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 Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3, "area of the opening ranges 60 and 200 square millimeters " should read as –area of the opening between 60 and 200 square millimeters—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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) 1-2, 6, 8-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US-20200130792-A1), hereafter as Huang in view of Wang (WO 2013085266 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses a breathable mask (Fig. 1-10; 100), comprising:
a body (Fig. 1; 101); and
a breathing tube (Fig. 2; 6) in fluid communication with an interior of the body (Fig. 1), the breathing tube including an intake conduit (Fig. 3; 24, 524) and an exhaust conduit (Fig. 3; 23, 25) independent of each other;
wherein the body comprises:
a main frame (Fig. 2; 7);
a lens (Fig. 2; 14) embedded within the main frame;
a waterproof skirt (Fig. 2; 18),
at least partially embedded with the main frame and the lens (Fig. 1, 3; Examiner notes: the lens are embedded into frame 18),
the waterproof skirt being configured to suitably fit a face of a user (this limitation is functional, the 18 fits onto the face of the user in use),
the waterproof skirt having a partition (Fig. 2; 181) to divide the interior of the body into an upper chamber (A) and a lower chamber(B),
whereby when the user wears the breathable mask through a fastening device (Fig. 2; 21),
the partition is seated above a nose of the user (Fig. 1-3; 181),
eyes of the user are accommodated in the upper chamber (Fig. 1-3; para. 0028), and
the nose and a mouth of the user are accommodated in the lower chamber (Fig. 1-3; para. 0028);
an intake passage formed from the intake conduit to the lower chamber (shown best in Fig. 8; para. 0028; through 19, 15); and an exhaust passage (26) formed from the lower chamber to the exhaust conduit (Fig. 8);
characterized in that:
and the intake passage is in fluid communication with the nasal chamber (through one way valves 15, 19), the exhaust passage is in fluid communication with the nasal chamber (Examiner notes: 26 is in communication with the lower chamber B).
Huang does not specifically disclose the waterproof skirt further comprises a bridge disposed across the lower chamber and dividing the lower chamber into a nasal chamber and a mouth chamber below the nasal chamber, whereby when the user wears the breathable mask, the nose of the user is accommodated in the nasal chamber, and the mouth of the user is accommodated in the mouth chamber; and the nasal chamber and the mouth chamber are suitably in fluid communication with each other through the bridge; the bridge has an opening and an orinasal one-way valve adjacent to the opening, and the orinasal one-way valve only allows a unidirectional fluid communication from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber.
However, Wang teaches the waterproof skirt further comprises a bridge (126) dividing the a chamber into a nasal chamber (Figs 1-5; inside of 140) and a mouth chamber (Fig. 1-6; 102) below the nasal chamber (Figs. 1-5; the nasal chamber is above the mouth chamber), whereby when the user wears the breathable mask, the nose of the user is accommodated in the nasal chamber, and the mouth of the user is accommodated in the mouth chamber (shown best in Fig. 6; mouth is in the mouth chamber); and the nasal chamber and the mouth chamber are suitably in fluid communication with each other through the bridge (Fig 1-5; 160; shown best in Fig. 5); the bridge has an opening (Fig. 5; 161) an orinasal one-way valve (Fig. 162) adjacent to the opening (examiner notes: the opening is adjacent to the valve, it is right underneath it), and the orinasal one-way valve only allows a unidirectional fluid communication from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber (para. 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mask of Huang to include the waterproof skirt further comprises a bridge disposed across the lower chamber and dividing the lower chamber into a nasal chamber and a mouth chamber below the nasal chamber, whereby when the user wears the breathable mask, the nose of the user is accommodated in the nasal chamber, and the mouth of the user is accommodated in the mouth chamber; and the nasal chamber and the mouth chamber are suitably in fluid communication with each other through the bridge; the bridge has an opening and an orinasal one-way valve adjacent to the opening, and the orinasal one-way valve only allows a unidirectional fluid communication from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber as taught by Wang for the purpose of prevents air from entering from the outside the chamber and preventing the inflow of foreign matter (para. 0047, 0061).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Huang discloses the breathable mask of claim 1, wherein when the user wears the breathable mask, the opening (Fig. 5; 161) is adapted to be distal from nostrils of the user, relative to the orinasal one-way valve (Fig. 5; 162) which is adapted to be proximal to the nostrils of the user (Fig. 5; Examiner notes: the one way valve is above the opening 161 therefore the valve is “proximal” in relative to the opening).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Huang discloses the breathable mask of claim 2, wherein the opening (Fig. 5; 162; Wang) is formed by a plurality of holes spaced apart from each other (Examiner notes: the 162 is grid meaning there are many holes).
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Huang discloses the breathable mask of claim 1, wherein the exhaust passage (Fig. 8; 26; Huang) includes an exhaust tunnel jointly defined by the waterproof skirt (shown best in Fig 8 of Huang) and an inner surface of the lens (Fig. 8; 102), and the exhaust tunnel extends along a periphery of the body (Fig. 8; para. 0029; Huang).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang discloses a breathable mask (Fig. 1-10; 100), comprising:
a main frame (Fig. 2; 7);
a lens (Fig. 2; 14) embedded within the main frame;
a waterproof skirt (Fig. 2; 18),
at least partially embedded with the main frame and the lens (Fig. 1, 3; Examiner notes: the lens are embedded into frame 18),
the waterproof skirt being configured to suitably fit a face of a user (this limitation is functional, the 18 fits onto the face of the user in use),
the waterproof skirt having a partition (Fig. 2; 181) to divide the interior of the body into an upper chamber (A) and a lower chamber(B),
whereby when the user wears the breathable mask through a fastening device (Fig. 2; 21),
the partition is seated above a nose of the user (Fig. 1-3; 181),
eyes of the user are accommodated in the upper chamber (Fig. 1-3; para. 0028), and
the nose and a mouth of the user are accommodated in the lower chamber (Fig. 1-3; para. 0028);
Huang does not disclose the waterproof skirt further comprises a bridge disposed across the lower chamber and dividing the lower chamber into a nasal chamber and a mouth chamber below the nasal chamber, whereby when the user wears the breathable mask, the nose of the user is accommodated in the nasal chamber, and the mouth of the user is accommodated in the mouth chamber; and the bridge has an opening and an orinasal one-way valve adjacent to the opening, and the orinasal one-way valve only allows a unidirectional fluid communication from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber.
However, Wang teaches the waterproof skirt further comprises a bridge (126) dividing the a chamber into a nasal chamber (Figs 1-5; inside of 140) and a mouth chamber (Fig. 1-6; 102) below the nasal chamber (Figs. 1-5; the nasal chamber is above the mouth chamber), whereby when the user wears the breathable mask, the nose of the user is accommodated in the nasal chamber, and the mouth of the user is accommodated in the mouth chamber (shown best in Fig. 6; mouth is in the mouth chamber); and the nasal chamber and the mouth chamber are suitably in fluid communication with each other through the bridge (Fig 1-5; 160; shown best in Fig. 5); the bridge has an opening (Fig. 5; 161) an orinasal one-way valve (Fig. 162) adjacent to the opening (examiner notes: the opening is adjacent to the valve, it is right underneath it), and the orinasal one-way valve only allows a unidirectional fluid communication from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber (para. 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mask of Huang to include the waterproof skirt further comprises a bridge disposed across the lower chamber and dividing the lower chamber into a nasal chamber and a mouth chamber below the nasal chamber, whereby when the user wears the breathable mask, the nose of the user is accommodated in the nasal chamber, and the mouth of the user is accommodated in the mouth chamber; and the nasal chamber and the mouth chamber are suitably in fluid communication with each other through the bridge; the bridge has an opening and an orinasal one-way valve adjacent to the opening, and the orinasal one-way valve only allows a unidirectional fluid communication from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber as taught by Wang for the purpose of prevents air from entering from the outside and preventing the inflow of foreign matter (para. 0047, 0061).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Huang discloses the body of claim 9, wherein when the user wears the breathable mask, the opening (Fig. 5; 161) is adapted to be distal from nostrils of the user, relative to the orinasal one-way valve (Fig. 5; 162) which is adapted to be proximal to the nostrils of the user (Fig. 5; Examiner notes: the one way valve is above the opening 161 therefore the valve is “proximal” in relative to the opening).
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Huang discloses body of claim 10, wherein the opening (Fig. 5; 162; Wang) is formed by a plurality of holes spaced apart from each other (Examiner notes: the 162 is grid meaning there are many holes).
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang Wan as applied to claim 2 and 10, in further view of Wang (US 20180369618 A1), hereafter as Wang II.
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Huang discloses the breathable mask of claim 2,
Modified Huang does not specifically disclose wherein a total open area of the opening ranges 60 and 200 square millimeters (mm2).
Wang II teaches a total open area of the opening (Fig. 2, 4, 6-7; 461) ranges 60 and 200 square millimeters (para. 0031, 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the openings of Modified Huang to include ranges between 60 and 200 square millimeters as taught by Wang II for the purpose of air to pass therethrough and if there were smaller than 80 mm^2 breathing resistance and a sultry feeling may arise (para. 0031, 0038).
Additionally, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative shape dimensions of the claimed device (opening ranges 60 and 200 square millimeters), and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. [MPEP 2144.04, I. Aesthetic Design Changes].
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Huang discloses the breathable mask of claim 3, wherein the opening (Fig. 5; 161; Wang; Fig. 2; 461; Wang II) has an inner boundary (Shown best in Fig. 7; Wang), and the bridge is formed with a central inner edge (Shown best in Fig. 7; Wang),
Modified Huang does not specifically teach in which the inner boundary and the central inner edge define a distance therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters (mm).
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 distance the inner boundary and the central inner edge is therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters. Applicant has not disclosed therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating that the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge is claimed range (para. 0013, 0036). Since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Modified Huang and Applicant' s mask to perform equally well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Huang to incorporate the distance between the inner boundary and the inner edge of the mask to be therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Huang.
Since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative shape dimensions of the claimed device (which the inner boundary and the central inner edge define a distance therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters), and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. [MPEP 2144.04, I. Aesthetic Design Changes].
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Huang discloses the breathable mask of claim 4
Modified Huang does not specifically disclose wherein the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge ranges between 20 and 50 millimeters (mm).
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 distance the inner boundary and the central inner edge is therebetween ranging from 20 and 50 millimeters. Applicant has not disclosed therebetween ranging from 20 and 50 millimeters provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating that the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge is claimed range (para. 0014, 0036). Since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Modified Huang and Applicant' s mask to perform equally well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Huang to incorporate the distance between the inner boundary and the inner edge of the mask to be therebetween ranging from 20 and 50 millimeters obtain the invention as specified in claim 5, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Huang.
Since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative shape dimensions of the claimed device (wherein the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge ranges between 20 and 50 millimeters), and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. [MPEP 2144.04, I. Aesthetic Design Changes].
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Huang discloses the body of claim 10,
Modified Huang does not specifically disclose wherein a total open area of the opening ranges 60 and 200 square millimeters (mm2).
Wang II teaches a total open area of the opening (Fig. 2, 4, 6-7; 461) ranges 60 and 200 square millimeters (para. 0031, 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the openings of Modified Huang to include ranges between 60 and 200 square millimeters as taught by Wang II for the purpose of air to pass therethrough and if there were smaller than 80 mm^2 breathing resistance and a sultry feeling may arise (para. 0031, 0038).
Additionally, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative shape dimensions of the claimed device (opening ranges 60 and 200 square millimeters), and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. [MPEP 2144.04, I. Aesthetic Design Changes].
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Huang discloses the body of claim 11, wherein the opening (Fig. 5; 161; Wang; Fig. 2; 461; Wang II) has an inner boundary (Shown best in Fig. 7; Wang), and the bridge is formed with a central inner edge (Shown best in Fig. 7; Wang),
Modified Huang does not specifically teach in which the inner boundary and the central inner edge define a distance therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters (mm).
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 distance the inner boundary and the central inner edge is therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters. Applicant has not disclosed therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating that the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge is claimed range (para. 0013, 0036). Since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Modified Huang and Applicant' s mask to perform equally well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Huang to incorporate the distance between the inner boundary and the inner edge of the mask to be therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Huang.
Since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative shape dimensions of the claimed device (which the inner boundary and the central inner edge define a distance therebetween ranging from 20 to 80 millimeters), and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. [MPEP 2144.04, I. Aesthetic Design Changes].
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Huang discloses body of claim 12,
Modified Huang does not specifically disclose wherein the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge ranges between 20 and 50 millimeters (mm).
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 distance the inner boundary and the central inner edge is therebetween ranging from 20 and 50 millimeters. Applicant has not disclosed therebetween ranging from 20 and 50 millimeters provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification which recites an exemplary arrangement indicating that the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge is claimed range (para. 0014, 0036). Since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Modified Huang and Applicant' s mask to perform equally well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Huang to incorporate the distance between the inner boundary and the inner edge of the mask to be therebetween ranging from 20 and 50 millimeters obtain the invention as specified in claim 13, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan and thus fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Modified Huang.
Since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative shape dimensions of the claimed device (wherein the distance between the inner boundary and the central inner edge ranges between 20 and 50 millimeters), and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. [MPEP 2144.04, I. Aesthetic Design Changes].
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Wang, as applied to 2 and 10, in further view of Liu (US 6668823 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Huang discloses the breathable mask of claim 2, wherein the orinasal one-way valve (Fig. 5; 162; Wang)
Modified Huang does not disclose the one-way valve has a central fixed portion and two diaphragms extending outward from the central fixed portion, the central fixed portion is fixed to the bridge, and the two diaphragms are only opened when airflows pass therethrough from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber.
However, Liu teaches the one-way valve (Fig. 2) has a central fixed portion (1190) and two diaphragms (110) extending outward from the central fixed portion, the central fixed portion is fixed to the bridge (102), and the two diaphragms are only opened when airflows pass therethrough from one chamber to the other side of the valve(Col. 2 lines 45-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the one-way of Modified Huang to include the one-way valve has a central fixed portion and two diaphragms extending outward from the central fixed portion, the central fixed portion is fixed to the bridge, and the two diaphragms are only opened when airflows pass therethrough from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber as taught by Liu for the purpose of both valve configuration perform the same function of controlling fluid flow. The substitution would have been predictable use of known alternative, particularly the two diaphragms provides the same flow-control function as taught by Liu. Also, air can pass through the port only in a single direction (Col. 2 lines 45-67).
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Huang discloses body of claim 10,
Modified Huang does not disclose the one-way valve has a central fixed portion and two diaphragms extending outward from the central fixed portion, the central fixed portion is fixed to the bridge, and the two diaphragms are only opened when airflows pass therethrough from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber.
However, Liu teaches the one-way valve (Fig. 2) has a central fixed portion (1190) and two diaphragms (110) extending outward from the central fixed portion, the central fixed portion is fixed to the bridge (102), and the two diaphragms are only opened when airflows pass therethrough from one chamber to the other side of the valve(Col. 2 lines 45-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the one-way of Modified Huang to include the one-way valve has a central fixed portion and two diaphragms extending outward from the central fixed portion, the central fixed portion is fixed to the bridge, and the two diaphragms are only opened when airflows pass therethrough from the nasal chamber to the mouth chamber as taught by Liu for the purpose of both valve configuration perform the same function of controlling fluid flow. The substitution would have been predictable use of known alternative, particularly the two diaphragms provides the same flow-control function as taught by Liu. Also, air can pass through the port only in a single direction (Col. 2 lines 45-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references. Other prior art of particular note include:
Sun et al. (CN112043022A; Fig. 3) and Hwang (KR20210074752A; Fig. 2, 3) teaches bridge diving nasal and oral chambers with a bridge having an opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAP A ELLABIB whose telephone number is (571)272-5879. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached at (571) 272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MAAP A. ELLABIB
Examiner
Art Unit 3785
/M.A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights