracket (Yi: FIG. 6 Mask body 110).
Chung and Yi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical face masks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Yi and include wherein said first front section (Yi: FIG. 6 Outer shell 140) has at least one clip (Yi: Outer shell 140 can be attached to the mask body 110 by various attachment members such as Velcro or snap buttons as set forth on [Page 4, Paragraph 2]) to attach to said mounting bracket (Yi: FIG. 6 Mask body 110). Doing so would allow the front section to be separated and washed or exchanged as needed (Yi: As set forth on [Page 4, Paragraph 2]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1) as applied to claim 14, in view of Wang (CN 111387603 A), in further view of Dube (US 20190314595 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above.
Chung does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said filter material is a spunbond fabric bonded with a silver substrate during a manufacturing process, to which nano fiber is added.
However, Wang teaches a facemask assembly wherein said filter material (Wang: Fig. 1-3 Layers 11 and 8) is a spunbond fabric (Wang: FIG. 3 Barrier layer 11 is spun-bonded cloth as set forth in [Paragraph 3] of the Specific Implementation Methods section) bonded with a silver substrate during a manufacturing process, to which nano fiber is added (Wang: FIG. 2 Layer 8 is a nanometer silver non-woven cloth as set forth in [Paragraph 4] of the Specific Implementation Methods section).
Chung and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Wang and include wherein said filter material (Wang: Fig. 1-3 Layers 11 and 8) is a spunbond fabric (Wang: FIG. 3 Barrier layer 11 is spun-bonded cloth) bonded with a silver substrate during a manufacturing process, to which nano fiber is added (Wang: FIG. 2 Layer 8 is a nanometer silver non-woven cloth). Doing so would ensure the filter material is antibacterial and reusable (Wang: As set forth in [Paragraph 4] of the Specific Implementation Methods section).
Chung as modified does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said filter material is nylon.
However, Dube teaches a filter (Dube: FIG. 35-54 Filter 166) material is nylon (Dube: As set forth in [0058]).
Chung and Dube are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Dube and include a filter (Dube: FIG. 35-54 Filter 166) material made of nylon (Dube: As set forth in [0058]). Nylon is a suitable material for filtering and will remove any absorbent particles (Dube: As set forth in [0058]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1) as applied to claim 14, in view of Tu (KR 102110687 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above.
Chung does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said filter material is pleated.
However, Tu teaches a facemask assembly wherein said filter material is pleated (Tu: FIG. 3 and 4 Filter unit 31 is a folding structure).
Chung and Tu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Tu and include a facemask assembly wherein said filter material is pleated (Tu: FIG. 3 and 4 Filter unit 31 is a folding structure). Doing so would increase the surface area of the filter in contact with the air to increase flow of the filtered air (Tu: As set forth on [Page 5, Paragraphs 4 and 5]).
Regarding claim 18, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 17 above.
Chung as modified does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said filter material has at least 60% more surface area when compared to a flat filter placed in said filter frame.
Though prior art drawings are not interpreted as depicting scale, unless specified, drawings can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2125). Tu clearly depicts the mask as folded would reasonably have at least 60% more surface area compared to when the filter is flat. Nevertheless, one skilled in the art would be motivated to make sure that the said filter material has at least 60% more surface area when compared to when it is flat to ensure enough surface area of the filter is in contact with air (Tu: As set forth on [Page 5, Paragraph 4]).
PNG
media_image2.png
702
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20190097802 A) in view of Ging (US 20030196657 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Mittelstadt (US 20140216474 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above.
Chung as modified does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly further comprising a seal-tester.
However, Mittelstadt teaches a facemask assembly (Mittelstadt: FIG. 1a-d Respiratory protection device 100) further comprising a seal-tester (Mittelstadt: FIG. 1a-d Shut-off valve 150 as set forth in [0029]-[0030]).
Chung and Mittelstadt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chung to incorporate the teaching of Mittelstadt and include a facemask assembly (Mittelstadt: FIG. 1a-d Respiratory protection device 100) further comprising a seal-tester (Mittelstadt: FIG. 1a-d Shut-off valve 150). Doing so would enable a negative pressure fit check to be easily performed by a user to determine if an adequate seal is achieved (Mittelstadt: As set forth in [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Chung as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 19 above.
Chung as modified does not explicitly disclose a facemask assembly wherein said seal-tester is configured to also act as a protective cover of the interior of the facemask assembly.
However, Mittelstadt teaches when said seal-tester (Mittelstadt: FIG. 1a-d shut-off valve 150) is in a closed position, air is prevented from entering a breathable air zone of the mask (Mittelstadt: FIG. 1a mask body 120). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when in a closed position, the seal-tester is acting as a protective cover to the interior of the mask.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendment to claim 6, the drawing objections drawn to the “second front section” and the 35 U.S.S. 112(a) rejections drawn to claims 6-8 for failing to comply with the written description requirement have been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment to claim 14, the 35 U.S.S. 101 rejection drawn to the claim being directed to a human organism has been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, the 35 U.S.S. 102 rejections have been withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are made above to address the amendments to claims 1-4, 6, 11, 14, and 19-20.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1, and dependent claims 2-20, that Chung does not disclose an adjustable tilt mechanism, and that Byram, used to teach the tilt mechanism in the office action filed 04/03/2025 does not include teaching of a brake mechanism with a release function controlled by the user through an action such as pressing a button/lever. Applicant further argues that the prior art of record, including Wang, Yi, Dube, Tu, and Mittelstadt, do nothing alone, or in combination to teach a tilt mechanism as claimed.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies were not recited in the rejected claims in the office action filed 04/03/2025. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
New grounds of rejection are made above to address the amendments to claims 1-4, 6, 11, 14, and 19-20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON whose telephone number is (571)272-0745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/KEIRA EILEEN CALLISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785