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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings lack durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined lines (Figs 1 and 10). See 37 CFR 1.84(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “one way inhalation valve” should be changed to –inhalation one-way valve—for consistency (Claim 24, Lines 2-3).
The phrase “one way exhalation valve” should be changed to –exhalation one-way valve—for consistency (Claim 26, Line 3).
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 4, 12, 20, and 23 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 4 states “a portion of orally exhaled airflow incident” (Line 2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the orally exhaled airflow incident is the same as the exhalation airflow mentioned in Claim 1. It appears the applicant was trying to say they’re the same. However, it is possible there are different airflows involved. Therefore, the number of airflows involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as a portion of the exhalation airflow.
Claim 12 states “the plurality of vanes” (Line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say “a plurality of vanes”. However, since this is the first time this is mentioned, it is unclear what it is referring back to. Therefore, the identity of the term cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a plurality of vanes”.
Claim 20 states “the tangential membrane filter” (Line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say “a tangential membrane filter”. However, since this is the first time this is mentioned, it is unclear what it is referring back to. Therefore, the identity of the term cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a tangential membrane filter”.
Claim 23 states “the filter tray” (Line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say “a filter tray”. However, since this is the first time this is mentioned, it is unclear what it is referring back to. Therefore, the identity of the term cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a filter tray”.
Claim 23 states “the first and second portions of the filter tray” (Line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say “a first portion and the second portion of the filter tray”. However, since this is the first time this is mentioned, it is unclear what it is referring back to. Therefore, the identity of the term cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a first portion and the second portion of the filter tray”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad (US 2021/0274861 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Conrad discloses an air filtration mask (apparatus of Figs 95-100), comprising: a housing (14, Fig 98) configured to be worn over at least a portion of a face of a user (14 shown to be worn over at least a portion of the user’s face, Fig 97); an inhalation airflow channel (132, Fig 100) formed within the housing and configured to receive an inhalation airflow (132 receives inhalation, paragraph 0432); an exhalation airflow channel (134, Fig 100) formed within the housing and downstream of the inhalation airflow channel (134 is downstream from 132 in relation to the airflow, Fig 100), configured to receive an exhalation airflow that is different from the inhalation airflow (134 receives exhalation, paragraph 0432); an inhalation filter structure (116 and/or 118 inside of 132, Fig 100; 116 and 118 are filter media, paragraph 0432) in fluid communication with the inhalation airflow channel to allow the inhalation airflow to pass therethrough (116 and 118 inside of 132 allows inhalation to pass through, Fig 100), the inhalation filter structure configured to yield a filtered inhalation airflow (when user inhales, air passes through 116 and 118, paragraph 0432); and an exhalation filter structure (116 and/or 118 inside of 134, Fig 100; 116 and 118 are filter media, paragraph 0432) in fluid communication with the exhalation airflow channel to allow the exhalation airflow to pass therethrough (116 and 118 inside of 134 allows exhalation to pass through, Fig 100), the exhalation filter structure configured to yield a filtered exhalation airflow (when user exhales, air flows through 116 and 118, paragraph 0432).
Regarding Claim 5, Conrad discloses the inhalation filter structure comprises a transmissive inhalation filter (when user inhales, air passes through 116 and 118, paragraph 0432).
Regarding Claim 7, Conrad discloses the transmissive inhalation filter is formed from a solid porous structure (filter media may be any porous filter media, filter material may be referred to as biological filter media 116, paragraph 0369; may comprise a foam filter 118 (open or closed cell foam), paragraph 0371).
Regarding Claim 15, Conrad discloses a secondary exhalation filter (118 inside of 134, Fig 100) in fluid communication with the exhalation airflow channel and downstream from the exhalation filter structure (118 inside of 134 is within 134 and downstream from 116 inside of 134, Fig 100).
Regarding Claim 16, Conrad discloses the secondary exhalation filter comprises a transmissive exhalation filter (when user exhales, air flows through 116 and 118, paragraph 0432).
Regarding Claim 18, Conrad discloses the transmissive exhalation filter is formed from a solid porous structure (may comprise a foam filter 118 (open or closed cell foam), paragraph 0371).
Regarding Claim 19, Conrad discloses a filter tray configured for removable attachment to the housing (filter cartridge 194, FIGS. 72-120 exemplify additional embodiments wherein, the filter cartridge 194 may include one or more filters, which may be removably receivable in the filter assembly 14 of the filter mask 10 by itself or as part of a filter housing 54, as exemplified in, FIGS. 72-100, the filter cartridge 194 includes a foam filter 118 and a biological filter 116, paragraph 0400; the filter cartridge is a filter tray since it is rectangular and holds the filters).
Regarding Claim 21, Conrad discloses a transmissive inhalation pre-filter (118 inside of 132, Fig 100) in fluid communication with the inhalation airflow channel and upstream from the inhalation filter structure (118 inside of 132 is within 132 and upstream from 116 inside of 132, Fig 100).
Regarding Claim 22, Conrad discloses the transmissive inhalation pre-filter is formed from a solid porous structure (may comprise a foam filter 118 (open or closed cell foam), paragraph 0371).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-4, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2021/0274861 A1) alone.
Regarding Claim 2, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. The current embodiment of Conrad fails to disclose a shield attached to the housing and configured to cover at least a portion of a mouth of the user when the housing is worn over at least a portion of the face of the user.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad (apparatus of Figs 102-104) teaches a shield (13, Figs 102-104) attached to the housing (13 is attached to 12 and 14, Figs 102-104) and configured to cover at least a portion of a mouth of the user when the housing is worn over at least a portion of the face of the user (13 covers mouth of user when worn, Figs 102-104) to increase ease of communication with others wearing the mask (paragraph 0309).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a portion of the mask body to be transparent, as taught by Conrad, to increase ease of communication with others wearing the mask (Conrad: paragraph 0309).
Regarding Claim 3, Conrad teaches the shield is transparent (13 is a transparent portion, paragraph 0309).
Regarding Claim 4, Conrad teaches a shape of the shield is configured to redirect at least a portion of orally exhaled airflow incident thereon back towards the user (since 13 is in front of the user’s mouth, some of the exhaled airflow would obviously bounce off the inside of 13 and back to the user, Figs 102-104).
Regarding Claim 23, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 21. Conrad also discloses the filter tray (filter cartridge 194, FIGS. 72-120 exemplify additional embodiments wherein, the filter cartridge 194 may include one or more filters, which may be removably receivable in the filter assembly 14 of the filter mask 10 by itself or as part of a filter housing 54, as exemplified in, FIGS. 72-100, the filter cartridge 194 includes a foam filter 118 and a biological filter 116, paragraph 0400; the filter cartridge is a filter tray since it is rectangular and holds the filters) comprises a second portion (portion of cartridge 194 that encloses or surrounds 118 and 116 inside of 132, Fig 100) configured to receive the inhalation pre-filter (118 inside of 132 is enclosed or surrounded by a portion of cartridge 194, Fig 100).
The current embodiment of Conrad fails to disclose wherein the first and second portions of the filter tray are not in fluid communication with one another.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad teaches the first (portion of cartridge that is part of the outlet passage, paragraph 0473) and second portions (portion of cartridge that is part of the inlet passage, paragraph 0473) of the filter tray are not in fluid communication with one another (an inlet port may be provided that is optionally closed by a valve (e.g., a flexible diaphragm) and which opens when a person inhales and an outlet port may be provided that is optionally closed by a valve (e.g., a flexible diaphragm) and which opens when a person exhales, paragraph 0469; the inlet passage and/or the outlet passage may be provided with a valve 170, 172 to close the passage, inlet closure valve 170 may be configured to close automatically during exhalation and/or to automatically open upon inhalation, paragraph 0473; Outlet closure valve 172 may be configured to close automatically during inhalation and/or to automatically open upon exhalation, paragraph 0474; Figs 38-41 show valves 172 and 170 controlling the flow of air and blocking fluid communication between inlet and outlet passages during inhalation and exhalation) to ensure a more controlled flow pattern and prevent backward flow (paragraph 0473).
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 one-way valves within both the inhalation and exhalation passages, as taught by Conrad, to ensure a more controlled flow pattern and prevent backward flow (Conrad: paragraph 0473). This allows for more controlled flow when the user inhales and exhales which would function well in conjunction with the two fans 130a and 130b of Conrad that assist with inhalation and exhalation.
Regarding Claim 24, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. The current embodiment of Conrad fails to disclose an inhalation one-way valve in fluid communication with the inhalation airflow channel, the one way inhalation valve configured to permit downstream flow of the inhalation airflow therethrough and configured to inhibit upstream flow of the inhalation airflow therethrough.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad teaches an inhalation one-way valve in fluid communication with the inhalation airflow channel, the one way inhalation valve configured to permit downstream flow of the inhalation airflow therethrough and configured to inhibit upstream flow of the inhalation airflow therethrough (an inlet port may be provided that is optionally closed by a valve (e.g., a flexible diaphragm) and which opens when a person inhales and an outlet port may be provided that is optionally closed by a valve (e.g., a flexible diaphragm) and which opens when a person exhales, paragraph 0469; the inlet passage and/or the outlet passage may be provided with a valve 170, 172 to close the passage, inlet closure valve 170 may be configured to close automatically during exhalation and/or to automatically open upon inhalation, paragraph 0473; Figs 38-41 show valves 172 and 170 controlling the flow of air and blocking fluid communication between inlet and outlet passages during inhalation and exhalation) to ensure a more controlled flow pattern and prevent backward flow (paragraph 0473).
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 one-way valves within both the inhalation and exhalation passages, as taught by Conrad, to ensure a more controlled flow pattern and prevent backward flow (Conrad: paragraph 0473). This allows for more controlled flow when the user inhales and exhales which would function well in conjunction with the two fans 130a and 130b of Conrad that assist with inhalation and exhalation.
Regarding Claim 26, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. The current embodiment of Conrad fails to disclose an exhalation one-way valve in fluid communication with the exhalation airflow channel and downstream from the exhalation filter structure, wherein the one way exhalation valve is configured to permit downstream airflow therethrough and configured to inhibit upstream airflow therethrough.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad teaches an exhalation one-way valve in fluid communication with the exhalation airflow channel and downstream from the exhalation filter structure, wherein the one way exhalation valve is configured to permit downstream airflow therethrough and configured to inhibit upstream airflow therethrough (an inlet port may be provided that is optionally closed by a valve (e.g., a flexible diaphragm) and which opens when a person inhales and an outlet port may be provided that is optionally closed by a valve (e.g., a flexible diaphragm) and which opens when a person exhales, paragraph 0469; the inlet passage and/or the outlet passage may be provided with a valve 170, 172 to close the passage, paragraph 0473; Outlet closure valve 172 may be configured to close automatically during inhalation and/or to automatically open upon exhalation, paragraph 0474; Figs 38-41 show valves 172 and 170 controlling the flow of air and blocking fluid communication between inlet and outlet passages during inhalation and exhalation) to ensure a more controlled flow pattern and prevent backward flow (paragraph 0473).
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 one-way valves within both the inhalation and exhalation passages, as taught by Conrad, to ensure a more controlled flow pattern and prevent backward flow (Conrad: paragraph 0473). This allows for more controlled flow when the user inhales and exhales which would function well in conjunction with the two fans 130a and 130b of Conrad that assist with inhalation and exhalation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2021/0274861 A1) in view of Atri (US 2021/0368885 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Conrad fails to disclose the exhalation filter structure comprises a plurality of vanes.
However, Atri, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a protective covering (Abstract) including the exhalation filter structure comprises a plurality of vanes (louvers or vanes 308 of the relief vent 302 help reduce or eliminate the likelihood of damage to a filter 314 disposed in the relief vent 302, paragraph 0054) to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of damage to the filter (paragraph 0054).
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 vanes below the filter parts of the device, as taught by Atri, to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of damage to the filter (Atri: paragraph 0054).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2021/0274861 A1) in view of Long et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107349536-B provided by PE2E).
Regarding Claim 11, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Conrad also discloses the exhalation filter structure further comprises a tangential filter (116 inside of 134 is tangential to the opening of 148 or tangential to 118 inside of 134, Fig 100). Conrad also discloses the filter can prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material and can inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses (paragraph 0369). It is noted that Applicant has not further defined what the filter is tangential to.
Conrad fails to disclose a membrane filter.
However, Long, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an intelligent mask (Abstract) including a membrane filter (mask uses nano-fibrous membrane loaded with nano-silver particles, bottom paragraph, Page 3) since this is a known type of filter that has good antibacterial effects (bottom paragraph, Page 3).
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 biological filter 116 of Conrad to be a membrane biological filter with nano-silver particles, as taught by Long, since this is a known type of filter that has good antibacterial effects (Long: bottom paragraph, Page 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 19. Conrad also discloses the filter tray comprises a first portion (portion of cartridge 194 that encloses or surrounds 118 and 116 inside of 134, Fig 100) configured to receive the tangential filter (116 inside of 134 is tangential to the opening of 148 or tangential to 118 inside of 134, Fig 100). Conrad also discloses the filter can prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material and can inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses (paragraph 0369). It is noted that Applicant has not further defined what the filter is tangential to.
Conrad fails to disclose a membrane filter.
However, Long, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an intelligent mask (Abstract) including a membrane filter (mask uses nano-fibrous membrane loaded with nano-silver particles, bottom paragraph, Page 3) since this is a known type of filter that has good antibacterial effects (bottom paragraph, Page 3).
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 biological filter 116 of Conrad to be a membrane biological filter with nano-silver particles, as taught by Long, since this is a known type of filter that has good antibacterial effects (Long: bottom paragraph, Page 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2021/0274861 A1) and Long et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107349536-B provided by PE2E) as applied to Claim 11, and in further view of Atri (US 2021/0368885 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Conrad-Long combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 11. Conrad-Long combination fails to teach the tangential membrane filter is in fluid communication with the plurality of vanes.
However, Atri, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a protective covering (Abstract) including the filter is in fluid communication with a plurality of vanes (louvers or vanes 308 of the relief vent 302 help reduce or eliminate the likelihood of damage to a filter 314 disposed in the relief vent 302, paragraph 0054) to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of damage to the filter (paragraph 0054).
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 vanes below the filter parts of the device, as taught by Atri, to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of damage to the filter (Atri: paragraph 0054).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 2021/0274861 A1) and Long et al. (English Machine Translation of CN-107349536-B provided by PE2E) as applied to Claim 11, and in further view of Yamada (US 2017/0367416 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Conrad-Long combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 11. Conrad-Long combination also teaches the tangential membrane filter comprises: a second layer comprising a semi-permeable bioactive membrane (Conrad: the filter can prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material and can inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses, paragraph 0369; mask uses nano-fibrous membrane loaded with nano-silver particles, bottom paragraph, Page 3; filter is a semi-permeable since it traps or inhibits flow of bacteria and/or viruses; filter is bioactive since it utilizes nano particles that actively attack biological material like bacteria and/or viruses). It is noted that Applicant admits in the instant specification that the bioactive membrane is one that contains a biocide like nanosilver (Specification: paragraph 0059). The current Conrad-Long combination fails to teach a first layer configured to capture water droplets from the exhalation airflow; and a third layer configured to allow evaporation of the captured water droplets therefrom.
However, Conrad further teaches an alternate embodiment that has a first layer configured to capture water droplets from the exhalation airflow (foam filter 118 (open or closed cell foam) and an inner felt filter 120 on each side of biological filter media 116, foam and felt filters protect the biological filter media 116 by inhibiting moisture droplets and particulate contaminants passing therethrough to the biological filter media 116, paragraph 0371) to inhibit moisture droplets from passing through the biological filter media (paragraph 0371).
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 foam or felt filter on top of the existing biological filter 116 of Conrad within the exhalation passage 134, as taught by Conrad, to inhibit moisture droplets from passing through the biological filter media (Conrad: paragraph 0371). This addition would help to protect the biological filter media from both sides from moisture coming from the exhaled breath of the user.
Conrad-Long combination fails to teach a third layer configured to allow evaporation of the captured water droplets therefrom.
However, Yamada, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a deodorizing filter (Abstract) including a layer (a deodorizing fiber layer, a fiber and a chemisorption-type deodorizer ware bonded together with a binder (a binding agent) such as an emulsion, examples of a binder include poly(vinyl acetate), paragraph 0050) configured to allow evaporation of the captured water droplets therefrom (poly(vinyl acetate), paragraph 0050; polyvinyl acetate is a known material capable of allowing the evaporation of water droplets) to provide a filter with superior deodorizing performance with respect to an unpleasant malodorous gas (paragraph 0009). It is noted that Applicant admits in the instant specification that polyvinyl acetate is capable of promoting evaporation (Specification: paragraph 0062).
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 deodorizing layer containing polyvinyl acetate at the bottom of the exhalation passage 134 of Conrad, as taught by Yamada, to provide a filter with superior deodorizing performance with respect to an unpleasant malodorous gas (Yamada: paragraph 0009). This would be particularly useful in removing odors that come from an exhaled breath of the user, ensuring that the exhaled air that comes out of the device is filtered and odorless.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US-20100108071-A1 discusses an apparatus for personal air filtering that filters air for the nose with built-in valves.
US-20220193462-A1 discusses a face mask with walls separating the nose area from the mouth area.
US-20230310908-A1 discusses a mask with walls between upper and lower parts of the mask.
English Machine Translation of WO-2021179454-A1 provided by PE2E discusses a nasal mask with a mouth shield and a filter for the nose.
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
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785