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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 7/8/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, and 23 have been amended and no claims have been added nor cancelled. As such, claims 1-23 are pending in the instant application.
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 1-23 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.
The term “substantially encircles” in claim 1 line 17 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially encircled’.
The term “substantially encircles” in claim 14 line 17 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially encircled’.
Claims 2-13 and 15-23 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya et al. (2021/0022418) in view of Tuan et al. (2021/0321687).
Regarding claim 1, Furuya discloses a respirator for filtering respirated air by covering a nose area to a jaw area of a user (see Fig. 1-8 and abstract, para. 0047, 0049) including a mask body (see Fig. 1-8, mask body 20, para. 0029) having a front mouth panel having a front panel outer portion extending from an upper mouth panel edge to a lower chin edge and a front panel fold portion extending from the upper mouth panel edge, the front panel fold portion located behind the front panel outer portion (see Fig. 7, juncture 61 separating front mouth panel and upper nose panel, front mouth panel being portion from below 61A from an upper edge to a lower chin edge at 20b, front panel outer portion being the outer surface in Fig. 7 opposite the user/wearer, front panel fold portion 61A, see para. 0077); and an upper nose panel having an upper nose panel fold portion and an upper nose panel free portion (see Fig. 7, portion from 61B and above defining the upper nose panel, the portion 61B being the fold portion with the upper portion towards upper mask edge 20a being the upper nose panel free portion, see para. 0077), the upper nose panel fold portion extending from the front panel fold portion and underlying the front mouth panel, and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly from the upper nose panel fold portion to an upper mask edge, the upper nose panel free portion located above the front mouth panel (see Fig. 7 which shows upper nose panel fold portion 61B underlying front mouth panel and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly therefrom to upper mask edge 20a and located above the front mouth panel, i.e. portion below 61A), a juncture of the upper nose panel fold portion and the front panel fold portion being a movable fold (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 in that the user can move their head/body and thus fold 61 is movable, a user opening their mouth also would provide unfolding action of this fold while maintaining its positioning over the user’s mouth and nose, thus the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel via the movable fold 61); the movable fold being upwardly movable between a closed mouth position and an open mouth position, an edge spacing between the upper mask edge and the upper mouth panel edge being greater in the open mouth position than in the closed mouth position (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel where the edge spacing between upper mask edge and upper mouth panel edge greater when the user’s mouth is open vs. closed). Furuya is silent as to the mask including a facial attachment seal that substantially encircles a complete perimeter of the mask body; however, Tuan teaches a similar folded-type respirator mask which includes a facial attachment seal that substantially encircles a complete perimeter of the mask body (see Tuan Fig. 16 showing folded and unfolded configurations with facial attachment seal substantially encircling complete perimeter of the mask body; see Fig. 11 with facial attachment seal 140 labeled, see para. 0025, abstract, and para. 0034, 0042, 0044, and 0006 for example). Thus 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 Furuya device to include a facial attachment seal that substantially encircles an entire perimeter of the mask body, as taught by Tuan, in order to provide an improved sealing attachment of the mask to the user and which can substitute for straps (see Tuan abstract and para. 0025 and 0044 for example).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Furuya device is such that at a horizontal center of the mask body, the front panel outer portion, upper nose panel free portion, front panel fold portion, and upper nose panel fold portion each have a height such that in the closed mouth position a fold ratio exists as claimed (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7 for example, above discussion regarding the open and closed mouth positions), but is silent as to the ratio being in the range of 0.4 to 0.65; however, this would have been obvious relative dimensional values to choose to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide desired shape of the respirator with regards to the user’s facial features and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Furuya device is such that the front panel outer portion, upper nose panel free portion, front panel fold portion , upper nose panel fold portion each have surface areas and an interior fold surface area and exterior mask body surface area (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7 for example, above discussion regarding the open and closed mouth positions), but is silent as to the a ratio between the inner and exterior surface areas being in the range of 0.4 to 0.65; however, however, this would have been obvious relative dimensional values to choose to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide desired shape of the respirator with regards to the user’s facial features and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Furuya device’s movable fold is a rounded fold (see Furuya Fig. 7 which shows movable fold 61 being rounded).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Furuya device is such that a location of the rounded fold moves when the mask body moves between the open mouth position and the closed mouth position (see Furuya Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing a moving location of the fold 61).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel and the upper nose panel are integrally formed (see Furuya Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Tuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Facer et al. (2008/0271739) (hereinafter Facer ‘739).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel further includes laterally spaced apart first and second rear edges each having an upper portion and a lower portion (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7, the lateral left/right sides of the mask at the front mouth panel portion described with respect to Fig. 7 noted above, being first and second rear edges with upper and lower portions), but is silent as to including a tab projecting rearwardly from the mask edges; however, Facer ‘739 teaches a similar device which includes lateral/rear portions with tabs projecting rearwardly therefrom (see Facer ‘739 Fig. 1, 2, and 4, tabs 22 and 24, para. 0046). Thus 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 Furuya device to include the tabs, as taught by Facer ‘739, in order to provide lateral securement structure for the user wearing the mask.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Furuya device’s tabs are located rearward of the facial attachment seal (see Furuya Fig. 1, seal of Tuan provided to the perimeter edge, modified by Facer Fig. 1-2 and 4 for example, to include rearward extending tabs such that the tabs also are located rearward of the seal).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Tuan, and Facer ‘739 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Duffy (2014/0182593).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Furuya device discloses first and second straps (see Furuya Fig. 1, straps 30, para. 0029), but is silent as to the first and second straps being attached to the mask body above and below the tabs of each rear edge; however, Duffy discloses a similar device with upper and lower straps and which includes different strap attachment locations, i.e. off of a tab (see Duffy Fig. 1 and 6, straps 26 and 27, one of which is located off of tabs 30a and 30b). Thus 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 modified Furuya device’s straps to be the upper and lower type straps and to have attachment locations off of the tab, as taught by Duffy, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/configuration for another and one would expect the modified Furuya device to perform equally as well and also would have been obvious rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Tuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Facer et al. (9,770,611).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Furuya device is silent as to the front mouth panel including at least three layers including an interior layer with a higher stiffness than at least two other layers to increase the stiffness of the front mouth panel; however, Facer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Facer col. 7 ln. 1-40, Fig. 9a and 9b, interior stiffening layer 48). Thus 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 modified Furuya device to include at least three layers including an interior stiffening layer, as taught by Facer, in order to provide support for the filter mask with respect to the user’s face (Facer col. 7 ln. 18-31). The modified Furuya device discloses the stiffening layer can be made from a variety of different materials, and thus having different material properties/stiffness properties (see Facer col. 7 ln. 32-40) and 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 modified Furuya device’ stiffening layer to be such that it increases the stiffness of the front mouth panel by greater than 1000% to provide desired level of support/stiffness and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel includes a mouth portion and a chin portion and the interior layer with higher stiffness is positioned exclusively in the mouth portion (see Furuya Fig. 7 and above explanation of the front mouth panel, a chin portion being the lower portion thereof, such as from below portion 63A, see Facer col. 7 ln. 18-31 which discloses providing stiffening layer exclusively at a mouth panel/portion).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Tuan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bayer (5,735,270).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Furuya device discloses a facial attachment seal (Tuan Fig. 16, Fig. 11 with facial attachment seal 140 labeled, see para. 0025, abstract, and para. 0034, 0042, 0044, and 0006 for example), but is silent as to including a facial attachment seal having a contour layer and an adhesive layer; however, Bayer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Bayer Fig. 9A-C, col. 3 ln. 25-38 and col. 7 ln. 40-56, facial attachment seal 424, contour layer 426 and adhesive layer 430). Thus 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 modified Furuya device to include a contour layer and adhesive layer type of facial attachment seal, as taught by Bayer, in order to improve sealing attachment of the respirator mask to the user’s face (see Bayer col. 3 ln. 25-38) and this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another (i.e. type of attachment seal).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Tuan, and Bayer as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Loughran (2020/0121004).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Furuya device’s contour layer includes foam (see Bayer col. 7 ln. 44-56), but is silent as to the foam being at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam; however, Loughran discloses a similar device which includes a foam seal being at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam (see Loughran para. 0043 and 0045, Fig. 1-2). Thus 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 modified Furuya device’s foam layer to be at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam, as taught by Loughran, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/material for another and one would expect the modified Furuya device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 14-15, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya in view of Tuan and Facer et al. (9,770,611).
Regarding claim 14, Furuya discloses a respirator for filtering respirated air by covering a nose area to a jaw area of a user (see Fig. 1-8 and abstract, para. 0047, 0049) including a mask body (see Fig. 1-8, mask body 20, para. 0029) having a front mouth panel having a front panel outer portion extending from an upper mouth panel edge to a lower chin edge and a front panel fold portion extending from the upper mouth panel edge, the front panel fold portion located behind the front panel outer portion (see Fig. 7, juncture 61 separating front mouth panel and upper nose panel, front mouth panel being portion from below 61A from an upper edge to a lower chin edge at 20b, front panel outer portion being the outer surface in Fig. 7 opposite the user/wearer, front panel fold portion 61A, see para. 0077); and an upper nose panel having an upper nose panel fold portion and an upper nose panel free portion (see Fig. 7, portion from 61B and above defining the upper nose panel, the portion 61B being the fold portion with the upper portion towards upper mask edge 20a being the upper nose panel free portion, see para. 0077), the upper nose panel fold portion extending from the front panel fold portion and underlying the front mouth panel, and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly from the upper nose panel fold portion to an upper mask edge, the upper nose panel free portion located above the front mouth panel (see Fig. 7 which shows upper nose panel fold portion 61B underlying front mouth panel and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly therefrom to upper mask edge 20a and located above the front mouth panel, i.e. portion below 61A), a juncture of the upper nose panel fold portion and the front panel fold portion being a movable fold (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 in that the user can move their head/body and thus fold 61 is movable, a user opening their mouth also would provide unfolding action of this fold while maintaining its positioning over the user’s mouth and nose, thus the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel via the movable fold 61); the movable fold being upwardly movable between a closed mouth position and an open mouth position, (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel where the edge spacing between upper mask edge and upper mouth panel edge greater when the user’s mouth is open vs. closed).
Furuya is silent as to the lower chin edge being mechanically linked to the upper mouth panel edge by a support member to provide the movement; however, Facer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Facer col. 7 ln. 1-40, Fig. 9a and 9b, support member 48 provided to a mouth panel portion only).
Thus, 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 Furuya device to include a support member, as taught by Facer, in order to provide support for the filter mask with respect to the user’s face (Facer col. 7 ln. 18-31). The now modified Furuya device movement of the lower chin edge causes movement of the upper mouth panel edge via the mechanical linking provided by the support member of Facer and the upper mouth panel edge is mechanically decoupled from the upper mask edge for independent movement (col. 7 ln. 18-31 which discloses providing stiffening layer exclusively at a mouth panel/portion). The modified Furuya is silent as to the mask including a facial attachment seal that substantially encircles a complete perimeter of the mask body; however, Tuan teaches a similar folded-type respirator mask which includes a facial attachment seal that substantially encircles a complete perimeter of the mask body (see Tuan Fig. 16 showing folded and unfolded configurations with facial attachment seal substantially encircling complete perimeter of the mask body; see Fig. 11 with facial attachment seal 140 labeled, see para. 0025, abstract, and para. 0034, 0042, 0044, and 0006 for example). Thus 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 modified Furuya device to include a facial attachment seal that substantially encircles an entire perimeter of the mask body, as taught by Tuan, in order to provide an improved sealing attachment of the mask to the user and which can substitute for straps (see Tuan abstract and para. 0025 and 0044 for example).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Furuya device is such that an edge spacing between the upper mask edge and the upper mouth panel edge being greater in the open mouth position than in the closed mouth position (see Furuya Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel where the edge spacing between upper mask edge and upper mouth panel edge greater when the user’s mouth is open vs. closed).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Furuya device/method includes a facial attachment seal forming the perimeter of the mask body which has the facial attachment seal (see Tuan Fig. 16 showing folded and unfolded configurations with facial attachment seal substantially encircling complete perimeter of the mask body; see Fig. 11 with facial attachment seal 140 labeled, see para. 0025, abstract, and para. 0034, 0042, 0044, and 0006 for example).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel and the upper nose panel are integrally formed (see Furuya Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Tuan, and Facer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bostock et al. (6,123,077).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Furuya device’s fold portions are attached to the mouth panel at rear edges to constrain movement (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7, fold portions attached at rear, lateral edges), but is silent as to including first and second seams as claimed; however, Bostock teaches a similar device which includes seams at the edges (see Bostock Fig. 1-6, seams at 11, see abstract and col. 11 ln. 35-47 for example). Thus 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 modified Furuya device to include seams, as taught by Bostock, as this is a well-known method/element to connect parts of such a filtering respirator mask and would have been obvious to try.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Tuan, and Facer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Law et al. (2021/0352976).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Furuya device is silent as to the front mouth panel including a spine extending from the upper edge to the lower chin edge and attached to at least a portion of the support member; however, Law teaches a similar respirator device including a spine on a front portion thereof (see Law Fig. 1-3, spine 14, see para. 0029). Thus 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 modified Furuya device to include a spine, as taught by Law, in order to provide a larger chamber for the user’s face (see Law para. 0029).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Tuan, and Facer as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Bayer.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Furuya device discloses a facial attachment seal (Tuan Fig. 16, Fig. 11 with facial attachment seal 140 labeled, see para. 0025, abstract, and para. 0034, 0042, 0044, and 0006 for example), but is silent as to including a facial attachment seal having a contour layer and an adhesive layer; however, Bayer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Bayer Fig. 9A-C, col. 3 ln. 25-38 and col. 7 ln. 40-56, facial attachment seal 424, contour layer 426 and adhesive layer 430). Thus 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 modified Furuya device to include a contour layer and adhesive layer type of facial attachment seal, as taught by Bayer, in order to improve sealing attachment of the respirator mask to the user’s face (see Bayer col. 3 ln. 25-38) and this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another (i.e. type of attachment seal).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Tuan, Facer, and Bayer as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Loughran.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Furuya device’s contour layer includes foam (see Bayer col. 7 ln. 44-56), but is silent as to the foam being at least one of an open cell foam, a closed cell foam, and a hydrocolloid; however, Loughran discloses a similar device which includes a foam seal being at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam (see Loughran para. 0043 and 0045, Fig. 1-2). Thus 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 modified Furuya device’s foam layer to be at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam, as taught by Loughran, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/material for another and one would expect the modified Furuya device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Tuan, and Facer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Facer ‘739.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel further includes laterally spaced apart first and second rear edges each having an upper portion and a lower portion (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7, the lateral left/right sides of the mask at the front mouth panel portion described with respect to Fig. 7 noted above, being first and second rear edges with upper and lower portions), but is silent as to including a tab projecting rearwardly from the mask edges; however, Facer ‘739 teaches a similar device which includes lateral/rear portions with tabs projecting rearwardly therefrom (see Facer ‘739 Fig. 1, 2, and 4, tabs 22 and 24, para. 0046). Thus 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 Furuya device to include the tabs, as taught by Facer ‘739, in order to provide lateral securement structure for the user wearing the mask.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Furuya device/method’s tabs are located rearward of the facial attachment seal (see Furuya Fig. 1, seal of Tuan provided to the perimeter edge, modified by Facer Fig. 1-2 and 4 for example, to include rearward extending tabs such that the tabs also are located rearward of the seal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument that a facial attachment seal cannot be applied to the Furuya reference as Furuya teaches a folded type respirator mask and applying such a seal would destroy its intended purpose is not well-taken in view of the teachings of the Tuan reference which discloses a folded-type respirator mask which includes a facial attachment seal substantially encircling the perimeter of the mask body as discussed above.
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 COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights