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 Status
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/21/2025, (“Remarks”) were in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 08/22/2025 (“Non-Final Rejection”).
Claim(s) 22, 28, 33, and 35 is/are canceled.
Claims(s) 38 is/are new.
Therefore, claim(s) 21, 23–27, 29–32, 34, and 38 is/are pending and is/are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the previous presumption that the certain claim limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Drawing Objection(s)
The Non-Final Rejection objected to Applicant’s drawings because of various informalities.
The above referenced objection(s) is/are moot and withdrawn.
Specification Objection(s)
The Non-Final Rejection objected to Applicant’s disclosure because of various informalities.
The above referenced objection(s) is/are moot and withdrawn.
Claim Objection(s)
The Non-Final Rejection objected to claim(s) 32.
Examiner would like to thank Applicant for amending the claim(s) to provide greater consistency. The objection(s) referenced above is/are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph
Claim(s) 21–23, 25–29, and 32–37 was/were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant canceled claim(s) 22, 28, 33, and 35 in the amended claim set filed on 11/21/2025. Accordingly, the relevant rejection(s) to the canceled claims are moot and withdrawn.
Examiner would like to thank Applicant for amending the claim(s) at issue. The rejection(s) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the Non-Final Rejection is/are moot and withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Claim(s) 21–23, 25–29, and 32–37 was/were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Applicant canceled claim(s) 22, 28, 33, and 35 in the amended claim set filed on 11/21/2025. Accordingly, the rejection(s) in the Non-Final Rejection is/are moot and withdrawn.
Examiner would like to thank Applicant for amending the claim(s) at issue. The rejection(s) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Non-Final Rejection is/are moot and withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s Remarks, id. at 6–8, have been fully considered.
With respect to independent claim 21, Applicant argues:
LANCASTER discloses a smoking pipe which is a one-piece barrel of compacted metal. Column 1, lines 18-19. "The external surface of the barrel, between the portion 7 and the opposite end, is provided with a plurality of radial flanges." Column 2, lines 10-12. As can be seen in the Figures, the segment with radial flanges begins on the end having the bowl 3 opening, surrounding the entire bowl 3, and extending to the mouthpiece 9. Unlike LANCASTER, amended claim 21 describes a heat dissipation feature that is between the vaporization chamber and the second end of the tip body. The heat dissipation feature does not surround the vaporization chamber. Accordingly, LANCASTER does not disclose all the features of amended claim 21 and the remaining references do not overcome these deficiencies.
Remarks at 6–7. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the heat dissipation feature does not surround the vaporization chamber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As demonstrated in the rejections below, LANCASTER anticipates claim 21 and various other prior art references make obvious dependent claims 23–25.
With respect to independent claim 26, Applicant argues:
The Examiner takes the position that BRISBANE discloses "a cap (E) removable seated over the first end of the tip body and encircling the extraction chamber (Figs. 1-3, col 2, II. 15-17)."OA pg. 18. BRISBANE more specifically states, "The letter E represents a perforated cap, adapted to fit over the end of the tube D when the device is employed for smoking loose tobacco." Column 2, lines 15-17. While Applicant agrees that BRISBANE discloses that the cap is seated over the end of tube D as quoted above, the cap does NOT also encircle the vaporization chamber (as amended) - which in BRISBANE would be tube D. Accordingly, the cited references do not disclose, teach or suggest an assembly comprising all the components of claim 26, including a cap of the type set forth therein encircling the vaporization chamber of the tip.
Remarks at 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. BRISBANE illustrates that that cap E encircles the vaporization chamber D in Fig. 3. Please see annotated reproduction of BRISBANE’s Fig. 3 below:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BRISBANE into modified LANCASTER for the benefit of retention and smoking of loose tobacco (as taught by LANCASTER at col. 2, ll. 15–end).
Accordingly, LANCASTER and BRISBANE make obvious the assembly of claim 26. As demonstrated in the rejections below, the prior art makes obvious claim 26’s dependent claims.
With respect to independent claim 32, Applicant argues:
Amended claim 32 is patentable by calling for an assembly for an exothermal vaporizer comprising a tip removably coupleable to a body of an exothermal vaporizer, the tip comprising a first end for coupling to the body of the exothermal vaporizer, a hollow interior forming a vaporization chamber and a second end which has an opening to the vaporization chamber, the tip also comprising a heat dissipation feature comprising one or more fins on an exterior of the tip; a cap positionable over the opening to the vaporization chamber on the tip, encircling the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip; and a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature. For the reasons set forth above, the cited references alone or in combination do not disclose, teach, or suggest all the features of the assembly of claim 32.
Remarks at 7–8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As demonstrated in the rejections below, the prior art makes obvious claim 32 and its dependents.
With respect to independent claim 38, Applicant argues:
New claim 38 is patentable by calling for an assembly for an exothermal vaporizer
comprising a tip of an exothermal vaporizer, the tip comprising a first end and a second end, a hollow interior forming a vaporization chamber wherein one of the first end or the second end has an opening to the vaporization chamber, the tip also comprising a heat dissipation feature comprising a minimized cross-sectional area on an exterior of the tip; a cap positionable over the opening to the vaporization chamber on the tip, encircling the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip; and a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature. The cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest such an assembly.
Remarks at 7–8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As demonstrated in the rejection below, the prior art makes obvious claim 38.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LANCASTER US 2,644,464 (“LANCASTER”) (of record).
As to claim 21, LANCASTER discloses an assembly for a thermal extraction device, the assembly comprising:
a tip body (1) having a first end (near 4) and a second end (near 2) spaced from the first end of the tip body and couplable to a body of an exothermal vaporizer, an opening extending longitudinally through the tip body (see hollow region illustrated in Fig. 2), at least a portion of the opening forming a vaporization chamber (near 4) having a first end (near 4) and a second end (near 3), the first end of the vaporization chamber aligned with the first end of the tip body (Fig. 2), and wherein the first end of the vaporization chamber is open for receipt of material (Fig. 2);
a heat dissipation feature (11) comprising one or more fins on an exterior of the tip body (Figs. 1–2, 11; col. 2 ll.21–33), the heat dissipation feature having a first end (near 6) and a second end (near 4) spaced from the first end of the heat dissipation feature (Figs. 1–2), the first end of the heat dissipation feature positioned adjacent to the second end of the vaporization chamber (see reproduction above),
wherein the heat dissipation feature is between the vaporization chamber and the second end of the tip body (see reproduction above).
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.
Claims 23–24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LANCASTER US 2,644,464 (“LANCASTER”) (of record) in view of TREVVAPOR GBR DE 202014000343 (of record and with reference made to the machine translation made of record on 01/13/2025) (“TREVVAPOR”) (of record).
As to claim 23, LANCASTER discloses the tip of claim 21.
LANCASTER fails to disclose wherein the second end of the tip body comprises an elastomeric member.
TREVVAPOR teaches wherein a second end of the tip body comprises an elastomeric member (40).
PNG
media_image5.png
409
733
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of TREVVAPOR in to the disclosure of LANCASTER for the benefit of a mouth piece which is able to rotated into an open or closed position to prevent leakage from the interior or ingress of dirt (as taught by TREVVAPOR at middle of page 7).
As to claim 24, LANCASTER And TREVVAPOR make obvious the tip of claim 23.
The obvious combination above would arrive at the coupling mechanism comprises one or more o-rings on the second end of the tip body (as taught by TREVVAPRO at bottom of page 6 and illustrated in Fig. 6 at 44).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LANCASTER in view of BREIWA US 20140186015 (of record) (“BREIWA”).
As to claim 25, LANCASTER discloses the tip of claim 21.
LANCASTER a fails to disclose further comprising one or more grooves on the interior wall of the extraction chamber and a circumferential compression fit diffuser disc.
BREIWA teaches one or more grooves (Figs. 3, 16 and 21-23; 27) on an interior wall of the extraction chamber (11) and a circumferential compression fit diffuser disc (26; [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BREIWA into the disclosure of LANCASTER for the benefit of retaining the tobacco and/or regulating the distribution of heat and airflow within the chamber (as taught by BRETWA at [0048]).
Claims 26–27, and 37 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LANCASTER US 2,644,464 (“LANCASTER”) in view of BRISBANE US 0198,341 (“BRISBANE”).
As to claim 26, LANCASTER discloses an assembly for a thermal extraction device, the assembly comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
262
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a tip having a tip body (1) having an opening extending longitudinally through the tip body (Figs. 1–2), at least a portion of the opening forming a vaporization chamber with an open end configured for receipt of material (near 4);
a heat dissipation feature (Figs. 1–2, 11; col. 2 ll. 21–33) comprising one or more fins on an exterior of the tip body; and
a second end of the tip body spaced from the first end of the tip body (Figs. 1–2); and
LANCASTER fails to disclose a cap removably seated over the open end of and encircling the vaporization chamber.
BRISBANE teaches
PNG
media_image6.png
386
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a cap (E) removably seated (compare Figs. 2 and 3) over an open end of and encircling a vaporization chamber (col. 2, ll. 15–17; Fig. 3 illustrates that cap encircles the vaporization chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BRISBANE into modified LANCASTER for the benefit of retention and smoking of loose tobacco (as taught by LANCASTER at col. 2, ll. 15–end).
As to claim 27, LANCASTER and BRISBANE make obvious the assembly of claim 26.
BRISBANE teaches that the cap is made of material which does not deform when heat is applied and a user inhales (LANCASTER at col. 2, ll. 15–end).
However, BRISBANE’s generic teachings are silent to the material of the cap.
LANCASTER’s tip is taught as being made of metal (col. 1, ll. 17–31).
When incorporating the teachings of BRISBANE’s cap for the reasons already stated above, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of LANCASTER’s metal assembly in to the generic disclosure of BRISBANE’s incorporated cap for the benefit of a strong material which is easily cleaned and cool off quickly when not smoking (as taught by LANCASTER at col. 1 ll. 17–31).
The above rationale makes obvious a cap made from any number of different types of metals that will change color when sufficiently heated, e.g., copper, brass, steel, or stainless steel.
Accordingly, modified LANCASTER arrives at wherein the cap is a temperature indicating cap.
As to claim 37, LANCASTER and BRISBANE make obvious the assembly of claim 26.
LANCASTER further discloses wherein the heat dissipation feature (Figs. 1–2, 11) is located between the vaporization chamber (3) and the he second end of the tip body (Figs. 1 and 2).
Accordingly, LANCASTER and BRISBANE make obvious the assembly of claim 37.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LANCASTER US 2,644,464 (“LANCASTER”) (of record) and BRISBANE US 0198,341 (“BRISBANE”) (of record) , as applied in the rejection of claim 26 above, and in further view of TREVVAPOR GBR DE 202014000343 (of record and with reference made to the machine translation made of record on 01/13/2025) (“TREVVAPOR”) (of record).
As to claim 29, LANCASTER and BRISBANE make obvious the assembly of claim 26.
LANCASTER and BRISBANE fail to disclose further comprising an elastomeric member for a friction fit engagement with an exothermal vaporizer.
TREVVAPOR teaches
PNG
media_image5.png
409
733
media_image5.png
Greyscale
an elastomeric member (38) for a friction fit engagement with an exothermal vaporizer (see bottom of page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of TREVVAPOR into modified LANCASTER for the benefit of a mouth piece which is able to rotated into an open or closed position to prevent leakage from the interior or ingress of dirt (as taught by TREVVAPOR at middle of page 7).
As to claim 30, LANCASTER, BRISBANE, and TREVVAPOR make obvious the assembly of claim 29.
LANCASTER and BRISBANE fail to disclose wherein the elastomeric member comprises one or more o-rings on the second end of the tip body.
The obvious combination above would arrive at the coupling mechanism comprises one or more o-rings on the second end of the tip body (as taught by TREVVAPRO at bottom of page 6 and illustrated in Fig. 6 at 44).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LANCASTER US 2,644,464 (“LANCASTER”) (of record) and BRISBANE US 0198,341 (“BRISBANE”) (of record), as applied in the rejection of claim 26 above, and in further view of BREIWA US 20140186015 (of record) (“BREIWA”) (of record).
As to claim 31, LANCASTER and BRISBANE make obvious the assembly of claim 26.
LANCASTER and BRISBANE fail to disclose further comprising one or more grooves on the interior wall of the vaporization chamber and a circumferential compression fit diffuser disc.
BREIWA teaches one or more grooves (Figs. 3, 16 and 21-23; 27) on an interior wall of the vaporization chamber (11) and a circumferential compression fit diffuser disc (26; [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BREIWA into the disclosure of modified LANCASTER for the benefit of retaining the tobacco and/or regulating the distribution of heat and airflow within the chamber (as taught by BRETWA at [0048]).
Claims 32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LANCASTER US 2,644,464 (“LANCASTER”) in view of BRISBANE US 0198,341 (“BRISBANE”) (of record) and in further view of BREIWA US 20140186015 (of record) (“BREIWA”) (of record).
As to claim 32, LANCASTER discloses an assembly for an exothermal vaporizer (Figs. 1–2) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
262
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a tip (1)removably coupleable to a body or stem of an exothermal vaporizer (9), the tip comprising an first end (near 8, 9, and 10) for coupling to the body or stem of the exothermal vaporizer, a hollow interior forming a vaporization chamber (Fig. 2) and a second end (near 4) which has an opening (near 4) to the vaporization chamber (3), the tip also comprising a heat dissipation feature comprising one or more fins(11) on an exterior of the tip (Figs. 1–2; col. 2 ll. 21–33); and
LANCASTER fails to disclose 1) a cap positionable over the opening to the vaporization chamber on the tip, encircling the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip; and 2) a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature.
BRISBANE teaches
PNG
media_image6.png
386
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a cap (E) positionable over the opening to the vaporization chamber on the tip, encircling the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip (Figs. 1–3, col. 2, ll. 15–17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BRISBANE into LANCASTER for the benefit of retention and smoking of loose tobacco (as taught by LANCASTER at col. 2, ll. 15–end).
BRISBANE fails to teaches a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature.
BREIWA teaches a non-electric temperature indicator (28) configured to signal a predetermined temperature ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BREIWA into the disclosure of modified LANCASTER for the benefit of indicating when vaporization chamber is heated to a predetermined temperature (as taught by BREIWA at [0042]).
As to claim 34, LANCASTER, BRISBANE, and BREIWA make obvious the assembly as claimed in claim 32.
LANCASTER further discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
262
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the tip includes a diffuser (12) therein (col. 2 ll. 17–20).
Accordingly, LANCASTER, BRISBANE, and BREIWA make obvious the assembly as claimed in claim 34.
As to claim 36, LANCASTER, BRISBANE, and BREIWA make obvious the assembly as claimed in claim 32.
LANCASTER further discloses wherein the heat dissipation feature (Figs. 1–2, 11) is located between the vaporization chamber (3) and the first end (near 8, 9, and 10)
Accordingly, LANCASTER, BRISBANE, and BREIWA make obvious the assembly as claimed in claim 36.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LANCASTER US 2,644,464 (“LANCASTER”) (of record) in view of BRISBANE US 0198,341 (“BRISBANE”) (of record) and in further view of BREIWA US 20140186015 (of record) (“BREIWA”) (of record).
As to claim 38, LANCASTER discloses an assembly for an exothermal vaporizer comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
262
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a tip of an exothermal vaporizer (1) , the tip comprising a first end (near 8, 9, and 10) and a second end (near 4), a hollow interior (Fig. 2) forming a vaporization chamber (3) wherein one of the first end or the second end has an opening to the vaporization chamber (Fig. 2), the tip also comprising a heat dissipation feature (11) comprising a minimized cross-sectional area on an exterior of the tip (Figs. 1–2);
LANCASTER fails to disclose 1) a cap positionable over the opening to the vaporization chamber on the tip, encircling the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip; and 2) a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature.
BRISBANE teaches
PNG
media_image6.png
386
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a cap (E) positionable over the opening to the vaporization chamber on the tip, encircling the vaporization chamber and removable from the tip (Figs. 1–3, col. 2, ll. 15–17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BRISBANE into LANCASTER for the benefit of retention and smoking of loose tobacco (as taught by LANCASTER at col. 2, ll. 15–end).
BRISBANE fails to teaches a non-electric temperature indicator configured to signal a predetermined temperature.
BREIWA teaches a non-electric temperature indicator (28) configured to signal a predetermined temperature ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BREIWA into the disclosure of modified LANCASTER for the benefit of indicating when vaporization chamber is heated to a predetermined temperature (as taught by BREIWA at [0042]).
Accordingly, LANCASTER, BRISBANE, and BREIWA make obvious the assembly as claimed in claim 38.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEVINE U.S. Pub. No.: 20190000139 (“LEVINE”) discloses a tip (200) for a thermal extraction device (Figs. 1–2), the tip comprising:
PNG
media_image7.png
338
508
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a tip body (212 to 210) having a first end (near 204) and a second end (224) spaced from the first end of the tip body (Fig. 2E) and couplable to a body of an exothermal vaporizer ([0024]), an opening extending longitudinally through the tip body (Figs. 2A–E), at least a portion of the opening forming a vaporization chamber (220; [0024]) having a first end (near 204) and a second end (near 218), the first end of the vaporization chamber aligned with the first end of the tip body (Fig. 2E), and wherein the first end of the vaporization chamber (3) is open for receipt of material ([0024]);
a heat dissipation feature (222) comprising one or more fins on an exterior of the tip body (Figs. 2A–E), the heat dissipation feature having a first end (near 218) and a second end (nearer 224) spaced from the first end of the heat dissipation feature (Figs. 2A–E),
the first end of the heat dissipation feature positioned adjacent to the second end of the vaporization chamber (see below),
wherein the heat dissipation feature (222) is between the vaporization chamber (220) and the second end of the tip body (224).
However, LEVINE claims priority to 06/30/2018, which is after the pending application’s effective filing date of 12/18/2015. Accordingly, LEVINE does not constitute prior art.
US 0986024 A discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image10.png
145
331
media_image10.png
Greyscale
US 1209596 discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image11.png
472
415
media_image11.png
Greyscale
US 1571729 A discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image12.png
165
324
media_image12.png
Greyscale
US 1881793 A discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image13.png
550
446
media_image13.png
Greyscale
US 2040704 A discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image14.png
160
427
media_image14.png
Greyscale
US 2191672 A discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image15.png
623
425
media_image15.png
Greyscale
US D142922 S discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image16.png
191
318
media_image16.png
Greyscale
US 2654370 A discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image17.png
161
405
media_image17.png
Greyscale
US 2704081 A discloses a tip with fins adjacent a a second end of the vaporization chamber. Please see reproduction below:
PNG
media_image18.png
496
367
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747