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 Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on October 22, 2025. As directed by the amendment, Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-14 have been amended. Claim 15 is a new claim. Claims 1-15 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding the Office Action mailed June 25, 2025:
Applicant has resolved all objections to the specification. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has resolved all objections to the claims. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn. However, additional objections have been found. Please see below for more details.
Applicant has not resolved all rejections under 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the rejections are maintained. Additional rejections have also been found. Please see below for more details.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claims and introduced new claims that change the scope of the claimed invention. See 35 USC 103 rejections below for more details.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “scanning the face” should be changed to –scanning of the face—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 11, Line 3).
Claims 12-14 are objected for being dependent on objected Claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “alternate filter materials” (Line 13). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear what the alternate filter materials are. It appears the applicant was trying to say any filter material that is capable of filtering air. However, the instant specification never mentions what these “alternate filter materials” are and what can be considered an “alternate filter material”. Any kind of material that acts as a barrier for some particles would meet the definition of a filter material even if it is not explicitly a filter to begin with. Therefore, the scope of the claim limitation cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as any material that filters particles would be considered an “alternate filter material”. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 11 (Line 10) and Claim 15 (Line 12).
Claim 11 states “a contour that substantially corresponds to topographical features of a face captured by a scanning the face” (Lines 1-2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if this is a product-by-process claim or the apparatus claim requires the method step of scanning the face. It appears the applicant was trying to say the claim limitation is a product-by-process claim. However, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite as it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Therefore, whether or not the scanning of the face is required to achieve this contour cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as a product-by-process claim in which the resulting contour is not dependent on the method of which the contour was obtained.
Claims 2-10 and 12-14 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claims 1 and 11.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 7-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over lafactoria3d (lafactoria3d, COVID-19 MASK v2 (Fast print, no support, filter required), March 21, 2020, Thingiverse, All Pages, Captured by Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20200321023030/https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4225667), hereafter Factoria, in view of Dahlem (Philipp Dahlem, Respirator / Breathing mask (Covid19), March 23, 2020, GRABCAD, All Pages, https://grabcad.com/library/respirator-breathing-mask-covid19-1) and Sisk (US 2016/0349738 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Factoria discloses a method for making a face mask (facemask is 3D printed, Page 1) comprising: a facial mask file of the face mask (facemask is a 3D model that can be downloaded, Page 1) comprising a body (mask, Page 1) defining an interior (mask has an interior, Page 1) and having a contour on a sealing edge of the face mask (mask shown to have a contour on a sealing edge that meets the face, Page 1) that corresponds to the topographical facial features of the face (mask shown to correspond to topographical facial features of face since it is shaped to fit over nose and mouth of user, Page 1; it is noted that Applicant has not used the word “substantially” in the claim limitation), wherein a filter compartment (connector, Page 1; connector holds filters, Page 1) is formed in the body (connector is on mask body, Page 1) and a cap (cap, Page 1) removably coupled to the body (cap shown to be screwed on and is removable from the mask body, Page 1) and having cap openings (cap shown to have openings, Page 2) adapted to allow air to pass through the face mask (cap allows air to pass through into filter and connector, Pages 1-2); and exporting the facial mask file to a 3D printable facial mask file that is usable in a 3D printer (facemask is a 3D model that can be downloaded for 3D printing, Page 1).
Factoria does not disclose capturing topographical facial features of a face by scanning the face; selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database; scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face; aligning the selected facial mask pattern to the face; merging the selected facial mask pattern to the face; creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask; the face mask further comprising a bead formed around one of the cap or the filter compartment, wherein the bead forms a shoulder to capture a tie-down element for attaching a filter element or alternate filter materials over the filter compartment.
However, Dahlem, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a face mask (Page 1) including a bead (stabilizer ring that attaches to mask, Page 1) formed around one of the cap and the filter compartment (ring formed around filter compartment of mask or acts as a cap, Page 1), wherein the bead forms a shoulder to capture a tie-down element for attaching a filter element or alternate filter materials over the filter compartment (stabilizer ring shown to capture filter or paper towel via a rubber band, Pages 1-2) to allow for the use of various filters and allow for easy replacement (Pages 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a bead or ridge around the cap or filter compartment, as taught by Dahlem, to allow for the use of various filters and allow for easy replacement (Dahlem: Pages 1-2). Dahlem shows that the mask can be used with various kinds of filters including paper towels and that the filters can easily be tied onto the mask via a rubber band. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing all kinds of filters and filter cloths on front of the mask itself to take advantage of different filter properties. Adding a ridge or bead would simply provide further stability in keeping the tie-down element (like rubber bands or string) onto the mask itself. Additionally, there is nothing that stops one of ordinary skill in the art from using other kinds of tie-down elements to keep the filter on the mask like string, tape, adhesives, glue, etc. It is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try various kinds of filters to fit onto the face mask since the face mask is a custom, 3D printed face mask that doesn’t necessarily conform to industrial production standards.
Factoria-Dahlem combination does not teach capturing topographical facial features of a face by scanning the face; selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database; scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face; aligning the selected facial mask pattern to the face; merging the selected facial mask pattern to the face; creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask.
However, Sisk, of the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem of customization with 3D printing, teaches 3D printed wearable articles and processes and methods of manufacturing the same (Abstract) including capturing topographical facial features of a face by scanning the face (device is utilized to capture surface features of the subject, capture information related to a subject thereof like head, face, neck, paragraph 0024); selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database (generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object selected from an article/object set, wearable object is selected and customized from a database of objects present within the creation tool, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face (virtual image/model can be utilized to generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object, virtual image is utilized to generate custom sizing information, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); aligning the selected facial mask pattern to the face (creation tool is utilized to create a virtual, wearable object on a portion of a the virtual subject image, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); merging the selected facial mask pattern to the face (the virtual image is utilized to generate custom sizing information using a creation tool, creation tool is utilized to create a virtual, wearable object on a portion of the virtual subject image, the digital measurements are used to fit a wearable object in a nearly perfect way upon a subject's body, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035; custom sizing information collected from the virtual image is merged with the pre-existing virtual wearable object); creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask (using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034) to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these methods of generating a customized mask of Factoria, as taught by Sisk, to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (Sisk: paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (Sisk: paragraph 0034). This technique allows for the creation of customized, 3D printable masks that nearly perfectly fit a single individual which improves on the masks’ performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches modifying the custom facial mask file (Sisk: a visual representation of a wearable object is generated using the creation tool for a user to virtually pick out and choose exactly how the user wants the article/object to fit and look, paragraph 0033; the computer-readable script can reference the article/object image set and specify (i) a plurality of variables that can be inputted by a user and (ii) the way such variables are used to customize the article/object, variables include, but are not limited to, size, shape, texture, material, layering, etc. (e.g. that can be added to and/or used to modify the article/object image), the script file created by developer/retailer includes a default value for each of the variables (e.g., default values based on average size/dimension in a population, or default values based upon size/dimensions information present in an acquired 3D image of subject's body or portion thereof), paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 3, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches inputting the 3D printable custom contoured facial mask file into an operating system of an Additive Manufacturing system (AM system), and operating the AM system to generatively build the face mask (Factoria: facemask is a 3D model that can be downloaded for 3D printing, Page 1; Sisk: using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 7, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches scanning the face is performed by a portable computing device having a camera (Sisk: obtaining image data regarding the subject's body or portion(s) thereof can be obtained by a variety of methods including, but not limited to, use of a 3D scanner or other type of recording device, recording devices include a camera (e.g., digital camera), video recorder (e.g., digital video recorder), structural capture camera, or design tool known in the art to capture information (e.g., shape, scale, dimensions, color, etc.) related to a subject (e.g., a subject's body or portion(s) thereof), paragraph 0006; a digital camera (e.g., digital SLR, smartphone camera, compact digital camera, professional digital camera, etc.) in combination with a design tool (e.g., including, but not limited to, 123D Catch (AUTODESK, Inc.); Relievos; Youspin, Dermendar, etc.) is used to capture data/information (e.g., shape, scale, dimensions, color, etc.), paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 8, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches selecting the selected facial mask pattern from the database includes selecting a standard facial mask design from a library of patterns (Sisk: generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object selected from an article/object set, wearable object is selected and customized from a database of objects present within the creation tool, paragraph 0033; creation tool (e.g., software that is located locally on a user's computer, or, software that is located remotely on a provider's/developer's computer) that allows a user to select a generic article/item from a list of articles/items in order to create a computer simulated/virtual wearable object/article (e.g., that is customized (e.g., size, shape, materials, layering of materials, etc.) using the creation tool), paragraph 0021; the computer-readable script can reference the article/object image set and specify (i) a plurality of variables that can be inputted by a user and (ii) the way such variables are used to customize the article/object, variables include, but are not limited to, size, shape, texture, material, layering, etc. (e.g. that can be added to and/or used to modify the article/object image), the script file created by developer/retailer includes a default value for each of the variables (e.g., default values based on average size/dimension in a population, or default values based upon size/dimensions information present in an acquired 3D image of subject's body or portion thereof), paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 9, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches the contour of the face mask is shaped to follow a contour of a human face extending around mouth and nose areas of a human (Factoria: mask shown to cover mouth and nose of a human face, Page 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches a face mask made in accordance with the method of claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 11, Factoria discloses a face mask (facemask, Page 1) comprising: a body (mask, Page 1) defining an interior (mask has an interior, Page 1) and a contour (mask shown to have a contour on a sealing edge that meets the face, Page 1), the face mask further including: a filter compartment (connector, Page 1; connector holds filters, Page 1) formed in the body (connector is on mask body, Page 1); and a cap (cap, Page 1) removably coupled to the body (cap shown to be screwed on and is removable from the mask body, Page 1) and having cap openings (cap shown to have openings, Page 2) adapted to allow air to pass through the face mask (cap allows air to pass through into filter and connector, Pages 1-2).
Factoria fails to disclose a contour that substantially corresponds to topographical features of a face captured by a scanning the face; wherein the face mask further comprises a bead formed around one of the cap and the filter compartment, wherein the bead forms a shoulder to capture a tie-down element for attaching a filter element or alternate filter materials over the filter compartment.
However, Dahlem, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a face mask (Page 1) including a bead (stabilizer ring that attaches to mask, Page 1) formed around one of the cap and the filter compartment (ring formed around filter compartment of mask or acts as a cap, Page 1), wherein the bead forms a shoulder to capture a tie-down element for attaching a filter element or alternate filter materials over the filter compartment (stabilizer ring shown to capture filter or paper towel via a rubber band, Pages 1-2) to allow for the use of various filters and allow for easy replacement (Pages 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a bead or ridge around the cap or filter compartment, as taught by Dahlem, to allow for the use of various filters and allow for easy replacement (Dahlem: Pages 1-2). Dahlem shows that the mask can be used with various kinds of filters including paper towels and that the filters can easily be tied onto the mask via a rubber band. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing all kinds of filters and filter cloths on front of the mask itself to take advantage of different filter properties. Adding a ridge or bead would simply provide further stability in keeping the tie-down element (like rubber bands or string) onto the mask itself. Additionally, there is nothing that stops one of ordinary skill in the art from using other kinds of tie-down elements to keep the filter on the mask like string, tape, adhesives, glue, etc. It is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try various kinds of filters to fit onto the face mask since the face mask is a custom, 3D printed face mask that doesn’t necessarily conform to industrial production standards.
Factoria-Dahlem combination does not teach a contour that substantially corresponds to topographical features of a face captured by a scanning the face.
However, Sisk, of the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem of customization with 3D printing, teaches 3D printed wearable articles and processes and methods of manufacturing the same (Abstract) including a contour that substantially corresponds to topographical features of a face captured by a scanning the face (device is utilized to capture surface features of the subject, capture information related to a subject thereof like head, face, neck, paragraph 0024; generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object selected from an article/object set, wearable object is selected and customized from a database of objects present within the creation tool, paragraph 0033; using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035) to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these methods of generating a customized mask of Factoria, as taught by Sisk, to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (Sisk: paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (Sisk: paragraph 0034). This technique allows for the creation of customized, 3D printable masks that nearly perfectly fit a single individual which improves on the masks’ performance.
Regarding Claim 12, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches the cap is threadably coupled to the body (Factoria: cap shown to have threads that connect to mask body via connector, Pages 1-2).
Regarding Claim 14, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches the face mask is formed by an Additive Manufacturing system (Factoria: facemask is 3D printed, Page 1; Sisk: using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034). It is noted that the forming of the face mask through the Additive Manufacturing system is interpreted as a Product-by-Process claim in which the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 15, Factoria discloses a computer-implemented method for making a face mask (facemask is 3D printed, Page 1) comprising: having a facial mask file of the face mask (facemask file is downloadable, Page 1) comprising a body (mask, Page 1) defining an interior (mask has an interior, Page 1) and having a contour on a sealing edge of the face mask (mask shown to have a contour on a sealing edge that meets the face, Page 1) that corresponds to the topographical facial features of the face (mask shown to correspond to topographical facial features of face since it is shaped to fit over nose and mouth of user, Page 1; it is noted that Applicant has not used the word “substantially” in the claim limitation), wherein a filter compartment (connector, Page 1; connector holds filters, Page 1) is formed in the body (connector is on mask body, Page 1) and a cap (cap, Page 1) removably coupled to the body (cap shown to be screwed on and is removable from the mask body, Page 1) and having cap openings (cap shown to have openings, Page 2) adapted to allow air to pass through the face mask (cap allows air to pass through into filter and connector, Pages 1-2); and exporting the facial mask file to a 3D printable facial mask file that is usable in a 3D printer (facemask is a 3D model that can be downloaded for 3D printing, Page 1).
Factoria fails to disclose receiving topographical facial features of a face captured in a face scan; selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database; scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face; and creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask; the face mask further comprising a bead formed around one of the cap and the filter compartment, wherein the bead forms a shoulder to capture a tie-down element for attaching a filter element or alternate filter materials over the filter compartment.
However, Dahlem, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a face mask (Page 1) including a bead (stabilizer ring that attaches to mask, Page 1) formed around one of the cap and the filter compartment (ring formed around filter compartment of mask or acts as a cap, Page 1), wherein the bead forms a shoulder to capture a tie-down element for attaching a filter element or alternate filter materials over the filter compartment (stabilizer ring shown to capture filter or paper towel via a rubber band, Pages 1-2) to allow for the use of various filters and allow for easy replacement (Pages 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a bead or ridge around the cap or filter compartment, as taught by Dahlem, to allow for the use of various filters and allow for easy replacement (Dahlem: Pages 1-2). Dahlem shows that the mask can be used with various kinds of filters including paper towels and that the filters can easily be tied onto the mask via a rubber band. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing all kinds of filters and filter cloths on front of the mask itself to take advantage of different filter properties. Adding a ridge or bead would simply provide further stability in keeping the tie-down element (like rubber bands or string) onto the mask itself. Additionally, there is nothing that stops one of ordinary skill in the art from using other kinds of tie-down elements to keep the filter on the mask like string, tape, adhesives, glue, etc. It is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try various kinds of filters to fit onto the face mask since the face mask is a custom, 3D printed face mask that doesn’t necessarily conform to industrial production standards.
Factoria-Dahlem combination does not teach receiving topographical facial features of a face captured in a face scan; selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database; scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face; and creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask.
However, Sisk, of the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem of customization with 3D printing, teaches 3D printed wearable articles and processes and methods of manufacturing the same (Abstract) including receiving topographical facial features of a face captured in a face scan (device is utilized to capture surface features of the subject, capture information related to a subject thereof like head, face, neck, paragraph 0024); selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database (generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object selected from an article/object set, wearable object is selected and customized from a database of objects present within the creation tool, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face (virtual image/model can be utilized to generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object, virtual image is utilized to generate custom sizing information, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); and creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask (using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034) to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these methods of generating a customized mask of Factoria, as taught by Sisk, to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (Sisk: paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (Sisk: paragraph 0034). This technique allows for the creation of customized, 3D printable masks that nearly perfectly fit a single individual which improves on the masks’ performance.
Claims 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over lafactoria3d (lafactoria3d, COVID-19 MASK v2 (Fast print, no support, filter required), March 21, 2020, Thingiverse, All Pages, Captured by Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20200321023030/https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4225667), hereafter Factoria, Dahlem (Philipp Dahlem, Respirator / Breathing mask (Covid19), March 23, 2020, GRABCAD, All Pages, https://grabcad.com/library/respirator-breathing-mask-covid19-1), and Sisk (US 2016/0349738 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 3, and 11, and in further view of De Kruyff et al. (US 2015/0265794 A1), hereafter Kruyff.
Regarding Claim 4, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 3. Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination fails to teach the AM system is a powder bed fusion 3D printing system.
However, Kruyff, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a manufacturing method for a PAP mask (Abstract) including the AM system is a powder bed fusion 3D printing system (fabrication done using 3D printer, other suitable technologies include selective laser sintering (SLS), paragraph 0033; additive manufacturing technology comprises powder bed and inkjet head 3D printing, paragraphs 0052 and 0053) since these are known ways to fabricate a custom face mask (paragraphs 0033, 0052, and 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a powder bed 3D printing system, as taught by Kruyff, since these are known ways to fabricate a custom face mask (Kruyff: paragraphs 0033, 0052, and 0053). Powder bed 3D printing or SLS 3D printing is a well-known 3D printing system for creating custom objects. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take advantage of this process since it is one of many well-known ways to 3D print custom objects like masks.
Regarding Claim 5, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 1. Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination also teaches the 3D printer is able to mix materials while printing like rubber and print an object with two or more materials intertwined to change rigidity and/or elasticity of object (Sisk: paragraphs 0014; paragraph 0038, and paragraph 0039). Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination fails to explicitly teach providing a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour.
However, Kruyff, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a manufacturing method for a PAP mask (Abstract) including providing a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour (additionally or as replacement of the resilience of the edge, a flange may be provided on the edge, which increases the contact area, as such, but additionally allows attaching an additional seal to the edge, seal may be made of resilient material and have sufficient width in order not to notch the face of the subject, paragraph 0080) to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (paragraph 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional seal along the contour edge of the 3D printed mask, as taught by Kruyff, to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (Kruyff: paragraph 0080). This improvement would improve the seal around the edges of the mask to prevent any leakage and increase comfort. Since the mask would be made of a hard plastic, it is obvious that a more resilient material would be added to the mask to ensure an effective seal. The teachings of Sisk would also allow for this additional seal to be 3D printed onto the existing mask during assembly due to the 3D printer’s multi-material capabilities.
Regarding Claim 6, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk-Kruyff combination teaches the seal is a pliant seal (Kruyff: seal may be made of resilient material and have sufficient width in order not to notch the face of the subject, paragraph 0080).
Regarding Claim 13, Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 11. Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination also teaches the 3D printer is able to mix materials while printing like rubber and print an object with two or more materials intertwined to change rigidity and/or elasticity of object (Sisk: paragraphs 0014; paragraph 0038, and paragraph 0039). Factoria-Dahlem-Sisk combination fails to explicitly teach a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour.
However, Kruyff, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a manufacturing method for a PAP mask (Abstract) including a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour (additionally or as replacement of the resilience of the edge, a flange may be provided on the edge, which increases the contact area, as such, but additionally allows attaching an additional seal to the edge, seal may be made of resilient material and have sufficient width in order not to notch the face of the subject, paragraph 0080) to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (paragraph 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional seal along the contour edge of the 3D printed mask, as taught by Kruyff, to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (Kruyff: paragraph 0080). This improvement would improve the seal around the edges of the mask to prevent any leakage and increase comfort. Since the mask would be made of a hard plastic, it is obvious that a more resilient material would be added to the mask to ensure an effective seal. The teachings of Sisk would also allow for this additional seal to be 3D printed onto the existing mask during assembly due to the 3D printer’s multi-material capabilities.
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 11-12 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/008,211 (reference application), hereafter ‘211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent application and/or prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 11, ‘211 discloses all of the claimed invention (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 12, ‘211 discloses all of the claimed invention (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 14, ‘211 discloses all of the claimed invention (Claim 9). It is noted that the claim limitation of “formed by an Additive Manufacturing system” is interpreted as a Product-by-Process claim in which the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/008,211 (reference application), hereafter ‘211, as applied to Claim 11, in view of De Kruyff et al. (US 2015/0265794 A1), hereafter Kruyff. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent application and/or prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 13, ‘211 discloses the claimed invention of Claim 11. ‘211 fails to disclose a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour.
However, Kruyff, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a manufacturing method for a PAP mask (Abstract) including a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour (additionally or as replacement of the resilience of the edge, a flange may be provided on the edge, which increases the contact area, as such, but additionally allows attaching an additional seal to the edge, seal may be made of resilient material and have sufficient width in order not to notch the face of the subject, paragraph 0080) to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (paragraph 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional seal along the contour edge of the 3D printed mask, as taught by Kruyff, to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (Kruyff: paragraph 0080). This improvement would improve the seal around the edges of the mask to prevent any leakage and increase comfort. It would also improve upon the facemask in which the edges of the facemask would not notch the face of the user.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/008,211 (reference application), hereafter ‘211, in view of Sisk (US 2016/0349738 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent application and/or prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1, ‘211 discloses most of the claimed invention (Claim 9) except for: selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database; scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face; aligning the selected facial mask pattern to the face; merging the selected facial mask pattern to the face; creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask; and exporting the custom facial mask file to a 3D printable custom contoured facial mask file that is usable in a 3D printer.
However, Sisk, of the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem of customization with 3D printing, teaches 3D printed wearable articles and processes and methods of manufacturing the same (Abstract) including capturing topographical facial features of a face by scanning the face (device is utilized to capture surface features of the subject, capture information related to a subject thereof like head, face, neck, paragraph 0024); selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database (generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object selected from an article/object set, wearable object is selected and customized from a database of objects present within the creation tool, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face (virtual image/model can be utilized to generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object, virtual image is utilized to generate custom sizing information, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); aligning the selected facial mask pattern to the face (creation tool is utilized to create a virtual, wearable object on a portion of a the virtual subject image, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); merging the selected facial mask pattern to the face (the virtual image is utilized to generate custom sizing information using a creation tool, creation tool is utilized to create a virtual, wearable object on a portion of the virtual subject image, the digital measurements are used to fit a wearable object in a nearly perfect way upon a subject's body, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035; custom sizing information collected from the virtual image is merged with the pre-existing virtual wearable object); creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask (using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034); and exporting the custom facial mask file to a 3D printable custom contoured facial mask file that is usable in a 3D printer (using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034) to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these methods of generating a customized mask, as taught by Sisk, to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (Sisk: paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (Sisk: paragraph 0034). This technique allows for the creation of customized, 3D printable masks that nearly perfectly fit a single individual which improves on the masks’ performance.
Regarding Claim 2, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Sisk: a visual representation of a wearable object is generated using the creation tool for a user to virtually pick out and choose exactly how the user wants the article/object to fit and look, paragraph 0033; the computer-readable script can reference the article/object image set and specify (i) a plurality of variables that can be inputted by a user and (ii) the way such variables are used to customize the article/object, variables include, but are not limited to, size, shape, texture, material, layering, etc. (e.g. that can be added to and/or used to modify the article/object image), the script file created by developer/retailer includes a default value for each of the variables (e.g., default values based on average size/dimension in a population, or default values based upon size/dimensions information present in an acquired 3D image of subject's body or portion thereof), paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 3, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Sisk: using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 7, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Sisk: obtaining image data regarding the subject's body or portion(s) thereof can be obtained by a variety of methods including, but not limited to, use of a 3D scanner or other type of recording device, recording devices include a camera (e.g., digital camera), video recorder (e.g., digital video recorder), structural capture camera, or design tool known in the art to capture information (e.g., shape, scale, dimensions, color, etc.) related to a subject (e.g., a subject's body or portion(s) thereof), paragraph 0006; a digital camera (e.g., digital SLR, smartphone camera, compact digital camera, professional digital camera, etc.) in combination with a design tool (e.g., including, but not limited to, 123D Catch (AUTODESK, Inc.); Relievos; Youspin, Dermendar, etc.) is used to capture data/information (e.g., shape, scale, dimensions, color, etc.), paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 8, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Sisk: generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object selected from an article/object set, wearable object is selected and customized from a database of objects present within the creation tool, paragraph 0033; creation tool (e.g., software that is located locally on a user's computer, or, software that is located remotely on a provider's/developer's computer) that allows a user to select a generic article/item from a list of articles/items in order to create a computer simulated/virtual wearable object/article (e.g., that is customized (e.g., size, shape, materials, layering of materials, etc.) using the creation tool), paragraph 0021; the computer-readable script can reference the article/object image set and specify (i) a plurality of variables that can be inputted by a user and (ii) the way such variables are used to customize the article/object, variables include, but are not limited to, size, shape, texture, material, layering, etc. (e.g. that can be added to and/or used to modify the article/object image), the script file created by developer/retailer includes a default value for each of the variables (e.g., default values based on average size/dimension in a population, or default values based upon size/dimensions information present in an acquired 3D image of subject's body or portion thereof), paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 10, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches all of the claimed invention (See Rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘211 discloses all of the claimed invention (Claim 9) except for: receiving topographical facial features of a face captured in a face scan; selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database; scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face; and creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask; and exporting the custom facial mask file to a 3D printable custom contoured facial mask file that is usable in a 3D printer.
However, Sisk, of the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem of customization with 3D printing, teaches 3D printed wearable articles and processes and methods of manufacturing the same (Abstract) including receiving topographical facial features of a face captured in a face scan (device is utilized to capture surface features of the subject, capture information related to a subject thereof like head, face, neck, paragraph 0024); selecting a selected facial mask pattern from a database (generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object selected from an article/object set, wearable object is selected and customized from a database of objects present within the creation tool, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); scaling the selected facial mask pattern to a size of the face (virtual image/model can be utilized to generate specific size and dimension information for a wearable article/object, virtual image is utilized to generate custom sizing information, paragraph 0033; respirator masks, paragraph 0019; the mask is a safety mask or respirator, paragraph 0035); and creating a custom facial mask file of the face mask (using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034); and exporting the custom facial mask file to a 3D printable custom contoured facial mask file that is usable in a 3D printer (using information generated from the virtual image (e.g., shape and sizing information), to create a wearable article/object in a first, virtual sense (e.g., using a computer and/or software a wearable article/object is virtually created) with subsequent transfer of article/object information to a printer (e.g., a 3D printer described herein) upon which the customized, wearable article/object is printed, paragraph 0034) to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these methods of generating a customized mask, as taught by Sisk, to provide a nearly perfect fitting mask for a specific, single individual (Sisk: paragraph 0003) and since 3D printing is a known manufacturing technique to provide customized wearable articles/objects (Sisk: paragraph 0034). This technique allows for the creation of customized, 3D printable masks that nearly perfectly fit a single individual which improves on the masks’ performance.
Claims 4-6 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/008,211 (reference application), hereafter ‘211, and Sisk (US 2016/0349738 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 3, and in further view of De Kruyff et al. (US 2015/0265794 A1), hereafter Kruyff. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited patent application and/or prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 4, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 3. ‘211-Sisk combination fails to teach the AM system is a powder bed fusion 3D printing system.
However, Kruyff, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a manufacturing method for a PAP mask (Abstract) including the AM system is a powder bed fusion 3D printing system (fabrication done using 3D printer, other suitable technologies include selective laser sintering (SLS), paragraph 0033; additive manufacturing technology comprises powder bed and inkjet head 3D printing, paragraphs 0052 and 0053) since these are known ways to fabricate a custom face mask (paragraphs 0033, 0052, and 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a powder bed 3D printing system, as taught by Kruyff, since these are known ways to fabricate a custom face mask (Kruyff: paragraphs 0033, 0052, and 0053). Powder bed 3D printing or SLS 3D printing is a well-known 3D printing system for creating custom objects. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take advantage of this process since it is one of many well-known ways to 3D print custom objects like masks.
Regarding Claim 5, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 1. ‘211-Sisk combination also teaches the 3D printer is able to mix materials while printing like rubber and print an object with two or more materials intertwined to change rigidity and/or elasticity of object (Sisk: paragraphs 0014; paragraph 0038, and paragraph 0039). ‘211-Sisk combination fails to explicitly teach providing a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour.
However, Kruyff, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a manufacturing method for a PAP mask (Abstract) including providing a seal adapted to receive a portion of the contour (additionally or as replacement of the resilience of the edge, a flange may be provided on the edge, which increases the contact area, as such, but additionally allows attaching an additional seal to the edge, seal may be made of resilient material and have sufficient width in order not to notch the face of the subject, paragraph 0080) to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (paragraph 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional seal along the contour edge of the 3D printed mask, as taught by Kruyff, to increase comfort for the subject and prevent mask air leakage (Kruyff: paragraph 0080). This improvement would improve the seal around the edges of the mask to prevent any leakage and increase comfort. It would also improve upon the facemask in which the edges of the facemask would not notch the face of the user.
Regarding Claim 6, ‘211-Sisk-Kruyff combination teaches the seal is a pliant seal (Kruyff: seal may be made of resilient material and have sufficient width in order not to notch the face of the subject, paragraph 0080).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘211-Sisk combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 1. ‘211-Sisk combination fails to explicitly teach the contour of the face mask is shaped to follow a contour of a human face extending around mouth and nose areas of a human.
However, Kruyff, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a manufacturing method for a PAP mask (Abstract) including the contour of the face mask is shaped to follow a contour of a human face extending around mouth and nose areas of a human (mask 205 shown to cover and mouth and nose areas of a human, Fig 3) since this is a known form of the face mask.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the face mask cover the nose and mouth of the user, as taught by Kruyff, since this is a known form of the face mask.
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 BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785