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 claims filed 3/29/24. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/25/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “320” has been used to designate both the gusset and the channel. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 332. 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. 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 1, 9, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the language “An adjustable CBRN mask system” (line 1) is objected to for matters of form; Examiner suggests spelling out the abbreviation such as –An adjustable chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) mask system--.
Regarding claim 9, the language “An adjustable CBRN mask system” (line 1) is objected to for matters of form; Examiner suggests spelling out the abbreviation such as –An adjustable chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) mask system--.
Regarding claim 13, the language “A CBRN mask system” (line 1) is objected to for matters of form; Examiner suggests spelling out the abbreviation such as –A chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) mask system--.
Regarding claim 18, the language “A CBRN mask system” (line 1) is objected to for matters of form; Examiner suggests spelling out the abbreviation such as –A chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) mask system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “hood adjustment mechanism” in claim 13 and 18. The disclosure sets forth a draw string for performing the hood adjustment function (see para. 0068 for example).
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 § 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 2-4, 8, 10, and 14-20 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 2 recites the limitations: "the front" in line 2, “the back” in line 2, and “the top” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations: "the top" in line 3 and “the back” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "the back" in line 3 and “the crown” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the language “head or facial geometries that do not form an adequate seal with a CBRN mask alone” (line 10-11) is indefinite as such head/facial geometries which may or may not form an adequate seal are overly broad to the point of indefiniteness due to the large possibilities of head/facial geometries combined with the number of different CBRN masks. The metes and bounds of the claim due to this limitation cannot be ascertained.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the back" in line 3 and “the crown” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 16, the language “the hood adjustment mechanism includes an adjustment handle disposed below the wearer’s chin” (line 1-2) appears to claim the wearer, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the adjustment handle to be disposed below the wearer’s chin as claimed, the wearer must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –the hood adjustment mechanism includes an adjustment handle configured to be disposed below the wearer’s chin—or similar intended use language for example.
Regarding claim 20, the language “the hood adjustment mechanism includes an adjustment handle disposed below the wearer’s chin” (line 1-2) appears to claim the wearer, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the adjustment handle to be disposed below the wearer’s chin as claimed, the wearer must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –the hood adjustment mechanism includes an adjustment handle configured to be disposed below the wearer’s chin—or similar intended use language for example.
Claim 17 is rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel et al. (2022/0161067) in view of Bergeron et al. (2016/0074683), Griffiths (GB 2575233), and Rybak (2023/0329364).
Regarding claim 9, Angel discloses an adjustable CBRN mask system (see Fig. 3A-D, abstract, para. 0003), which includes a face mask including a face covering, a lens disposed in and surrounded by the face covering, and a gas interface disposed in and surrounded by the face covering (see Fig. 3A and D, face mask 340, face covering 350, lens 344, gas interface 346; see para. 0041); a hood that surrounds and is removably attached to the face mask and configured to fully cover a wearer’s head and to extend below the wearer’s neckline and drape around the shoulders (see Fig. 3A-D, hood 310; see para. 0041); and a hood adjustment mechanism which includes a draw string configured to tighten the hood around the wearer’s head and chin (see Fig. 3A and D; hood adjustment mechanism defined by draw string elements 311 and 312; see para. 0040-0041); the hood configured to form a seal when draped over a CBRN top worn by the wearer (see Fig. 3A and para. 0031-0032, 0037, and 0040 for example). Angel is silent as to the face covering explicitly being a flexible face covering; however, Bergeron teaches a similar mask system which includes a flexible face covering (see Bergeron Fig. 2 and 5B; para. 0067 and 0157, face covering 12). 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 Angel device’s face covering to explicitly be flexible, as taught by Bergeron, in order to provide a material for a suitable face engaging interface/seal (Bergeron para. 0067-0068 & 0157). The now modified Angel device discloses providing a pressure seal around the neck when the device is worn over a CBRN top (see Fig. 3A and para. 0031-0032, 0037, and 0040 for example; seal via draw string 312), but is silent as to providing a negative pressure seal; however, Griffiths discloses a similar device which provides such a negative pressure seal (see Griffiths Fig. 1-2, pg. 14 ln. 16-24 and pg. 17 ln. 1-9). 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 Angel device to explicitly provide a negative pressure seal, as taught by Griffiths, in order to ensure only filtered air enters the mask chamber for inhalation (Griffiths pg. 14 ln. 16-24 and pg. 17 ln. 1-9). The now modified Angel device is silent as to the hood adjustment mechanism/draw string being configured to tighten the hood at the crown of the wearer’s head; however, Rybak teaches a similar hood/hood adjustment draw string which tightens the hood at the crown of the wearer’s head (see Rybak Fig. 1-7, para. 0032-0035 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 Angel device’s hood adjustment mechanism to include a drawstring which tightens around the crown of the wearer’s head, as taught by Rybak, in order to provide further adjustment in the hood (vs. neckline and face opening adjustment solely, see Rybak Fig. 1-7 and para. 0032-0035).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Angel device’s negative pressure seal provides sufficient sealing that when the wearer inhales gas is drawn through a filter attached to the gas interface rather than through the bottom of the hood (see Griffiths pg. 14 ln. 16-24 and pg. 17 ln. 1-9).
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel in view of Rybak.
Regarding claim 13, Angel discloses a CBRN mask system (see Fig. 3A-D, abstract, para. 0003) which includes a face mask including a face covering, a lens disposed in and surrounded by the face covering, and a gas interface disposed in and surrounded by the face covering (see Fig. 3A and D, face mask 340, face covering 350, lens 344, gas interface 346; see para. 0041); a hood that surrounds and is removably attached to the face mask and configured to fully cover a wearer’s head and to extend below the wearer’s neckline and drape around the shoulders (see Fig. 3A-D, hood 310; see para. 0041); a hood adjustment mechanism configured to at least tighten or loosen the hood around the wearer’s head or below the chin such that the hood can accommodate at least one of bulk hair styles or a bear (see Fig. 3A and D, para. 0029, 0030, 0068, 0070; hood adjustment mechanism defined by draw string elements 311 and 312; see para. 0040-0041). The Angel device is silent as to the hood adjustment mechanism being configured to tighten/loosen the hood at the crown of the wearer’s head; however, Rybak teaches a similar hood/hood adjustment draw string which tightens the hood at the crown of the wearer’s head (see Rybak Fig. 1-7, para. 0032-0035 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 Angel device’s hood adjustment mechanism to include a drawstring which tightens around the crown of the wearer’s head, as taught by Rybak, in order to provide further adjustment in the hood (vs. neckline and face opening adjustment solely, see Rybak Fig. 1-7 and para. 0032-0035).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Angel device’s hood can accommodate at least one of bulk hair styles of the wearer or a beard while maintaining a seal around the bottom of the hood (see Fig. 3A and D, para. 0029, 0030, 0068, 0070; seal provided by hood adjustment mechanism draw string 312, see para. 0040-0041).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Angel device’s hood adjustment mechanism includes an adjustment handle disposed below the wearer’s chin and an adjustment cord that runs from the handle towards the back of the hood up the crown of the hood (see Angel Fig. 3A and para. 0040-0041,; hood adjustment mechanism 311 and 312 of Angel which are adjustment cords and whose ends define an ‘adjustment handle’ as they are intended to be grasped by the user, see Rybak Fig. 1-7 showing the cords 109 which run towards the back and up the crown of the hood).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Angel device’s adjustment cord runs in two separate strands from the handle toward the back of the hood and up the crown of the hood weaving through parallel expandable channels of the hood (see Rybak Fig. 1-7, parallel expandable channels 102, para. 0033, for separate strands 109 that run toward the back and up the crown of the hood from the handle, i.e. the lower ends of strands 109 below the wearer’s chin which is configured to be grasped by the user).
Regarding claim 18, Angel discloses a CBRN mask system (see Fig. 3A-D, abstract, para. 0003) which includes a face mask including a face covering, a lens disposed in and surrounded by the face covering, and a gas interface disposed in and surrounded by the face covering (see Fig. 3A and D, face mask 340, face covering 350, lens 344, gas interface 346; see para. 0041); a hood that surrounds and is removably attached to the face mask and configured to fully cover a wearer’s head and to extend below the wearer’s neckline and drape around the shoulders (see Fig. 3A-D, hood 310; see para. 0041); a hood adjustment mechanism configured to at least tighten or loosen the hood around the wearer’s head or below the chin such that the hood can accommodate at least one of head or facial geometries that do not form an adequate seal with a CBRN mask alone (see Fig. 3A and D, para. 0031, 0037, 0041, 0045, 0068-0070; hood adjustment mechanism defined by draw string elements 311 and 312; see para. 0040-0041). The Angel device is silent as to the hood adjustment mechanism being configured to tighten/loosen the hood at the crown of the wearer’s head; however, Rybak teaches a similar hood/hood adjustment draw string which tightens the hood at the crown of the wearer’s head (see Rybak Fig. 1-7, para. 0032-0035 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 Angel device’s hood adjustment mechanism to include a drawstring which tightens around the crown of the wearer’s head, as taught by Rybak, in order to provide further adjustment in the hood (vs. neckline and face opening adjustment solely, see Rybak Fig. 1-7 and para. 0032-0035).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Angel device’s hood adjustment mechanism includes an adjustment handle disposed below the wearer’s chin and an adjustment cord that runs from the handle towards the back of the hood up the crown of the hood (see Angel Fig. 3A and para. 0040-0041,; hood adjustment mechanism 311 and 312 of Angel which are adjustment cords and whose ends define an ‘adjustment handle’ as they are intended to be grasped by the user, see Rybak Fig. 1-7 showing the cords 109 which run towards the back and up the crown of the hood); the adjustment cord runs in two separate strands from the handle toward the back of the hood and up the crown of the hood weaving through parallel expandable channels of the hood (see Rybak Fig. 1-7, parallel expandable channels 102, para. 0033, for separate strands 109 that run toward the back and up the crown of the hood from the handle, i.e. the lower ends of strands 109 below the wearer’s chin which is configured to be grasped by the user).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel and Rybak as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rossi (2013/0239290).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Angel device’s hood forms a ring (see Angel Fig. 3A and D, bottom portion of hood which surrounds neck/shoulder area of the user defining a ring), but is silent as to being a stow ring to stowed within and to be pulled therefrom as the mask system is donned; however, Rossi teaches a similar garment which includes such a stowage feature (see Rossi Fig. 1-9, Fig. 9 being the fully stowed position). 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 Angel device to have a stow ring for the hood to be stowed within and to be pulled therefrom as the mask system is donned, as taught by Rossi, in order to provide a convenient storage/folded condition for the garment (Rossi para. 0016-0021).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel and Rybak as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Griffiths.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Angel device discloses providing a pressure seal around the neck when the device is worn over a CBRN top and for accommodating head/facial geometries that don’t form an adequate seal with a CBRN mask alone (see Fig. 3A and para. 0031-0032, 0037, and 0040 for example; seal via draw string 312; para. 0031, 0037, 0041, 0045, 0068-0070), but is silent as to providing a negative pressure seal; however, Griffiths discloses a similar device which provides such a negative pressure seal (see Griffiths Fig. 1-2, pg. 14 ln. 16-24 and pg. 17 ln. 1-9). 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 Angel device to explicitly provide a negative pressure seal, as taught by Griffiths, in order to ensure only filtered air enters the mask chamber for inhalation (Griffiths pg. 14 ln. 16-24 and pg. 17 ln. 1-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowable except for the deficiencies noted above.
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
When read in light of the limitations of the claimed adjustable CBRN mask system, the prior art does not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination, a mask system including a face mask including a face cover, a lens disposed in and surrounded by the face cover and a gas interface disposed in and surrounded by the face cover; a hood that surrounds and is removably attached to the face mask; and a hood adjustment mechanism, the hood configured to fully cover a wearer’s head, to extend below the neckline and drape at least partially on or around the shoulders, the hood adjustment mechanism including a draw string configured to tighten the hood at the crown of the wearer’s head and around/below the chin; and the hood adjustment mechanism configured to be tightened by pulling an adjustment handle forward from below the wearer’s chin and loosened by pulling a separate release handle rearward from behind the wearer’s head as set forth in independent claim 1 and dependent claim 11 (including claim 9 to which it depends on).
The prior art noted above and below does not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination such a device/system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hussey et al. (2018/0271189), Garrison (2,136,380), Leba (2023/0347185), Lin (2022/0241620), Rolfe (2014/0317829), Johnston et al. (2014/0238392), and Rindle (6,374,418).
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