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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 10/20/2025.
Claims 1, 22, and 24-25 are amended.
Claims 2, 7-9, and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, and 14-25 are pending.
The Examiner withdraws the objection to claim 25 for minor informalities due to Applicant’s amendment filed 10/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see page 3, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9-12, and 14-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando in view of Zolotov have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1, 22, and 24 to include the limitation “a movement sensor configured to sense the rate of movement of the article by determining, while the apparatus is stationary, a change in a detected signal as a function of time due to the article moving within the chamber past the movement sensor, and thereby provide the first input.” The prior art of record fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2010/0163063; of record) in view of Herzog (DE 4006184; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, 14-15, and 21-22, Fernando discloses an electrically heating smoking system (101; abstract; “apparatus” and “system”) and a smoking article (115; abstract), and a method of using the identification information ([0046]) comprising:
a front housing portion (105) and a rear housing portion (107) (Fig. 1; collectively “housing”);
a cavity (111; “chamber”) capable of receiving the smoking article (115; “article comprising aerosolizable medium”) having a circular lines (201 215, 217; Fig. 2a, d; “marker comprising optical features”); and
a programmable controller ([0033]) configured to establish a heating protocol (“determining a parameter of the article”) based on identified information by a detector ([0035]; “receiving”) including:
detecting the presence of the smoking article in the cavity by detecting the time for various lines to pass the detector while the smoking article is being inserting into the cavity ([0066], [0076]), and
identifying the type of article from a number of different types usable with the device from the marking (215; [0076], [0080]; “second input indicative of a parameter of the article” and “wherein at least the second input is determined based on the marker”);
wherein the smoking system comprises a detector (203) including at least one photosensor ([0066]).
Moreover, Fernando discloses that the identification information may be a barcode ([0044]).
However, Fernando is silent as to a controller configured to receive a first input providing a rate of movement of the article within the chamber and relative to the apparatus, received in use, in the chamber; the controller is configured to determine the parameter of the article based on the second input and the first input; and wherein the apparatus comprises a movement sensor configured to sense a rate of movement of the article by determining, while the apparatus is stationary, a change in a detected signal as a function of time due to the article moving within the chamber past the movement sensor and thereby provide the first input.
Herzog teaches a method of measuring bar codes (abstract) reasonably pertinent to inventor’s problem of incorrectly identifying or authorizing articles due to varying insertion speeds (Instant Specification; p. 11, ll. 10-19; Herzog; abstract, describing that the invention allows for absolute measurement of bar separations and widths irrespective of speed) comprising: a photosensor (5; “movement sensor”) for optically scanning a bar code (1; p. 3, para. 6) such that a sensor signal (S) is supplied to an analog-digital converter (8) and device (9) for trigger point determination, the output signals of which are sent to a computer (10; p. 3, para. 7; “controller configured to receive a first input”), wherein the sensor signal (S; Fig. 2; “change in a detected signal as a function of time”) representing a relative movement between the bar code and photosensor when the bar code is moved past the photo sensor (p. 2, para. 10; p. 3, para. 9-10; “while the apparatus is stationary” and “article moving…past the movement sensor”) and including time points (T1, T2, T3, T4) such that a reference speed (v1 or v2) is calculated from the timepoints in the signals (p. 4 para. 1-2; “sense rate of movement of the article by determining…”) which is then used to determine the width of the bars or spaces (p. 4, para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fernando’s photosensor to output a sensor signal to a controller that calculates a reference speed from the signal and uses the speeds to determine the width of the bars and spaces in the barcodes as in Herzog in order to achieve the predictable result of calculating the absolute bar and space separation of the barcode (Herzog; abstract) while correcting for the inaccuracies of the measurement result as a result of the speed of the relative movement (Herzog; p. 2, para. 2, p. 3, para. 1).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 23, modified Fernando discloses the electrically heating smoking system comprising at least one heating element (“one or more aerosol generating element” and “one or more heaters”) configured to be activated based on a heating protocol determined by the particular article identified by the detector ([0009], [0035]; “controlling…based on the parameter”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fernando discloses establishing a heating protocol based on the particular smoking article including one or more of: a maximum operating temperature, a maximum heating time per puff, a minimum time between puffs, a maximum number of puffs per smoking article, and a maximum total heating time for the smoking article ([0035]; “first heating profile if the parameter has a first characteristic” and “second heating profile if the parameter has a second characteristic”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fernando discloses that the photosensor measures the timepoints (Herzog; T1, T2, T3, T4) that the bars in the barcode move past an aperture (7) in the photosensor to determine the reference speed (Herzog; p. 4, para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11-12, modified Fernando discloses the detector is an optical sensor ([0042]; “parameter sensor”) for detecting the ink of the markings ([0044]; “characteristic associated with the marker to determine the second input”) and identifying the type of article from different types of usable devices ([0076]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Fernando discloses the identification information includes metallic ink ([0007]; “electrically conductive feature”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Fernando discloses the article (115’’’; Fig. 2d) having circular lines (215, 217; see Fig. 2; “first region” and “second region” respectively).
Regarding the claim limitations “configured to be sensed by a movement sensor to determine a rate of the movement of the article” and “configured to determine a value associated with the marker to determine the parameter of the article,” these limitations have been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the cigarette with circular lines of modified Fernando is identical to the claimed invention’s “first region” and “second region”, they are capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 18, modified Fernando discloses the article defining a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2d; parallel to the length of the cigarette), and the lines (215) are disposed along a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2d).
Regarding claim 19¸ modified Fernando discloses the lines are circular lines ([0079]) extending substantially around the circumference of the article ([0044]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Fernando discloses the aerosol-forming substrate includes tobacco-containing material containing volatile flavor compounds ([0021]; at least comprises a “solid”).
Regarding claim 24, Fernando discloses an electrically heating smoking system (101; abstract; “apparatus”) and a smoking article (115; abstract) comprising:
a front housing portion (105) and a rear housing portion (107) (Fig. 1; collectively “housing”);
a cavity (111; “chamber”) capable of receiving the smoking article (115; “article comprising aerosolizable medium”) having a circular lines (201 215, 217; Fig. 2a, d; “one or more elements”); and
a programmable controller ([0033]) configured to establish a heating protocol based on identified information by a detector ([0035]; “receiving”) including:
detecting the presence of the smoking article in the cavity by detecting the time for various lines to pass the detector while the smoking article is being inserting into the cavity ([0066], [0076]), and
identifying the type of article from a number of different types usable with the device from the marking (215; [0076], [0080]; “second input determined based on the one or more elements”);
wherein the smoking system comprises a detector (203) including at least one photosensor ([0066]).
Moreover, Fernando discloses that the identification information may be a barcode ([0044]).
However, Fernando is silent as to a controller configured to receive a first input providing a rate of movement of the article within the chamber and relative to the apparatus, received in use, in the chamber; and wherein the apparatus comprises a movement sensor configured to sense a rate of movement of the article by determining, while the apparatus is stationary, a change in a detected signal as a function of time due to the article moving within the chamber past the movement sensor and thereby provide the first input.
Herzog teaches a method of measuring bar codes (abstract) reasonably pertinent to inventor’s problem of incorrectly identifying or authorizing articles due to varying insertion speeds (Instant Specification; p. 11, ll. 10-19; Herzog; abstract, describing that the invention allows for absolute measurement of bar separations and widths irrespective of speed) comprising: a photosensor (5; “movement sensor”) for optically scanning a bar code (1; p. 3, para. 6) such that a sensor signal (S) is supplied to an analog-digital converter (8) and device (9) for trigger point determination, the output signals of which are sent to a computer (10; p. 3, para. 7; “controller configured to receive a first input”), wherein the sensor signal (S; Fig. 2; “change in a detected signal as a function of time”) representing a relative movement between the bar code and photosensor when the bar code is moved past the photo sensor (p. 2, para. 10; p. 3, para. 9-10; “while the apparatus is stationary” and “article moving…past the movement sensor”) and including time points (T1, T2, T3, T4) such that a reference speed (v1 or v2) is calculated from the timepoints in the signals (p. 4 para. 1-2; “sense rate of movement of the article by determining…”) which is then used to determine the width of the bars or spaces (p. 4, para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fernando’s photosensor to output a sensor signal to a controller that calculates a reference speed from the signal and uses the speeds to determine the width of the bars and spaces in the barcodes as in Herzog in order to achieve the predictable result of calculating the absolute bar and space separation of the barcode (Herzog; abstract) while correcting for the inaccuracies of the measurement result as a result of the speed of the relative movement (Herzog; p. 2, para. 2, p. 3, para. 1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Fernando discloses the detector is an optical sensor ([0042]; “parameter sensor”) for detecting the ink of the markings ([0044]; “characteristic associated with the one or more elements to determine the second input”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. in view of Horzog as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams et al. (US 6053176; of record).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fernando discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, modified Fernando is silent as to an actuator configured to control the rate of movement of the article by doing at least one of: (a) rotating the article received in use in the chamber at a predetermined rate of (b) inserting the article into the chamber at a predetermined rate.
Adams teaches a system for heating a cigarette (abstract) comprising a lighter (10) and a cigarette (12), the lighter including a moving lever (26 or a single drive wheel (68) for driving gears (“actuator”) such that a new section of cigarette is brought into thermal proximity of the heater (62, 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Adams’ actuator to modified Lim’s device in order to obtain the predictable result rotating the cigarette inside the housing such that a fresh portion of the cigarette is in proximity to the heater (Adams; abstract) thereby allowing the user to enjoy all of the cigarette without waste.
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 1, 3-6, 10-12, and 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites (a) “a controller configured to receive: a first input providing a rate of movement of the article within the chamber and relative to the apparatus, received in use, in the chamber, and a second input indicative of a parameter of the article, wherein at least the second input is determined based on a marker” and (b) “wherein the controller is configured to determine the parameter of the article based on the second input and the first input.” These limitations, interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of limitations in the mind but-for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a “controller” that is configured to perform the steps of receiving the first input and the second input and determine a parameter based on the first and second inputs, nothing the claims preclude these limitations from practically being performed in the mind. Limitation (a) merely involves the collection data in the form of the first input and the second input. MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A), describing a claim to “collecting information” can be practically performed in the human mind. Similarly, limitation (b) merely involves analyzing collected data in the form of determining a parameter of the article. MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A), describing “collecting information [and] analyzing it” could practically be performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the claim recites structural elements of “a housing,” and “a chamber,” which are considered generic parts recited with a high level of generality that do no more than supplying the context to apply the judicial exception to apparatus for generating aerosols. MPEP 2106.06(h). Moreover, the limitation of “a movement sensor configured to sense a rate of movement of the article by determining, while the apparatus is stationary, a change in a detected signal as a function of time due to the article moving within the chamber past the movement sensor, and thereby provide the first input” involves mere instructions to apply the exception, as the movement sensor is simply machinery as a tool to perform an existing process of calculating the speed of an article. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Moreover, because the chamber and housing are recited broadly and only require sizing capable of fitting “an article comprising aerosolizable medium and including a marker,”, it appears the claim has broad applicability across different fields of endeavor and appears to be an attempt to merely add the words “apply it” it the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, apparatus for generating aerosols from an aerosolizable medium comprising a housing and a chamber are well-understood, routine, and conventional parts. For example, Fernando discloses an electrically heating smoking system (101; abstract; “apparatus”) and a smoking article (115; abstract) comprising: a front housing portion (105) and a rear housing portion (107) (Fig. 1; collectively “housing”); and a cavity (111; “chamber”). Moreover, Herzog teaches using a photosensor (5; “movement sensor”) that outputs a sensor signal (S; Fig. 2; “change in a detected signal as a function of time”) representing a relative movement between the bar code and photosensor when the bar code is moved past the photo sensor (p. 2, para. 10; p. 3, para. 9-10; “while the apparatus is stationary” and “article moving…past the movement sensor”) and including time points (T1, T2, T3, T4) such that a reference speed (v1 or v2) is calculated from the timepoints in the signals (p. 4 para. 1-2; “sense rate of movement of the article by determining…”). Therefore, the additional elements in claim 1 are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-5 additionally recite “one or more aerosol generating elements” and “one or more heaters,” which merely supply a context for applying the judicial exception to aerosol generating apparatuses. The limitation “configured to be activated depending on the parameter of the article” and “provide a first heating profile…” is an attempt to merely recite the words “apply it” to the judicial exception in executing information provided by the parameter.
Claim 6 additionally recites “an actuator configured to control the rate of movement of the article,” which appears to have broad applicability across many fields of endeavor and amount to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Claim 10 additionally recites “the movement sensor configured to measure a time that at least a portion of the marker moves past the movement sensor to determine the rate of movement” is well-understood, routine and conventional activity, as Herzog teaches using time points (T1, T2, T3, T4) to calculate a reference speed (v1 or v2).
Claims 11-12 additionally recite a “parameter sensor,” which is similarly well-understood, routine and conventional activity, as Fernando discloses a detector (203) used to identify the article.
Claims 14-19 and 21 additionally recites the article comprising aerosolizable medium and a marker, which is similarly well-understood, routine and conventional activity as Fernando discloses such an article (115) with circular lines (201, 215). Additionally, the article merely supplies the context to the aerosol-generating apparatuses context.
Claim 20 merely expands what the information included in the parameter, which narrows the judicial exception of determining the parameter.
Claim 22 recites (a) “receiving, by a controller of the apparatus and from the movement sensor, a first input providing the rate of movement of the article within a receptacle and relative to the apparatus… receiving by the controller, a second input indicative of a parameter” and (b) “determining, by the controller, the parameter of the article based on the second input and the first input.” These limitations, interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of limitations in the mind but-for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a “controller” that is configured to perform the steps of receiving the first input and the second input and determine a parameter based on the first and second inputs, nothing the claims preclude these limitations from practically being performed in the mind. Limitation (a) merely involves the collection data in the form of the first input and the second input. MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A), describing a claim to “collecting information” can be practically performed in the human mind. Similarly, limitation (b) merely involves analyzing collected data in the form of determining a parameter of the article. MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A), describing “collecting information [and] analyzing it” could practically be performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the claim recites structural elements of “an apparatus,” and “a chamber of the apparatus” which are considered generic parts recited with a high level of generality that do no more than supplying the context to apply the judicial exception to apparatus for generating aerosols. MPEP 2106.06(h). Moreover, the limitation of “sensing, by a movement sensor of the apparatus, a rate of movement of the article by determining, while the apparatus is stationary, a change in a detected signal as a function of time due to the article moving within the chamber past the movement sensor” involves mere instructions to apply the exception, as the movement sensor is simply machinery as a tool to perform an existing process of calculating the speed of an article. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, apparatus for generating aerosols from an aerosolizable medium comprising a housing and a chamber are well-understood, routine, and conventional parts. For example, Fernando et al. (US 2010/0163063; of record) discloses an electrically heating smoking system (101; abstract; “apparatus”) and a smoking article (115; abstract) comprising: a front housing portion (105) and a rear housing portion (107) (Fig. 1; collectively “housing”); and a cavity (111; “chamber”). Moreover, Herzog a well-known movement sensor operated as claimed, using a photosensor (5; “movement sensor”) that outputs a sensor signal (S; Fig. 2; “change in a detected signal as a function of time”) representing a relative movement between the bar code and photosensor when the bar code is moved past the photo sensor (p. 2, para. 10; p. 3, para. 9-10; “while the apparatus is stationary” and “article moving…past the movement sensor”) and including time points (T1, T2, T3, T4) such that a reference speed (v1 or v2) is calculated from the timepoints in the signals (p. 4 para. 1-2; “sense rate of movement of the article by determining…”). Therefore, the additional elements in claim 1 are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not patent eligible.
Claim 23 additionally recites “controlling the operation of one or more aerosol generating elements based on the parameter,” which merely supply a context for applying the judicial exception to aerosol generating apparatuses and is an attempt to merely recite the words “apply it” to the judicial exception in executing information provided by the parameter.
Claim 24 recites (a) “a controller configured to receive: a first input providing a rate of movement of the article within the chamber and relative to the apparatus, received in use, in the chamber, and a second input indicative of a parameter of the article, wherein at least the second input is determined based on a marker.” This limitation, interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of limitations in the mind but-for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a “controller” that is configured to perform the steps of receiving the first input and the second input and determine a parameter based on the first and second inputs, nothing the claims preclude these limitations from practically being performed in the mind. Limitation (a) merely involves the collection data in the form of the first input and the second input. MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(A), describing a claim to “collecting information” can be practically performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the claim recites structural elements of “a housing,” and “a chamber,” which are considered generic parts recited with a high level of generality that do no more than supplying the context to apply the judicial exception to apparatus for generating aerosols. MPEP 2106.06(h). Moreover, the limitation of “a movement sensor configured to sense a rate of movement of the article by determining, while the apparatus is stationary, a change in a detected signal as a function of time due to the article moving within the chamber past the movement sensor, and thereby provide the first input” involves mere instructions to apply the exception, as the movement sensor is simply machinery as a tool to perform an existing process of calculating the speed of an article. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Moreover, because the chamber and housing are recited broadly and only require sizing capable of fitting “an article comprising aerosolizable medium and including a marker,”, it appears the claim has broad applicability across different fields of endeavor and appears to be an attempt to merely add the words “apply it” it the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, apparatus for generating aerosols from an aerosolizable medium comprising a housing and a chamber are well-understood, routine, and conventional parts. For example, Fernando et al. (US 2010/0163063; of record) discloses an electrically heating smoking system (101; abstract; “apparatus”) and a smoking article (115; abstract) comprising: a front housing portion (105) and a rear housing portion (107) (Fig. 1; collectively “housing”); and a cavity (111; “chamber”). Moreover, Herzog teaches using a photosensor (5; “movement sensor”) that outputs a sensor signal (S; Fig. 2; “change in a detected signal as a function of time”) representing a relative movement between the bar code and photosensor when the bar code is moved past the photo sensor (p. 2, para. 10; p. 3, para. 9-10; “while the apparatus is stationary” and “article moving…past the movement sensor”) and including time points (T1, T2, T3, T4) such that a reference speed (v1 or v2) is calculated from the timepoints in the signals (p. 4 para. 1-2; “sense rate of movement of the article by determining…”). Therefore, the additional elements in claim 1 are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not patent eligible.
Claim 25 additionally recites a “parameter sensor,” which is similarly well-understood, routine and conventional activity, as Fernando discloses a detector (203) used to identify the article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST.
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, Philip Y Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights