CTNF 18/681,792 CTNF 91802 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restriction 18-18 REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). 18-19 AIA Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. 18-06-01 AIA Group I , claim(s) 1-19 , drawn to a face covering including a cover panel, a filter, a gasket and a retaining system . Group II , claim(s) 20 , drawn to a face covering including a cover panel, a filter, an inner panel and a retaining system . 18-07 AIA The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: 18-07-02 AIA Groups I & II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a cover panel, a filter and a retaining system , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Busby et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0118295). Busby teaches a face covering (e.g. Fig. 2B) including a cover panel (Fig. 2B #230; ¶0041), a filter (Fig. 2B #215; ¶0041) and a retaining system (Fig. 2B straps). Group I has no consideration of an inner panel and Group II has no consideration of a gasket. Groups I & II thus lack unity of invention a posteriori . 08-23 AIA During a telephone conversation with Attorney Ann Gallagher (#50608) on 15 May 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-19 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification alternates between “non-woven” and “nonwoven”. One form should be selected for consistency unless there is a technical language reason why both forms need to be used . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim (s) 1-19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, Ln. 4 recites “at least portion of” which should read “at least a portion of” Claim 1, Ln. 8 recites “a wearer's face” which should read “the wearer's face” following after the prior line Claim 1, Ln. 9 recites “the pressure drop” which should read “a pressure drop” as it is a first introduction Claim 1, Ln. 10 recites “the pressure drop” which should read “a pressure drop” as it is a first introduction Claim 12, Ln. 2-3 recites “non-woven” while other claims instead use “nonwoven” Claim 15, Ln. 2 recites “a combination” which should read “the combination” following after claim 1 Claim 19, Ln. 3 recites “between cover panel” which should read “between the cover panel” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “retaining system” in claim 1 . 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. The corresponding structure for the “retaining system” is best understood from the specification as at least: retaining system 108 as a pair of straps 110 (Pg. 4, Ln. 24-26). 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier (U.S. Pub. 2010/0313890) . Regarding claim 1 , Messier discloses a face covering (Fig. 7; ¶0046) comprising: (a) a cover panel (Fig. 7 #15; ¶0046) comprising cover panel material and having a front major surface (Fig. 7 #15 upward surface) and a rear major surface (Fig. 7 #15 downward surface) and a perimeter (Fig. 7 perimeter of #15); (b) a filter (Fig. 7 #11; ¶0046) comprising filtration media adjacent at least a portion of the rear major surface of the cover panel (Fig. 7); (c) a gasket (Fig. 7 #12; ¶0046) comprising gasket material connected to the perimeter of the cover panel (Fig. 7 #15 touches #12 along its perimeter) configured to conform to a wearer's face (¶0009); and (d) a retaining system (Fig. 7 #13; ¶0046) for securing the face covering to the wearer's face. The claim is understood to require the gasket to be in contact with the perimeter of the cover panel. Messier is silent as to whether a pressure drop across a combination of the cover panel material and the filtration media is from 45% to 75% of a pressure drop across the gasket material, as measured according to ASTM F3502. ASTM F3502 had not yet been introduced at the time of the invention of Messier and thus no direct measurement data can be expected to be found for Messier. Thus, it is essential to consider the particular materials taught by Messier as well as the functional intent of those materials. Messier teaches outer cover scrim 15, as the cited cover panel, as being preferably a spunbond nonwoven material which is thin and highly air-permeable (¶0048). Messier teaches outer cover scrim 15 as “not pos[ing] a significant pressure drop” (¶0048). Messier teaches filter body 11, as the cited filter, as formed of such possible materials as nonwoven filter media to include but are not limited to nylon, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyester, etc. or any other polymer suitable for a filter substrate (¶0031). Because Messier intends all inhaled and exhaled air to pass through filter body 11 it will obviously provide low air resistance. Further, Messier specifically discusses filter body 11 as be thinner than the compressible gasket (¶0014). Messier teaches compressible gasket 12, as the cited gasket, as preferably formed of a nonwoven media while being a breathable material (¶0043). Further, Messier teaches outer cover scrim 15 as having a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm (¶0012), compressible gasket 12 as having a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm (¶0014) and filter body 11 as having a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm (¶0014). Thus, the overall teachings of Messier highlight that compressible gasket 12 is breathable but also provides greater resistance to flow than the combination of outer cover scrim 15 and filter body 11. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizing that the different layers in the Fig. 7 embodiment of Messier can be selected from a set of disclosed different materials and from a range of disclosed different thicknesses would have considered the relative pressure drop relationship between the combination of the cover panel material and the filtration media versus that of the gasket material to be a result effective variable for which many possible values would be achieved during the routine course of experimentation and optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). At present there is no evidence that the claimed pressure drop range would have been unexpected when one of ordinary skill in the art applied routine experimentation and optimization to the overall teachings of Messier. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Messier a pressure drop across a combination of the cover panel material and the filtration media is from 45% to 75% of a pressure drop across the gasket material, as measured according to ASTM F3502 based upon an obvious expectation that the routine course of experimentation and optimization given the different possible materials and thicknesses taught by Messier would have been expected to obviously result in a pressure drop within the recited range, with particular consideration to the teaching that compressible gasket 12 is breathable but also provides greater resistance to flow than the combination of outer cover scrim 15 and filter body 11. Regarding claim 3 , Messier further teaches the filtration media comprises an electret spunbond nonwoven media (¶¶0031, 0033). Regarding claim 5 , Messier further teaches the filtration media has a sub-micron filtration efficiency of at least 85%, as measured according to ASTM F3502 (¶0017). The teaching of viral filtration efficiency of greater than 99% based on ASTM F2100 is considered to obviously suggest performance in accordance with the claimed ASTM F3502 requirements. Regarding claim 6 , Messier further suggests as obvious the filtration media has a pressure drop of from 0.5 mm H 2 O to 5 mm H 2 O, as measured according to ASTM F3502. The overall facemask of Messier has an inhalation resistance of 8.3 mm H 2 O in one testing (¶0058). However, the filter body 11 will only be responsible for a portion of that overall resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have obviously expected Messier to be suitable for reading on the instant claim if tested according to ASTM F3502. Regarding claim 7 , Messier fails to teach the filtration media has a thickness of from 0.6 millimeters to 1.75 millimeters. Messier teaches the filter body 11 as having a thickness of up to about 0.3 mm (¶0014). But a key consideration in Messier is for filter body 11 to be at least 5 times thinner than compressible gasket 12 (¶0014). Messier teaches that the compressible gasket is most preferably has a thickness of from about 2.5 mm to about 3.5 mm (¶0014). A thickness 5 times thinner than the most preferred compressible gasket would result in a filter body thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 0.7 mm. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously expected that when using a thicker compressible gasket the filter body would also be sized to have a larger thickness, with that larger thickness obviously expected to at least reach the bottom of the claimed range. Regarding claim 8 , Messier further suggests as obvious the cover panel material has a pressure drop of from 0.05 mm H 2 O to 1 mm H 2 O, as measured according to ASTM F3502. The overall facemask of Messier has an inhalation resistance of 8.3 mm H 2 O in one testing (¶0058). However, the outer scrim 15 will only be responsible for a portion of that overall resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have obviously expected Messier to be suitable for reading on the instant claim if tested according to ASTM F3502. Regarding claim 10 , Messier further suggests as obvious the cover panel material comprises a knit polyester spacer mesh, knit nylon mesh or a porous nonwoven (¶¶0029, 0046, 0048). Regarding claim 11 , Messier further teaches the gasket material has a thickness of from 0.3 millimeters to 1.2 millimeters (¶0042 – thickness as small as 1 mm). Regarding claim 12 , Messier further teaches the gasket material comprises a polyester-spandex knit, a nylon-spandex knit or an elastic non-woven (¶0043). Polypropylene fibers and modacrylic fibers will be expected to exhibit some elasticity. Regarding claim 14 , Messier further suggests as obvious the gasket material has a pressure drop of from 2 mm H 2 O to 20 mm H 2 O, as measured according to ASTM F3502. The overall facemask of Messier has an inhalation resistance of 8.3 to 8.9 mm H 2 O in testing (¶0058). However, the compressible gasket 12 will only be responsible for a majority portion of that overall resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have obviously expected Messier to be suitable for reading on the instant claim if tested according to ASTM F3502. Regarding claim 15 , Messier further suggests as obvious the pressure drop across the combination of the cover panel material and the filtration media is from 0.5 mm H 2 0 to 5 mm H 2 0, as measured according to ASTM F3502. The overall facemask of Messier has an inhalation resistance of 8.3 mm H 2 O in one testing (¶0058). However, the filter body 11 and the outer scrim 15 will only be responsible for a portion of that overall resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have obviously expected Messier to be suitable for reading on the instant claim if tested according to ASTM F3502. Regarding claim 17 , Messier further teaches having a sub-micron filtration efficiency sub-micron filtration efficiency of at least 85%, as measured according to ASTM F3502 (¶0017). The teaching of viral filtration efficiency of greater than 99% based on ASTM F2100 is considered to obviously suggest performance in accordance with the claimed ASTM F3502 requirements. Regarding claim 18 , Messier further suggests as obvious the face covering has an overall pressure drop of from 0.5 mm H 2 O to 5 mm H 2 O, as measured according to ASTM F3502. One facemask of Messier has an inhalation resistance of 8.3 mm H 2 O in testing (¶0058). However, Messier teaches that various different thicknesses and/or different materials can be used for the different layers of the facemask. One of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously expected that using a thinner layer and/or changing to a more air permeable material would have obviously resulted in a further reducing of the facemask’s resistance to not more than the top of the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have obviously expected Messier, in view of its overall teachings of different thicknesses and/or different materials to be used for the different layers of the facemask, to be suitable for reading on the instant claim if tested according to ASTM F3502. Regarding claim 19 , Messier further teaches the filter is exposed along a central opening of the gasket (Fig. 7 will have the same opening in #12 as illustrated in Fig. 1b) and oversized relative to the central opening to provide an interference fit securing the filter between cover panel and the gasket (Fig. 7 #11 is larger than the opening in #12 as illustrated in Fig. 1b) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier (U.S. Pub. 2010/0313890) in view of Nakagawara (WO 2018/003831 A1; citations from attached machine translation) . Regarding claim 2 , Messier fails to disclose a chin panel coupled to a bottom edge of the cover panel. Nakagawara teaches a face covering (Figs. 6-9) including a chin panel (Figs. 7 & 9 #109) coupled to a bottom edge of a cover panel (Figs. 7 & 9 #140). Nakagawara teaches a chin panel as providing the benefit of allowing the face covering to cover the lower jaw so that the mask is not dislodged by speaking (Pg. 7). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Messier a chin panel coupled to a bottom edge of the cover panel in order to provide the benefit of the face covering to cover the lower jaw so that the mask is not dislodged by speaking in view of Nakagawara . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier (U.S. Pub. 2010/0313890) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0143153) . Regarding claim 13 , Messier fails to disclose the gasket material comprises at least 2% spandex/elastane. Lee teaches a mask (Figs. 1-2) including a gasket (Fig. 2 #300; ¶0038) may which may be manufactured using spandex (¶0038). Lee teaches spandex as being a skin friendly material which improves wearability of the mask (¶0038). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Messier the gasket material comprises at least 2% spandex/elastane in order to provide the benefit of using a skin friendly material which improves wearability of the mask in view of Lee . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier (U.S. Pub. 2010/0313890) in view of Matich (U.S. Pub. 2011/0061656) . Regarding claim 16 , Messier is silent as to whether the face covering provides a Fit Factor of 5 or greater, as measured according to ASTM F3407. It is noted that Messier expressly discusses its invention as relating to N95 respirators (¶0002). N95 respirators are known to have particular fitting requirements. Matich teaches a N95 respirator and provides data about testing the fit factor of respirators on different subjects (¶¶0129-0151 including Tables 1-3). Matich teaches that even for N95 respirators without its inventive adhesive seal overall fit factors were always well above 5 (e.g. Tables 1-3). Matich thus teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously expected the N95 respirator of Messier to perform when tested with a Fit Factor of at least 5. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Messier the face covering provides a Fit Factor of 5 or greater, as measured according to ASTM F3407 based upon the teaching in Matich that N95 respirators, with Messier teaching a N95 respirator, are expected to perform when tested with a Fit Factor of at least 5 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 4 and 9 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4 , Messier fails to teach or suggest the electret spunbond nonwoven media has a solidity gradient along its thickness dimension. There is no consideration in Messier of a solidity gradient in any direction being intentionally applied. It is noted that Messier is the only prior art readable on claim 1. Particular note is made of the recitation in claim 1 of a gasket and then the pressure drop relationship between the gasket material and the combination of the cover panel material and the filtration media. The recited pressure drop relationship implies the gasket material must be air permeable to a significant degree. Secours et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0135994) is a prior art teaching a neoprene-made binding 122 along a perimeter of a mask (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & 13). While the neoprene-made binding 122 might be readable as a gasket neoprene is a material generally impermeable to air. Thus, the neoprene-made binding 122 would not be expected to provide a pressure drop relationship within the claimed range. Further, claim 1 recites the gasket as “connected to the perimeter of the cover panel” which is understood to require a touching contact between the gasket and the cover panel along the perimeter (with the term “connected” implying a contacting). Greenway et al. (U.S. Patent 11052269) is a prior art teaching a stacking of layers above fourth layer 240 which acts as a gasket (Fig. 3; Col. 4, Ln. 52-61). However, the only layer actually connected to fourth layer 240 is third layer 230. Third layer 230 cannot be accurately readable as the cover panel because its rear major surface is against fourth layer 240 while its front major surface is against second layer 220, a critical reversal from the invention recited in claim 1. Thus, neither Greenway nor any other standard stacked layer mask is accurately readable on claim 1. It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning. Regarding claim 9 , Messier fails to teach or suggest the cover panel material has a thickness of from 1.5 millimeters to 3 millimeters. Messier teaches the thickness of the outer scrim as between about 0.1 mm and about 0.2 mm (¶0012). Thus, in order for Messier to be modified in order to read on the instant claim the maximum discussed outer scrim thickness would need to be increased by at least 7 times. Such a modification would only be arrived at by improper hindsight reasoning. The comments regarding the narrowness of claim 1 mentioned in the allowability discussion of claim 4 are again noted. It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. 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. /JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 2 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 3 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 4 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 5 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 6 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 7 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 8 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 9 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 10 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 11 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 12 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 13 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 14 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 15 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 16 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 17 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 18/681,792 Page 18 Art Unit: 3785
Prosecution Insights