DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 06/16/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-260, 262-263, 280, 282 were canceled, claims 261, 268-271, 279, 281, 283-284, and 286-288 were amended, and no claims were newly added. Thus, claims 261, 264-279, 281, and 283-289 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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:
“a porous region” of claim 261 line 13 and claim 271 line 8 and an additional porous region” of claim 275 line 2
Corresponding structure is [061-063, 065] “the first porous region comprises a molecular sieve”, “the second porous region comprises porous glass”
“a contaminant removal unit” of claim 261 line 14
Corresponding structure is [288] “first contaminant removal unit 62 can include a molecular sieve… includes four layers…”
“an exhalation treatment unit” of claim 267 line 1
Corresponding structure is [341] “the exhalation treatment unit 24 includes a plasma reactor 134 integrated in an exhaust plasma reactor section 25”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 270 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 270 line 2-3, the term “an outlet anti-return valve” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than claim 268 line 4.
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.
Claims 261, 264-265, 271-274, 278-279, 281, and 283-289 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 2023/0158196; hereinafter “Taylor”) in view of Hausmann et al. (US 2013/0199521; hereinafter “Hausmann”) and Mazumder et al. (US 2015/0367270; hereinafter “Mazumder”).
Regarding claim 261, Taylor discloses a device for treating contaminated air for inhalation by a user (see Taylor Title “Portable Clean Air Processor”), the device comprising:
an inhalation treatment unit for treating air to be inhaled by the user (see Taylor air processing deactivation system 1), comprising:
an air intake section configured to receive the contaminated air (see Taylor Fig. 3 input air 25 drawn in the start of airflow pipe 24);
a thermal treatment section in fluid communication with the air intake section (see Taylor heater 21), the thermal treatment section comprising:
a heating unit configured to thermally treat the contaminated air at a temperature sufficient to deactivate pathogens contained therein and produce a thermally treated stream (see Taylor [0005] “a heater heats the air to temperatures that can deactivate air-borne particles including pathogens and allergens”), the heating unit comprising:
a heating chamber (see Taylor interior chamber of heater 21);
a heating element configured to provide heat to the heating chamber (see Taylor heating element 21a);
a pathogen removal unit received within the heating chamber (see Taylor [0051] filter 59 at location B in Fig. 3 would be within section of pipe 24 designated to heater 210), providing a porous region to retain the pathogens therein (see Taylor [0064] filter 59; “The filter contains a mechanical porous filter that is the equivalent of an N95 or N99 filter”).
Taylor is silent as to the pathogen removal unit comprising a metal mesh. However, Hausmann teaches a metal mesh (see Hausmann [0050] fine filter 28 consists of sintered metal or formed of metal particles, and may have a pore size of as little as 0.05 microns). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pathogen removal unit filter of Taylor with the metal mesh filter as taught by Hausmann as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of pathogen removal filter for another filter and would yield predictable results, i.e. filter pathogens.
Modified Taylor discloses a pore size (see Hausmann [0050] filter 28 pore size as little as 0.05 microns), but is silent as to the porous region having a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm. However, Mazumder teaches the porous region has a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm (see Mazumder Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with “a pore size of from 1nm to 100 microns”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore size of the filter of modified Taylor with the pore size as taught by Mazumder since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Modified Taylor discloses a contaminant removal unit configured to receive the thermally treated stream and remove byproducts from the thermal treatment section and produce treated air (see Taylor [0051] filter 59 at location C in Fig. 3 receives thermally treated air from heater 21);
a feed inlet comprising feed inlet anti-return valve for supplying the treated air (see Taylor connecting hose 2; and [0046] “This backflow one-way valve 18 can be located in at least one of: the connecting hose 2”);
a mask coupled to the feed inlet for receiving the treated air for inhalation by the user (see Taylor facemask 32).
Regarding claim 264, modified Taylor discloses the porous region has a pore size of less than about 1 nm (see Taylor modified by Mazumder, where Mazumder has Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with a pore size of 1nm).
Regarding claim 265, modified Taylor discloses the pathogen removal unit is configured to increase a residence time of pathogens within the heating chamber (see Taylor filter 59 at location B would slow down and/or stop pathogens for at least some time in order to continue applying heat from heating element 21a).
Regarding claim 271, Taylor discloses a device for treating contaminated air for inhalation by a user (see Taylor Title “Portable Clean Air Processor”), the device comprising:
a thermal treatment section (see Taylor heater 21) comprising:
a heating unit configured to thermally treat the contaminated air at a temperature sufficient to reduce a pathogen content thereof and produce treated air (see Taylor [0005] “a heater heats the air to temperatures that can deactivate air-borne particles including pathogens and allergens”), the heating unit comprising:
at least one pathogen removal unit configured to receive the contaminated air and provide a porous region for exposing pathogens to heat (see Taylor [0051] filter 59 at location B in Fig. 3 would be within section of pipe 24 designated to heater 210 and [0064] “The filter contains a mechanical porous filter that is the equivalent of an N95 or N99 filter”).
Taylor is silent as to the porous region comprising a metal mesh. However, Hausmann teaches a metal mesh (see Hausmann [0050] fine filter 28 consists of sintered metal or formed of metal particles, and may have a pore size of as little as 0.05 microns). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pathogen removal unit filter of Taylor with the metal mesh filter as taught by Hausmann as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of pathogen removal filter for another filter and would yield predictable results, i.e. filter pathogens.
Modified Taylor discloses a pore size (see Hausmann [0050] filter 28 pore size as little as 0.05 microns), but is silent as to the porous region having a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm. However, Mazumder teaches the porous region has a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm (see Mazumder Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with “a pore size of from 1nm to 100 microns”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore size of the filter of modified Taylor with the pore size as taught by Mazumder since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Modified Taylor discloses a feed inlet for supplying the treated air (see Taylor connecting hose 2); and
a mask coupled to the feed inlet for receiving the treated air for inhalation by the user (see Taylor facemask 32).
Regarding claim 272, modified Taylor discloses the heating unit comprises a heating chamber (see Taylor interior chamber of heater 21), and the at least one pathogen removal unit is received within the heating chamber (see Taylor [0051] filter 59 at location B in Fig. 3 would be within section of pipe 24 designated to heater 210).
Regarding claim 273, modified Taylor discloses the heating unit further comprises a heat exchanger configured to be received within the heating chamber (see Taylor heat exchanger 70 depicted in Fig. 14-15 as part of the device).
Regarding claim 274, modified Taylor discloses the heat exchanger is provided upstream of the porous region (see Taylor see Fig. 15 heat exchanger 70 is upstream of heater section 60, analogous to heater 21).
Regarding claim 278, modified Taylor discloses the heating unit comprises a heater cartridge (see Taylor heating element 21a).
Regarding claim 279, modified Taylor discloses the at least one pathogen removal unit is configured to increase a residence time of the pathogens within the heating chamber (see Taylor filter 59 at location B would slow down and/or stop pathogens for at least some time in order to continue applying heat from heating element 21a).
Regarding claim 281, modified Taylor discloses the pore size of the porous region is less than about 1 nm (see Taylor modified by Mazumder, where Mazumder discloses Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with a pore size of 1nm).
Regarding claim 283, modified Taylor discloses the metal mesh comprises sintered metal fibers (see Hausmann [0050] fine filter 28 consists of sintered metal).
Regarding claim 284, modified Taylor discloses the metal mesh comprises multiple layers of sintered metal fibers to form a multi-layer metal mesh (see Hausmann [0058] filter 28 made of metal mesh “which is produced by superimposing a number of layers of fine-mesh nets”).
Regarding claim 285, modified Taylor discloses the sintered metal fibers are configured to lay substantially uniformly to form a three-dimensional non-woven structure (see Hausmann filter 28 of sintered metal which is shown as a single, uniform layer).
Regarding claim 286, modified Taylor is silent as to the pore size of at least one layer of the multi-layer metal mesh is different than the pore size of the remaining layers. However, Hausmann teaches the pore size of at least one layer of the multi-layer metal mesh is different than the pore size of the remaining layers (see Hausmann [0059] filter system including filter 28 includes pre-filter 27 and very fine filter 12f, which have different pore sizes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore size of layers of metal mesh of modified Taylor with the varying pore size of layers as taught by Hausmann so as to more effectively trap pathogens throughout the layers.
Regarding claim 287, modified Taylor discloses a temperature sensor to monitor the temperature within the heating chamber (see Taylor Claim 1 “at least one temperature sensor”, such as sensors 45A, 64BS) and a controller operatively connected to the temperature sensor and to the heating element (see Taylor control circuit 27; [0049] control circuit 27 controls heating element 21a, air heater 21, and “number of sensors not shown”), the controller being configured to adjust the temperature within the heating unit in response to a measured temperature value provided by the temperature sensor (see Taylor [0067] Temperature sensor at 49A measures temperature Ta and sends the value to control circuit 27 used to control and monito the system, “as are all temperature sensors”. Additionally, temperature is measured and send to circuit 27 at location of sensors 64A, 64B).
Regarding claim 288, modified Taylor discloses the controller is configured to adjust the temperature within the heating unit according to a heating cycle (see Taylor Fig. 2 heating cycle 40 is achieved by controlling control circuit 27).
Regarding claim 289, modified Taylor discloses the heating cycle comprises a temperature sequence comprising a low temperature setpoint and a high temperature setpoint (see Taylor Fig. 2 T_max 46 and T_A 45; [0049] “the air heater 21 portion of the invention where heat is added to raise the temperature of the air from the ambient temperature Ta 45 to the highest predetermined temperature Tmax 46”).
Claim 266 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Hausmann and Mazumder as applied to claim 261 above, and further in view of Muellinger et al. (US 2006/0201499; hereinafter “Muellinger”).
Regarding claim 266, modified Taylor discloses the air intake section comprises a filter configured to separate particles from the contaminated air (see Taylor [0051] filter 59 at location A in Fig. 3 receives input air 25 prior to heater 21), but is silent as to an air pump to pressurize the contaminated air. However, Muellinger teaches an air pump to pressurize the contaminated air (see Muellinger “Inhalation Device” where air intake at inlet 18 passes through air pump 16 to provide pressurized air to the rest of the device starting at airway filter 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air intake section of Taylor with the addition of an air pump to provide pressurized contaminated air as taught by Muellinger so as to have more control over the air within the device.
Claims 267-269 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Hausmann and Mazumder as applied to claim 261 above, and further in view of Jetter (US 2021/0346564).
Regarding claim 267, modified Taylor is silent as to an exhalation treatment unit coupled to the mask for treating the exhaled air from the user. However, Jetter teaches an exhalation treatment unit coupled to the mask for treating the exhaled air from the user (see Jetter face mask 110 connecting to waste gas tube 178 leading to outlet microbe killer device 183a2, which kills microbes exhaled as waste gas 179 [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mask of modified Taylor with the attachment of an exhalation treatment unit as taught by Jetter so as to prevent any virus of harmful microbes the user may exhale from entering the air, causing disease for other individuals.
Regarding claim 268, modified Taylor discloses the exhalation treatment unit comprises:
an outlet line coupled to the mask and configured to receive the exhaled air from the user (see Jetter waste gas tube 178 connected to mask 110 receiving waste gas 179), the outlet line comprising an outlet line anti-return valve (see Taylor facemask 32 has one way valve 15 at the point where modified Jetter tube 178 could connect); and
an exhaust plasma reactor section in fluid communication with the outlet line (see Jetter microbe killer device 183a2 can be [0017] “Another example microbe killer device is a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma reactor” such as 200 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 269, modified Taylor discloses the exhaust plasma reactor section comprises:
an exhaust plasma chamber comprising a gas flow path allowing a flow of the exhaled air therethrough (see Jetter Fig. 2 [0021] inner void filled with dielectric beads 225 allows air to pass through and be treated); and
an exhaust plasma generator configured to apply a plasma-generating field across the exhaust plasma chamber intersecting the flow of the exhaled air to generate a plasma therefrom, thereby producing treated exhaled air (see Jetter [0021] power applied between inner electrode 215 and outer electrode 205 generates plasma to clean air passing by dielectric beads 225, helping hold the charge).
Claim 270 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Hausmann, Mazumder, and Jetter as applied to claim 269 above, and further in view of Maki (US 2017/0283019).
Regarding claim 270, modified Taylor is silent as to an outlet coupled to the exhaust plasma reactor section for receiving the treated exhaled air (see Jetter outlet of microbe killer device 183a2 leading in the output direction of waste gas 179 arrow), but is silent as to an outlet anti-return valve for expelling the treated exhaled air to the atmosphere. However, Maki teaches an outlet anti-return valve for expelling the treated exhaled air to the atmosphere (see Maki [0029] exhale control member 34 on the end of cavity 33 for expelling air to the atmosphere via exhale control valve 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet of the exhaust plasma reactor section of modified Taylor with the anti-return valve as taught by Maki so as to release the treated air to the atmosphere to provide safer environment to the user and other individuals.
Claims 275-276 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Hausmann and Mazumder as applied to claim 274 above, and further in view of De Somer (US 2016/0166750).
Regarding claim 275, modified Taylor is silent as to the heat exchanger is configured to provide an additional porous region. However, De Somer teaches the heat exchanger is configured to provide an additional porous region (see De Somer heat exchanger 5 attached with filter element 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchanger of modified Taylor with the addition of an additional porous region as taught by De Somer so as to provide more filtering of pathogens in order to provide the cleanest air for inhalation to the user.
Regarding claim 276, modified Taylor discloses the additional porous region has larger pores than the porous region (see De Somer [0045] “The filter element may have a mean pore size in the range of 20-150 μm” which is larger than the nanometers pore size of the present invention of modified Taylor).
Claim 277 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Hausmann and Mazumder as applied to claim 273 above, and further in view of Korevaar et al. (US 2008/0245363; hereinafter “Korevaar”).
Regarding claim 277, modified Taylor is silent as to the heat exchanger comprises a metal wool. However, Korevaar teaches the heat exchanger comprises a metal wool (see Korevaar [0255] heat exchanger 40 comprises metal wool for providing good heat transfer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchanger of modified Taylor with the addition of a metal wool as taught by Korevaar so as to provide better heat transfer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 261, 265, 271-274, 278-279, and 287-289 under 35 USC 102 in view of Taylor 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.
Applicant argues, on page 11 of the remarks, the use of Nozaki in rejecting claims 262 and 282, however they 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.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-12 of the remarks, that Mazumder does not disclose a porous region comprising a metal mesh. However, Mazumder is not used to teach a porous region comprising a metal mesh. See the amended rejection above for modified use of Mazumder with amended references. Thus, the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights