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. 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 . Claim s 21-28, 31-33, 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (U.S 2010/0294281 A1) in view of Davidson (U.S 2008/0276937 A1) and Kopacko (U.S 2003/0019496 A1). Regarding claim 21 , Ho teaches a patient interface for sealed delivery of a flow of air at a continuously positive pressure with respect to ambient air pressure to an entrance to the patient's airways including at least entrance of a patient's nares (see Paragraphs 0101, the respiratory mask fits over the user’s nose and/or mouth in use; also see Paragraph 0015, the device is used with a positive airway pressure device) , wherein the patient interface is configured to maintain a therapy pressure above ambient air pressure in use, throughout the patient's respiratory cycle, while the patient is sleeping, to ameliorate sleep disordered breathing (see Paragraph 0051 of Ho , the pressure is provided via a continuous positive pressure device (CPAP), CPAP pressures being above ambient throughout the patient cycle; also see Paragraph 0018 of Applicant’s specification , CPAP pressures are used to treat sleep disordered breathing such as apneas and thus the device of Ho similarly can treat SDBs ) , the patient interface comprising: a plenum chamber pressurised at a pressure above ambient pressure in use ( chamber of shell 434/ 534 and facemask 400/ 500 , see Fig. 18- 19 and Paragraph s 0051 , 0081-0082 ; The respiratory mask delivers positive pressure from a C PAP device 37 and is thus pressurized above ambient ) ; a sealing structure to seal the patient interface against the patient's face, the sealing structure comprising ( Fig. 18- 19 and Paragraphs 0081-0082, cushion 5 32 , which includes flap/face contacting structure 552, middle portion 554 and connection portion 556 ; ) : a sealing portion constructed from foam and adapted to contact the patient's face around a periphery of the entrance to the patient's airways ( see Paragraph 0081, the flap/face contacting structure 452/ 552 contacts and seals against the face and around the mouth/nose; also see Paragraphs 0056, 0084, regarding foam, as the sealing portion is constructed from compliant material 574, which can be made from foam ) ; and a support portion constructed from silicone (see Fig. 18- 19 and Paragraph 0081, middle portion 454/ 554 and connecting portion 456/ 556 ; also see Paragraph 0050 and 0056, regarding the cushion being formed of a resilient material such as silicone ) , the support portion comprising: a first side joined to the plenum chamber (Fig. 18- 19 and Paragraph 0081, connection portion 456/ 556, which is joined to the plenum chamber/shell 434/ 534) ; a second side joined to the sealing portion to support the sealing portion against the patient's face in use (Fig. 19 and Paragraph 0081, middle portion 454/ 554, the middle portion connects to the sealing portion, and includes pleat 582 for supporting the seal against the face) ; and a positioning and stabilising structure to maintain the sealing structure in sealing contact with an area surrounding an entrance to the patient's airways while maintaining a therapeutic pressure at the entrance to the patient's airways (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0051, 0101; The mask includes a headgear connected to forehead support 36 to anchor the mask on the face, thus maintaining sealing contact and therapeutic pressure delivered via the CPAP; The shell can also include connection points to the headgear) ; and a gas washout vent configured to allow a flow of patient exhaled CO 2 to an exterior of the patient interface to minimise rebreathing of exhaled CO 2 by the patient (Claim 1, a connector portion attached to the mask includes recesses to allow exhaled gases to escape therethrough) . Ho is silent regar ding wherein the patient interface is configured to maintain a therapy pressure in a range of about 3 cmH 2 O to about 40 cmH 2 O . However, Davidson teaches that PAP, CPAP is typically delivered to a respiratory mask with a pressure in the range of about 2-30 cmH 2 O (Paragraph 0043). Ho also discloses use of CPAP to provide the therapeutic flow of gas to the user (Paragraph 0051, CPAP, biPAP , etc. may be used to deliver the flow). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included delivering pressure in the range of about 2-30 cmH 2 O, such as that taught by Davidson, in order to use known pressure parameters suitable for CPAP devices and for CPAP treatment (Paragraph 0043). Ho teaches a gas washout vent configured to allow a flow of patient exhaled CO 2 to an exterior of the patient interface to minimise rebreathing of exhaled CO 2 by the patient (Claim 1, a connector portion attached to the mask includes recesses to allow exhaled gases to escape therethrough) but is silent regarding the vent being on the elbow portion and . However, Davidson teaches a gas washout vent ( vent holes 425 on elbow 385 ) configured to allow a flow of patient exhaled CO 2 to an exterior of the patient interface to minimise rebreathing of exhaled CO 2 by the patient (P aragraph 0100, 0108, 0131; Vent holes 425 allow for washout of carbon dioxide exhaled from the patient while still maintaining suitable flow rate and pressure ) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included a gas washout vent on the elbow of the device, such as that taught by Davidson, in order to allow for washout of carbon dioxide and to prevent rebreathing of said exhaled carbon dioxide while still maintaining suitable delivered flow rate and pressure (Paragraph 0100, 0108, 0131). Ho is silent regarding a pair of ribs extending from the first side to the second side on the inside of the support portion such that the ribs resist deformation of the support portion when pressure is applied to the sealing portion, each of the ribs being positioned on a corresponding lateral side of the support portion . However, Kopacko teaches a respiratory mask with a pair of ribs extending from the first side to the second side on the inside of the support portion such that the ribs resist deformation of the support portion when pressure is applied to the sealing portion, each of the ribs being positioned on a corresponding lateral side of the support portion (see Figs. 1-6 and Paragraphs 0013, 0044 and Claim 2; The mask includes a plurality of flexible ribs 34 which are spaced circumferentially about the interior of the cushion to resist excessive deformation and thus are disposed about/on lateral sides of the support portion ; also see Fig. 7, ribs 34). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included ribs extending from the first side to the second side of the support portion, on lateral sides of the support portion, such as that taught by Kopacko , in order to provide structural support for the cushion/sealing section and to resist deformation and collapse of the mask during use (Paragraph 0012-0013, 0044). Regarding claim 2 2 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho further discloses wherein the sealing portion includes a pair of convex portions (see annotated Fig. 18-19 below). It is first noted that the concave/convex portions are recited with a considerable degree of broadness and with little structural relationship with respect to one another, or with respect to any of the other defined structures. Thus, as shown, the sealing portion includes a pair of convex portions on/toward an exterior surface which contacts the user’s face. The figures only display the left side of the seal, but is mirrored on the other side and thus there are a pair of such convex surfaces on either side of the seal. Regarding claim 2 3 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 22. Ho further discloses wherein the second side of the support portion has a pair of concave portions (see annotated Fig. 18-19 above). Similarly, the second side of the support portion, where it connects to the sealing portion, has a concave segment/portion. On the mirrored righthand side there is the same structure and thus there are a pair of such concave portions. Regarding claim 2 4 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 23. Ho further discloses w herein: each of the concave portions is located directly opposite a corresponding one of the convex portions (see annotated Fig. 18-19 above; It is again noted that ‘opposite’ is recited without reference to any particular structures, axes, etc. and thus is broader than applicant may intend; The convex and concave portions as shown above are opposite to one another with respect to the seal, i.e. interior and exterior; Additionally, in the case of the embodiment of Fig. 19, they are also opposite with respect to the axis of the pleat). Applicant is advised to further define the relationship between the concave/convex sections and more particularly link them with respect to the surface of the seal and/or to the ribs. Ho is silent regarding wherein each of the ribs is specifically attached to the second side at the corresponding concave portion . However, Kopacko teaches that the ribs extends from the plenum chamber/connecting portion towards the seal and thus would extend and be positioned along the concave portions as currently defined (see Fig. 1B of Kopacko , with the ribs extending from the portion of the seal close to the plenum chamber and extending along the cushion/seal towards the area contacting the user’s face ; also see and Fig. 18 of Ho for example, where t he inclusion of the ribs in Ho would place them near the plenum chamber extending radially along the cushion/seal). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included each of the pair of ribs attached to the second side at the corresponding concave portion , such as that taught by Kopacko , in order to provide structural support and resilience to maintain contact and the seal against the user’s face in use (Paragraph 0012-0013, 0044). Regarding claim 2 5 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Kopacko further teaches wherein each of the ribs is configured to be readily crushed by a forced applied to the patient interface to hold the patient interface against the patient in use (see Paragraph 0013, the ribs are said to resiliently deform to allow for distortion of the seal flap (while preventing buckling/folding/collapse) to accommodate for the geometry/contours of the face and thus can be readily crushed by applied force to hold the interface against the patient and maintain the seal) . Regarding claim 2 6 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Kopacko further teaches wherein each of the ribs is configured to be positioned adjacent to a corresponding lateral side of the patient's nose in use ( see Paragraph 0013 and 0044; The ribs are spaced circumferentially about the wall portion and thus are disposed on either side of the patient’s nose; It is noted that while there are ribs that are disposed about the entirety of the seal, a ‘pair’ of the ribs can simply be ones on either side of the nose, which will be adjacent to corresponding lateral sides of the nose ) . Regarding claim 2 7 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Kopacko further teaches wherein each of the ribs is adapted to prevent the sealing portion from a blowout when the patient interface is internally pressurized and adjusted by the patient in use (Paragraphs 0013 and 0044; The ribs support the wall against excessive deformation and collapsing; Thus, the ribs provide and maintain the structure of the seal and prevents deformation which would lead to blowout). Regarding claim 28 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Kopacko further teaches wherein each of the ribs extends radially inward from the support portion (see Paragraph 0044, the ribs 44 are specifically said to project radially inwardly of the wall portion). Regarding claim 31 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho further discloses wherein the sealing portion is configured to surround the patient's nose in use (Paragraph 0101; The mask is configured to fit over the nose, but can also substantially cover the nose and mouth) . Regarding claim 32 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho further discloses wherein the sealing portion is configured to surround the patient's nose and mouth in use (see Paragraph 0101; The mask can be a full face mask which covers nose and mouth in use) . Regarding claim 33 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho further discloses wherein the plenum chamber is constructed from a relatively rigid plastic material (Paragraph 0050; The shell is formed of a rigid plastic material, such as polycarbonate). Regarding claim 35 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho further discloses wherein the plenum chamber comprises a connection port configured to receive the flow of air (see Figs. 1-2, 9A and Paragraphs 0052, 0068; The shell includes a connection port opening through which a rotatable connection/elbow 38/138 is attached; The elbow receives flow from positive pressure device 37 to convey it to the mask 30). Regarding claim 36 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 35. Ho further an elbow configured to be connected to an air circuit to receive the flow of air from a blower and fluidly communicate the flow of air to the patient's airways through the connection port (see Figs. 1-2, 9A and Paragraphs 0052, 0068; The connection port of the mask 30 is connected to elbow 38, the elbow 38 being connected to conduit 35 which leads to the positive pressure device 37 that generates the positive pressure of air to be delivered to the mask). Regarding claim 37 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 36. Ho is silent regarding wherein the elbow specifically includes the gas washout vent. However, Davidson further teaches wherein the elbow includes the gas washout ven t (Fi g. 5-2 and Paragraph 0096, 0100 , 0112-0113, 0116, 0118 ; The washout vent 420 may be included on elbow 385 which is removably couplable and can have a venting area which is specifically tuned for the mask or flow generator settings ) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included the removable gas washout vent on the elbow, such as that taught by Davidson, in order to provide a known alternative configuration for gas washout and to allow for adjustment of the venting area specifically tuned for a particular mask or flow generator settings (Paragraph 0096). Claim s 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (U.S 2010/0294281 A1) in view of Davidson (U.S 2008/0276937 A1) and Kopacko (U.S 2003/0019496 A1), as applied to claim 21, in further view of Gradon (U.S 2003/0062048 A1). Regarding claim 2 9 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho is silent regarding specifically wherein the foam is polyethylene, polyurethane, or ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). Gradon teaches wherein a cushion portion of a sealing respiratory mask may be formed of polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0047, the foam cushion 1110 of the mask can be formed of a resilient polyurethane foam which distributes pressure around the seal of the user’s face). Additionally, Ho teaches that the compliant material of the sealing portion can be formed of a harder substance such as polyurethane gel (Paragraph 0094) and that generally the compliant material can be a non-cross linked polymer (Paragraph 0056; It is also noted that polyurethane can be both crosslinked or linear). Kopacko also teaches that a resilient cushion portion of the mask can be comprised of a resilient substance such as polyurethane polymer (Paragraph 0047, the cushion can include polyurethane polymer to exhibit resilience/recoil). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included forming the foam of the sealing portion from polyurethane, such as that taught by Gradon , Ho and Kopacko , in order to use known materials suitable for cushioning materials with soft resilience to distribute the pressure evenly along the seal and against the face ( Gradon Paragraph 0047; Ho Paragraphs 0094 and 0056; Kopacko Paragraph 0047) . Regarding claim 30 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho is silent regarding wherein the foam is a semi-open closed cell foam. However, it is first noted that applicant has defined polyurethane as a foam cushion material which is a semi-open closed cell foam (Paragraph 0279 of Applicant’s specification; Additionally, the Applicant-cited reference of WO 2014/117227 further discusses polyurethane as a semi-open closed cell foam). Gradon teaches wherein a cushion portion of a sealing respiratory mask may be formed of polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0047, the foam cushion 1110 of the mask can be formed of a resilient polyurethane foam which distributes pressure around the seal of the user’s face). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included forming the foam of the sealing portion a semi-open close cell polyurethane foam, such as that taught by Gradon , in order to use known materials suitable for cushioning materials with soft resilience to distribute the pressure evenly along the seal and against the face ( Gradon Paragraph 0047). Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (U.S 2010/0294281 A1) in view of Davidson (U.S 2008/0276937 A1) and Kopacko (U.S 2003/0019496 A1) , as applied to claims 21 and 33, in further view of Bennett (U.S 3,330,273 A). Regarding claim 34 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 33. Ho is silent regarding wherein the relatively rigid plastic material is transparent. However, Bennett teaches a respiratory mask with a sealing portion wherein the rigid plastic material of the plenum chamber is made of transparent material (Col. 3 lines 56-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included forming the plenum chamber of a transparent plastic, such as that taught by Bennett, in order to use a known material suitable for respiratory mask construction (Col. 3 lines 56-60) and to visualize the user’s mouth/breath during use of the device (The use of transparent material obviously allows for confirmation of breathing and verification of state of airway patency). Claim s 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (U.S 2010/0294281 A1) in view of Davidson (U.S 2008/0276937 A1) and Kopacko (U.S 2003/0019496 A1), as applied to claims 21 and 33, in further view of Bennett (U.S 3,330,273 A). Regarding claim 38 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 21. Ho further discloses wherein: the plenum chamber comprises a connection port configured to receive the flow of air (see Figs. 1-2, 9A and Paragraphs 0052, 0068; The shell includes a connection port opening through which a rotatable connection/elbow 38/138 is attached; The elbow receives flow from positive pressure device 37 to convey it to the mask 30) , the patient interface further comprises an elbow configured to be connected to an air circuit to receive the flow of air from a blower and fluidly communicate the flow of air to the patient's airways through the connection port (see Figs. 1-2, 9A and Paragraphs 0052, 0068; The connection port of the mask 30 is connected to elbow 38, the elbow 38 being connected to conduit 35 which leads to the positive pressure device 37 that generates the positive pressure of air to be delivered to the mask), the sealing portion includes a pair of convex portions, the second side of the support portion has a pair of concave portions (see annotated Figs. 18-19 and rejections of claims 22-24 above) , each of the concave portions is located directly opposite a corresponding one of the convex portions, each of the ribs is attached to the second side at the corresponding concave portion (see annotated Figs. 18-19 and rejections of claims 22-24 above) , each of the ribs is configured to be positioned adjacent to a corresponding lateral side of the patient's nose in use (see rejection of claim 21 above; also see Figs. 1-6 and Paragraphs 0013, 0044 and Claim 2 of Kopacko ; The mask includes a plurality of flexible ribs 34 which are spaced circumferentially about the interior of the cushion to resist excessive deformation; also see Fig. 7, ribs 34) , each of the ribs extends radially inward from the support portion (see Paragraph 0044 of Kopacko , the ribs 44 are specifically said to project radially inwardly of the wall portion) , the sealing portion is configured to surround the patient's nose and mouth in use (see Paragraph 0101 of Ho; The mask can be a full face mask which covers nose and mouth in use) , the plenum chamber is constructed from a relatively rigid plastic material (Paragraph 0050 of Ho; The shell is formed of a rigid plastic material, such as polycarbonate). Ho is silent regarding wherein the elbow specifically includes the gas washout vent. However, Davidson further teaches wherein the elbow includes the gas washout vent (Fig. 5-2 and Paragraph 0096, 0100, 0112-0113, 0116, 0118; The washout vent 420 may be included on elbow 385 which is removably couplable and can have a venting area which is specifically tuned for the mask or flow generator settings). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included the removable gas washout vent on the elbow, such as that taught by Davidson, in order to provide a known alternative configuration for gas washout and to allow for adjustment of the venting area specifically tuned for a particular mask or flow generator settings (Paragraph 0096). Ho is silent regarding wherein t he relatively rigid plastic material is transparent. However, Bennett teaches a respiratory mask with a sealing portion wherein the rigid plastic material of the plenum chamber is made of transparent material (Col. 3 lines 56-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included forming the plenum chamber of a transparent plastic, such as that taught by Bennett, in order to use a known material suitable for respiratory mask construction (Col. 3 lines 56-60) and to visualize the user’s mouth/breath during use of the device (The use of transparent material obviously allows for confirmation of breathing and verification of state of airway patency). Regarding claim 40 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 38. Kopacko further teaches wherein each of the ribs is configured to be readily crushed by a forced applied to the patient interface to hold the patient interface against the patient in use (see Paragraph 0013, the ribs are said to resiliently deform to allow for distortion of the seal flap (while preventing buckling/folding/collapse) to accommodate for the geometry/contours of the face and thus can be readily crushed by applied force to hold the interface against the patient and maintain the seal) , and wherein each of the ribs is adapted to prevent the sealing portion from a blowout when the patient interface is internally pressurized and adjusted by the patient in use (Paragraphs 0013 and 0044; The ribs support the wall against excessive deformation and collapsing; Thus, the ribs provide and maintain the structure of the seal and prevents deformation which would lead to blowout). . Claim s 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (U.S 2010/0294281 A1) in view of Davidson (U.S 2008/0276937 A1) and Kopacko (U.S 2003/0019496 A1) and Bennett (U.S 3,330,273 A), as applied to claims 21 and 38, in further view of Gradon (U.S 2003/0062048 A1). Regarding claim 39 , the modified device of Ho discloses the device of claim 38. Ho is silent regarding wherein the foam is polyethylene, polyurethane, or ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), and wherein the foam is a semi-open closed cell foam. However, it is first noted that applicant has defined polyurethane as a foam cushion material which is a semi-open closed cell foam (Paragraph 0279 of Applicant’s specification; Additionally, the Applicant-cited reference of WO 2014/117227 further discusses polyurethane as a semi-open closed cell foam). Gradon teaches wherein a cushion portion of a sealing respiratory mask may be formed of polyurethane foam (Paragraph 0047, the foam cushion 1110 of the mask can be formed of a resilient polyurethane foam which distributes pressure around the seal of the user’s face). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to have included forming the foam of the sealing portion a semi-open close cell polyurethane foam, such as that taught by Gradon , in order to use known materials suitable for cushioning materials with soft resilience to distribute the pressure evenly along the seal and against the face ( Gradon Paragraph 0047). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THOMAS WILLIAM GREIG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5378 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday: 7:30AM - 5:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kendra Carter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /THOMAS W GREIG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785