Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Claim 17 and dependents therein are supported by provisional 62/480059, and awarded an effective filing date of 03/31/2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “decoupling structure” in claims 35 - 37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 17 – 28 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eves (WO 2016149769).
17. Eves discloses a seal-forming structure (3100) for a patient interface (see [0223]), the seal-forming structure constructed and arranged to form a seal with a region of the patient's face surrounding an entrance to the patient's airways (see [0223]), the seal-forming structure constructed and arranged to maintain a therapeutic pressure of at least 6 cmH20 above ambient air pressure inside the seal-forming structure throughout the patient's respiratory cycle in use (see [0225], [0077]), the seal-forming structure being constructed from a soft, flexible, resilient material ([0229]), the seal-forming structure comprising an exterior surface and an interior surface opposite the exterior surface (see attachment 1 below, “Ext.” and “Int.”, respectively), the exterior surface including a patient-contacting region configured to engage and seal against the patient's facial skin (3105, see [0234]), wherein a posterior opening is formed in the seal-forming structure at the patient-contacting region such that during use a flow of air at said therapeutic pressure is directed through the posterior opening and into the patient's nares (see attachment 1, “Pos.”; see [0220]), wherein the seal-forming structure includes a support structure (3110) joined to an edge of the posterior opening (see attachment 1, “Edge”, where the edge defines the posterior opening as illustrated in Fig. 31c or Fig. 6, for example) and to the interior surface of the seal-forming structure such that an interior surface of the support structure and the interior surface of the seal-forming structure form a continuous loop (see attachment 1, interior surface of the support structure or “Int. Su.” at 3110 and the interior surface of the seal or “Int.” form a continuous loop; see also Fig. 31g), wherein the seal-forming structure is configured to leave the patient's mouth uncovered (see [0278], [0300 – 0301], see nasal mask embodiments in Figs. 31 - 33) and wherein a superior portion (see attachment 2 of Fig. 31c, demarking the superior and inferior portions of the nasal mask as considered by the examiner) of the seal-forming structure is structured to engage the patient's nose inferior to the patient's nasal bone (the superior portion “Sup.” as indicated below engages the patient’s nose at the alar via the support structure 3110, see [0245]; the alar is inferior to the patient’s nasal bone).
Attachment 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
421
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Attachment 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
376
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
18. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein an anterior opening is formed opposite the posterior opening on a non-patient contacting region of the exterior surface (see attachment 1 above, “Ant”, as well as Fig. 31g, 3190).
19. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the support structure has a length in an undeformed state that is greater than a linear distance from a first location where the support structure is joined to the edge of the posterior opening to a second location where the support structure is joined to the interior surface of the seal-forming structure (support structure forms a curved loop that would travel a greater distance than a straight line from point “edge” to “Int”, as illustrated in attachment 1 above).
20. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 19, wherein, in the undeformed state, the support structure is curved between the first location and the second location (see curving in attachment 1).
21. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 19, wherein the support structure has an increased thickness adjacent the first location and/or the second location (see increased thickness where the support structure meets the second location, as illustrated by the flared out section in Figs. 7, 8a and 32D).
22. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the support structure is configured to be positioned adjacent to or in contact with the patient's columella during use (examiner considers the support structure adjacent to the patient’s columella since it contacts the adjacent alar).
23. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the support structure has a different thickness than the patient-contacting region (see Fig. 32c).
24. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the support structure is thicker than the patient-contacting region (the support structure is preferably made 0.5 mm thick, see [0242], which is thicker than the patient contact region where made thin to 0.3 mm, see general teaching in [0267 - 0269]).
25. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the support structure does not extend completely across the posterior opening (see Fig. 31c).
26. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the seal-forming structure at least partly forms a gas chamber, and wherein in an undeformed state the support structure extends into the gas chamber (see gas chamber formed by Fig. 32c and support extending into it)).
27. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the support structure has a variable thickness in a longitudinal direction (see for example Fig. 32d, in which the support structure is thin at portion “edge”, then flares up in thickness where it contacts the interior surface).
28. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein, in an undeformed state, a portion of the support structure is curved away from the patient's nose (support structure curves away from the patient’s nose via it’s underside).
33. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, wherein the superior portion of the seal-forming structure is structured to engage the patient's nose inferior to the patient's pronasale (examiner considers the seal-forming structure to be fully capable of engaging the patient’s nose inferior to the patient’s pronasale, since the alar is located below the pronasale, especially in the case of an upturned nose; see evidencing reference provided from “Atlas of Lip and Nose Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery”, pp. 17 – 18 .)
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.
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eves in view of Von Moger (US 20150151071).
29. Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an inferior portion of the seal-forming structure is structured to engage the patient's lip superior such that the seal-forming structure does not extend beyond the lip superior to the patient's upper vermilion. Von Moger discloses a nasal mask wherein an inferior portion of the seal-forming structure is structured to engage the patient's lip superior such that the seal-forming structure does not extend beyond the lip superior to the patient's upper vermilion (see Fig. 3 – 33, [0304]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the nasal seal of Eves according to the top lip placement of Von Moger to ensure adequate sealing of the nasal mask without interfering with the mouth.
30. The modified Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 29, but does not disclose further comprising an undercushion that supports the patient-contacting region, as modified. However, Von Moger additionally discloses an undercushion that supports the patient-contacting region, see [0308], Fig. 3 – 22, 3- 23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seal of Eves according to the undercushion of Von Moger for the benefit of enhancing seal along the top lip region while retaining comfort in the nose ridge region and sides of the nose, see [0308].
31. The modified Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 30, wherein the inferior portion of the seal-forming structure includes the undercushion and the superior portion of the seal-forming structure does not include the undercushion (see Von Moger, [0308], Figs. 3-22 – 3-23).
32. The modified Eves discloses the seal-forming structure of claim 31, wherein the undercushion is structured to only support the patient-contacting region against the patient's lip superior (see Von Moger, [0308], Figs. 3-22 – 3-23).
Claim(s) 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eves in view of Veliss (US 20100018534)
34. Eves discloses a patient interface comprising: a plenum chamber pressurisable to the therapeutic pressure (3200; see 0220 – 0222]), said plenum chamber including a plenum chamber inlet port sized and structured to receive the flow of air at the therapeutic pressure for breathing by a patient (3600), the seal-forming structure of claim 17 (see claim 17 above); and a vent system comprising a plurality of holes configured to allow a continuous flow of gases exhaled by the patient from an interior of the plenum chamber to ambient, said vent system being sized and shaped to maintain the therapeutic pressure in the plenum chamber in use (3400, see [0220]).
However, with respect to the nasal mask, Eves does not explicitly disclose a positioning and stabilising structure to provide a force to hold the seal-forming structure in a therapeutically effective position on the patient's head, the positioning and stabilising structure comprising a tie, the tie being constructed and arranged so that at least a portion overlies a region of the patient's head superior to an otobasion superior of the patient's head in use. Veliss discloses a nasal mask, see [0119], including a positioning and stabilising structure (see Fig. 6-4, 42 and 60) to provide a force to hold the seal-forming structure in a therapeutically effective position on the patient's head, the positioning and stabilising structure comprising a tie, the tie being constructed and arranged so that at least a portion overlies a region of the patient's head superior to an otobasion superior of the patient's head in use (see Fig. 6-4, tie 60 is over the ear). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seal forming structure of Eves according to the positioning and stabilizing structure of Veliss for the benefit of sleek, elegant, comfortable design.
35. The modified Eves discloses the patient interface of claim 34, wherein the plenum chamber comprises a first plenum chamber inlet port and a second plenum chamber inlet port (see Veliss, Fig. 2-1, ports 25), wherein the positioning and stabilising structure comprises a pair of conduits, each of the conduits configured to be positioned on a corresponding lateral side of the patient's head in use (see conduits 42, Fig. 1 – 15), each of the conduits being fluidly connected to a corresponding one of the first plenum chamber inlet port and the second plenum chamber inlet port (via 42.2, see Fig. 2-2), and wherein a decoupling structure is fluidly connected to each of the conduits (70, see Fig. 1 – 7), the decoupling structure being configured to be connected to an air circuit to receive the flow of air at the therapeutic pressure (T1).
36. The modified Eves discloses the patient interface of claim 35, wherein the tie is connected to each of the conduits (see Veliss, Fig. 1 – 6).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eves in view of Veliss in view of Von Moger (US 20150151071).
37. The modified Eves discloses the patient interface of claim 35, wherein the vent system comprises a first vent hole formed in the plenum chamber (see Eves, 3400, as well as Veliss, [0402]), but does not disclose a second vent hole formed in the decoupling structure. Von Moger discloses a vent hole 3400 formed in decoupling structure 120, [0358]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the decoupling structure of Eves in view of Veliss with the decoupling vent of Von Moger for the benefit of ensuring washout for exhaled gases throughout the patient interface.
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 17 – 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11628266 (hereinafter ‘266) in view of Eves (WO 2016149769).
USPN ‘266 discloses a seal-forming structure for a patient interface, the seal-forming structure constructed and arranged to form a seal with a region of the patient's face surrounding an entrance to the patient's airways, the seal-forming structure constructed and arranged to maintain a therapeutic pressure of at least 6 cmH20 above ambient air pressure inside the seal-forming structure throughout the patient's respiratory cycle in use (see claim 1, c. 43: 60 – 66), the seal forming structure comprising an exterior surface and an interior surface opposite the exterior surface (see claim 1, c. 44: 3 – 4 and 10 – 11, wherein the patient contact surface must be exterior in order to contact the patient), wherein a posterior opening is formed in the seal-forming structure at the patient-contacting region such that during use a flow of air at said therapeutic pressure is directed through the posterior opening and into the patient's nares (c. 44: 5 – 8), wherein the seal-forming structure is configured to leave the patient's mouth uncovered (c. 44: 17 – 18), and wherein a superior portion of the seal-forming structure is structured to engage the patient's nose inferior to the patient's nasal bone (c. 44: 19 – 21).
While ‘266 discloses a support structure extending from a first location on the patient-contacting surface to a second location on the interior surface of the seal forming structure, the support structure and the interior surface forming a continuous loop (c. 44: 9 – 13), ‘266 does not explicitly disclose the support structure joined to an edge of the posterior opening and to the interior surface of the seal-forming structure such that an interior surface of the support structure and the interior surface of the seal-forming structure form a continuous loop, the seal-forming structure being constructed from a soft, flexible, resilient material. Nonetheless, Eves discloses the support structure joined to an edge of the posterior opening and to the interior surface of the seal-forming structure such that an interior surface of the support structure and the interior surface of the seal-forming structure form a continuous loop (see attachment 1 in claim 17 above, “Int.” and “Int. Su.” forming the continuous loop), the seal-forming structure being constructed from a soft, flexible, resilient material ([0229]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the loop of ‘266 according to the construction/material of Eves for the benefit of preventing blowout, see [0238].
Dependent claims 18 – 33 are rejected over claims 2 – 18 as found in ‘ 266.
Claims 17 – 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11413417 (hereinafter ‘417) in view of Eves (WO 2016149769).
USPN ‘417 discloses a seal-forming structure for a patient interface, the seal-forming structure constructed and arranged to form a seal with a region of the patient's face surrounding an entrance to the patient's airways, the seal-forming structure constructed and arranged to maintain a therapeutic pressure of at least 6 cmH20 above ambient air pressure inside the seal-forming structure throughout the patient's respiratory cycle in use (see claim 1, c. 44: 45 – 55), the seal forming structure comprising an exterior surface and an interior surface opposite the exterior surface (see claim 1, c. 45: 6-8 and 13-14, wherein the patient contact surface must be exterior in order to contact the patient), wherein a posterior opening is formed in the seal-forming structure at the patient-contacting region such that during use a flow of air at said therapeutic pressure is directed through the posterior opening and into the patient's nares (c. 45: 7-10), wherein the seal-forming structure is configured to leave the patient's mouth uncovered (c. 45: 4 - 5), and wherein a superior portion of the seal-forming structure is structured to engage the patient's nose inferior to the patient's nasal bone (c. 45: 17 – 19).
While ‘417 discloses a support structure extending from a first location on the patient-contacting surface to a second location on the interior surface of the seal forming structure, the support structure and the interior surface forming a continuous loop (c. 45: 12-16), ‘417 does not explicitly disclose the support structure joined to an edge of the posterior opening and to the interior surface of the seal-forming structure such that an interior surface of the support structure and the interior surface of the seal-forming structure form a continuous loop, the seal-forming structure being constructed from a soft, flexible, resilient material. Nonetheless, Eves discloses the support structure joined to an edge of the posterior opening and to the interior surface of the seal-forming structure such that an interior surface of the support structure and the interior surface of the seal-forming structure form a continuous loop (see attachment 1 in claim 17 above, “Int.” and “Int. Su.” forming the continuous loop), the seal-forming structure being constructed from a soft, flexible, resilient material ([0229]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the loop of ‘266 according to the construction/material of Eves for the benefit of preventing blowout, see [0238].
Dependent claims 18 – 34 are rejected over claims 1 – 18 as found in ‘417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 would be allowable if amended to delete the “adjacent to” clause, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, along with overcoming the double patenting rejection, e.g. filing of terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stephenson (US 20150328421) discloses a continuous loop in Fig. 18, providing compression against the nasal bone, see [0083]. Examiner notes it would not have been obvious to modify the mask according to a nasal mask that compresses the nose inferior to the nasal bone, as such modification could at least partially occlude the patient’s airway. See for example, Von Moger, [0308].
Galgali (WO 2017042717) discloses a tethered nasal mask, see 46c, but the tether does not form a continuous loop.
Chodkowski (US 20140366886) discloses a nasal mask contacting the patient’s columella, see Fig. 8, but does not disclose the support structure forming the continuous loop as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H PHILIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-5180. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799