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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119€ as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/225864, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the pending application lacks support for claims 1, 22, and dependents therein, because the provisional application to ‘864 does not support the limitation to “a head harness configured to rest on the user's head and support the frame with its components mounted thereon”.
As such, the instant claims 1 -24 have an effective filing date of 07/06/2022.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant recites “[a] device for filtering air for a user” in the preamble of claims 1 and 22, setting forth the intended use “for a user” in the claims. As such, later references to the user in the claims are interpreted under the intended use, as opposed to a positive recitation of the user or their body parts. For example, “the band encircling the user’s head, with an upper portion above the user’s head and a lower portion proximate to and spaced apart from the user’s chin” means the band is intended or configured for encircling the user. A similar reasoning applies to limitations such as “the shield providing a space for air between an inside surface of the face shield and the user’s face”, and “to cover a remaining portion of the user’s head and encircle the user’s neck” found in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 5, 12, 14 – 15, and 18 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses a device for filtering air for a user (see Figs 4, 6, and 7) comprising: a frame formed in a generally oval-shaped band, the band encircling the user’s head, with an upper portion extending from the user’s ear to a point above and to the rear of the user’s head and a lower portion extending from the user’s ear to a point below and in front of the user’s mouth (see Figs. 4, 6, and 7, solid portion of the helmet blocking view of the user’s face, as illustrated); an air inlet filter mounted on the device and communicating on one side with ambient air outside the device and on the other side with an inlet duct (see c. 7: 11 – 17, claims 6, 11); an air outlet filter mounted on the device and communicating on one side with air inside the device and on the other side with ambient air outside the device (c. 7: 18-21 discloses venting channels to the outside in order to provide filtered air to exterior surfaces of the device; it is additionally noted that Fig. 12 illustrates two filters 1201 and 1205); a powered air mover mounted on the device and operable to move intake air through the air inlet filter, through the inlet duct and into the inside of the device (see c. 7: 11 – 17, claims 6, 11; see also Fig. 12, 1202); a power source mounted on the frame to power the air mover (801); a transparent face shield mounted on one side of the frame in such a way as to create an airtight seal between the transparent face shield and the one side of the frame (see Figs. 4, 6, and 7, transparent portion of the helmet, see c. 6: 20 - 30); a seal component made from an air impermeable material and mounted on an opposite side of the frame in such a way as to create an airtight seal between the fabric component and the opposite side of the frame, and to encircle the user’s neck (see Fig. 8, seal ring 812).
However, Jin does not explicitly disclose the air inlet filter mounted on the frame; does not explicitly disclose the air outlet filter mounted on the frame; does not explicitly disclose the seal made from a fabric; and does not explicitly disclose the air mover as mounted on the frame. Jin additionally fails to disclose and a head harness configured to rest on the user’s head and support the frame with its components mounted thereon. However, Bare discloses a device for filtering air for a user, the device comprising a frame 100 and transparent shield 201, an air inlet filter mounted on the frame and communicating on one side with ambient air outside the device and on the other side with an inlet duct (see Fig. 1, 204; it is noted that filter 204 is mounted atop the frame as opposed to the transparent portion 201), an air outlet filter mounted on the frame and communicating on one side with air inside the device and on the other side with ambient air outside the device (see Fig. 1, 205; it is noted that filter 205 is mounted atop the frame as opposed to the transparent portion 201), and an impermeable seal made from a fabric and mounted on an opposite side of the frame in such a way as to create an airtight seal between the fabric component and the opposite side of the frame (c. 6: 60, c. 2: 25, Fig. 1), and a head harness configured to rest on the user’s head and support the frame with its components mounted thereon (see Fig. 1, 107, 108). Therefore, according to the teachings of Bare, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Jin to mount the air inlet filter, air outlet filter, and air inlet mover, to the frame rather than transparent shield of Jin, for the benefit of securely mounting these features to the stable non-transparent frame, which rests immovably atop of the user. It additionally would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seal ring of Jin with the fabric material of Bare since such material provides a sterile impermeable environment, yet with the real and perceived comforts of fabric. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the frame of Jin with the head harness of Bare for the benefit of snugly engaging the wearer’s head while maintaining the frame in spaced relation to the wearer’s head, see c. 4: 52 – 55.
However, Jin does not disclose a battery-powered air mover, and a rechargeable battery mounted on the frame to power the air mover. Nonetheless, Fajardo discloses a device for filtering air, wherein the power source is a rechargeable battery mounted on the frame to power a battery-powered air mover (see [0041], Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Jin to include a rechargeable battery as taught in Fajardo for the benefit of a mask that can be operated during emergency power situations, as well as a battery that enables recharging of the device of Jin rather than replacing/disposing of the battery.
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the air mover comprises a fan mounted to the upper portion of the frame at its top (see Bare, Fig. 1).
5. The device of claim 4, wherein the fan pushes the intake air over the user’s forehead (see Bare, Fig. 1).
12. The device of claim 1, wherein the head harness comprises a adjustable band that fits around and rests upon a top portion of the user’s head (see Bare, Fig. 1).
14. The device of claim 12, wherein the head harness further comprises a strap that passes over a top portion of the user’s head (see Bare, 107 and 108).
15. The device of claim 14, wherein the strap of the head harness is adjustable in length to accommodate different sizes of user’s heads (see Bare, 107 and 108).
18. The device of claim 1, further comprising a microphone inside the device and a speaker outside the device to facilitate the user’s voice being heard outside the device (see Jin, claim 1).
19. The device of claim 18, further comprising a microphone outside the device and a speaker inside the device to facilitate the user hearing voices and other sounds originating outside the device (see Jin, claim 1).
20. The device of claim 1, wherein the air inlet filter is a 99.97% particulate filter (see Jin, c. 7: 10 – 30).
21. The device of claim 1, wherein the upper portion of the frame has a height (Hu) and the lower portion of the frame has a height (H.sub.L), and wherein the ratio of Hu to H.sub.L is in the range of 1.9-2.9 (see Fig. 4, 6, and 7, wherein the frame appears to illustrate the claimed range; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jin within the claimed range for the benefit of supporting the back of the head while creating room for viewing up from; the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2125; additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed range to provide the results as described above, and has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art).
Claim(s) 2 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061) in view of Twu (US 20160030779).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Jin discloses the device of claim 1. Twu discloses a device for providing filtered air to the user, further comprising an additional air inlet mounted to the frame (see additional air mover 22, Fig. 3), and wherein the air inlet and the additional air inlet are mounted on opposite sides of the user’s head (see Fig. 3, opposite sides defined by bisecting line); and an additional air outlet mounted to the frame ([0022]), and wherein the air outlet and the additional air outlet are mounted on opposite sides of the user’s head (more than one outlet for 23, see [0022], which is understood to have a bisecting arrangement similar to 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the air inlet and outlet filters of the modified Jin according to the bisecting arrangement taught in Twu for the benefit of increasing the number of inlets and associated fans on the frame, thus increasing potential power to the frame, as well as introducing redundancy in the case of fan failure.
Regarding claim 22, Jin in view of Bare in view of Fajardo in view of Two discloses a device for filtering air for a user comprising: a frame formed in a generally oval-shaped band, the band encircling the user’s head, with an upper portion extending from the user’s ear to a point above and to the rear of the user’s head and a lower portion extending from the user’s ear to a point below and in front of the user’s mouth; a first air inlet filter mounted on the frame so as to be on one side of the user’s head, and communicating on one side with ambient air outside the device and on the other side with a first inlet duct; a second air inlet mounted on the frame so as to be on an opposite side of the user’s head, and communicating on one side with ambient air outside the device and on the other side with a second inlet duct; a first air outlet filter mounted on the frame so as to be on the one side of the user’s head and communicating on one side with air inside the device and on the other side with ambient air outside the device; a second air outlet filter mounted on the frame so as to be on the opposite side of the user’s head and communicating on one side with air inside the device and on the other side with ambient air outside the device; a battery-powered fan mounted on the frame and operable to move intake air through the first and second air inlet filter, through the first and second inlet duct and into the inside of the device; a rechargeable battery mounted on the frame to power the fan; a transparent face shield mounted on one side of the frame in such a way as to create an airtight seal between the visor and the one side of the frame; a fabric component made from an air impermeable fabric and mounted on an opposite side of the frame in such a way as to create an airtight seal between the fabric component and the opposite side of the frame, and to encircle the user’s neck; and a head harness configured to rest on the user’s head and support the frame with its components mounted thereon (see claims 1 and 2 above).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061) in view of Kim (WO 2017146382).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Jin discloses the device of claim 4. Kim discloses a device for filtering air wherein the battery is mounted to the lower portion of the frame at its bottom (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6b, battery 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the air outlet of Jin according to the placement and associated battery of Kim for the benefit of directly passing exhalations from the user to atmosphere.
Claim(s) 7 – 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061) in view of Rosati (US 20170196281).
Regarding claim 7, Jin in view of Bare in view of Fajardo discloses the device of claim 4. Rosati discloses wherein the fan is a variable speed fan [0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fan of Jin according to the variable speed of Rosati for the benefit of appropriately controlling interior device conditions and provided air to best accommodate the user.
8. The device of claim 7, further comprising a sensor to detect air pressure inside the device and wherein the speed of the fan is automatically adjusted responsive to signals from the sensor to maintain the air pressure inside the device within a predetermined range (see Rosati, Fig. 23).
9. The device of claim 7, further comprising a first sensor to detect pressure inside the device (see above) and a second sensor to detect conditions outside the device [0062], and wherein the speed of the fan is automatically adjusted responsive to signals from the differential measurement to maintain the air pressure inside the device within a predetermined range (see Fig. 23, claim 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the second sensor measuring differential exterior measurements according to pressure as taught in Rosati, for the benefit of measuring the relative pressure of the helmet understood to drive functioning and efficiency of the pressure enabled device.
11. The device of claim 7, wherein the user can manually control the speed of the fan (Rosati, [0071]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061) in view of Rosati (US 20170196281) in view of Minhas (US 20220047838).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Jin discloses the device of claim 7 further comprising a microphone inside the device [0067]. Minhas discloses wherein a respiration rate of the user is detected, and wherein the control of the device is adjusted to accommodate different respiration rates of the user, see [0032, 33]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the microphone and fan control of Rosati according to the respiration rate control of Minhas for the benefit of appropriately controlling pressure within the device according to changes in inhalation/exhalation. Upon providing the modification the references disclose wherein a respiration rate of the user is detected acoustically, and wherein the speed of the fan is adjusted to accommodate different respiration rates of the user.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061) in view of Dampney (US 4730612)
Regarding claim 16, the modified Jin discloses the device of claim 14. Dampney discloses a head harness further comprising at least one additional strap that passes over a top portion of the user’s head (see Fig. 1, two top straps 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the head harness of the modified Jin in view of Bare with the additional top strap of Dampney for the benefit of better covering the entirety of the user’s head.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061) in view of Green (US 20070277294).
Regarding claim 17, Jin discloses the device of claim 1. Green discloses further comprising a head harness cover (100) disposed between the head harness and the outside. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the head harness of the modified Jin in view of Bare with a harness cover as taught in Green for the benefit of supporting the lower harness, as well as obscuring or hiding it from view.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 11134739) in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061) in view of Twu (US 20160030779) in view of Kim (WO 2017146382).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Jin discloses the device of claim 22 wherein the fan is mounted to the upper portion of the frame at its top and the battery is mounted to the lower portion of the frame at its bottom (see discussion in claims 2 and 6 above).
24. The device of claim 23, wherein the fan pushes the intake air over the user’s forehead (see Twu discussed above).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 12, and 14 – 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 22 of copending Application No. 17/815212 in view of in view of Bare (US 5054480) in view of Fajardo (US 20210339061). As outlined above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of ‘212 to include a head harness and rechargeable battery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, paragraph 2, applicant argues that Jin does not disclose “a frame formed in a generally oval-shaped band, the band encircling the user’s head, with an upper portion extending from the user’s ear to a point above and to the rear of the user’s head and a lower portion extending from the user’s ear to a point below and in front of the user’s mouth”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The frame is clearly illustrated in Figs. 4, 6, and 7. While unlabeled in the figures, the solid portion of the helmet blocking view of the user’s face is a hard cover that clearly constitutes a frame. As illustrated in Figs. 4- 7, the hard cover clearly forms a generally oval-shaped band encircling the user’s head with an upper portion extending from the user’s ear to a point above and to the rear, and a lower portion extending form the user’s ear to a point below and in front of the user’s mouth – consistent with the parameters of a “frame” as claimed. See also c. 6, ll. 38 – 51, which describes the hard cover in Fig. 4 as encircling or framing the user’s head, thus holding the transparent face shield over the user’s face. To the extent applicant wishes to define the frame as having a specific structure that defines over Jin, applicant is urged to claim it.
On page 9, paragraph 3, Applicant furthermore argues that Jin fails to disclose the transparent face shield as mounted to the frame. However, Figs. 4, 6 and 7 clearly illustrate the transparent face shield mounted atop the frame, and c. 6: 20 – 30 provides a general teaching of mounting of the transparent shield atop the head piece in order to seal the personal environment. Fig. 5 and c. 6: 54 – 61 are also cited for general teachings that clearly apply to the embodiments found in Figs. 4, 6, and 7. Applicant states that Figs. 4, 6, and 7 do not mention a window, yet c. 4: ll. 46 – 47 state that the personal dome assembly has a hard cover mounting a transparent shield for covering the face.
On page 10, paragraph 1, Applicant argues that nothing is taught about seal ring 812, equated to the impermeable component. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 8 illustrates the seal ring provided to a bottommost edge of the personal dome assembly. Column 2, ll. 39-43, further describe that the seal ring is positioned at a bottom edge of the personal dome assembly, with the seal ring configured to adhere to the user with close contact, thus preventing outside air and liquid from penetrating into the personal dome. (The bottom edge of the hard cover in Fig. 4 is positioned opposite its top edge mounted to the transparent shield.)
On page 10, paragraph 3, Applicant addresses Bare, arguing that the filters of Bare are not mounted on anything like the frame of claim 1. However, examiner notes that the present rejection is directed to the combination of Jin with Bare. Notably, Jin discloses the two main features of claim 1: its transparent shield and frame. Thus, the filters and fans recited in claim 1 and disclosed in Jin can be disposed on only either the transparent shield or frame. While one of ordinary skill in the art would expect mounting of said components on the stable frame or hard cover of Jin rather than the pivoting shield/visor, as is customary in the art, Jin does not explicitly disclose the filters/fans as mounted to the frame. Thus, examiner relies on Bare merely to clarify that components such as Jin’s filters/fans would mount on this frame rather than transparent shield.
It is additionally noted that the filters of Bare clearly align with the frame rather than transparent shield. Thus, it would have been obvious to place the filters of Jin on the frame rather than transparent shield, even if frame of Jin does not extend along the midline of the user’s head, or does not underlie a shroud.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on page 10, paragraph 4, it is noted that examiner relies on Bare merely for the teaching of “fabric” in an impermeable seal component, see c. 6: 60 of Bare. As discussed above, Jin otherwise discloses the seal component creating an airtight seal.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on page 12, paragraph 1, it is noted that rejection of claims 2, 3, and 22 – 24 as obvious over Hall is hereby withdrawn, in response to applicant’s submission of commonly owned disclosure. Claim 3 is accordingly objected to as indicating allowable subject matter, since the claim is not subject to the double patenting rejection set forth above.
Otherwise, claims 1, 22, and dependents therein remain rejected as obvious over Jin in view of Bare in view of Fajardo, or additional references as indicated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210195980 – helmet with harness
US 6014971 – helmet with filtered supply
US 20200215360 – filtered supply with transparent shield
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H PHILIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-5180. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Casler can be reached at (571) 272-4956. 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.
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799