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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(2) which requires that the number and letters identifying the drawing views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, e.g., the associated brackets should be excluded, e.g., “[Fig. 1]” should be written as “FIG. 1”… etc.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 7-10-2026.
No claims are amended.
Claims 17-20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 are presently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20070267033 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20050211260A1), and Hepworth (RU 191893 U1) English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 1, Mishra teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising: a first segment (portion wrapped by the first wrapper as illustrated in FIG 1, which is the inner most wrapper)
a second segment comprising a second aerosol-generating material including the nicotine (tobacco plug 80 is included in the second segment);
a first wrapper surrounding the first segment (see first inner most wrapper in the first segment annotated in FIG 1); and
a second wrapper surrounding the second segment (e.g., wrapper web 68 in the second segment, see FIG 1, an ordinary artisan would appreciate wrap 68 joins sections 80, 90, and 74 as illustrated), wherein
that the first segment and the second segment are heated to different temperatures when at least a portion of the first segment and at least a portion of the second segment are heated by a single heater (e.g., the tobacco in the second section is heated by the heater 25 in FIG 4 and 5 and the heat from the second section migrates through the first section and then finally to the user. There would be a temperature gradient between the second section in the heater and the first section which includes the mouth end filter, an ordinary artisan would appreciate the first section would be heated to a lower different temperature than the second section, see FIG 5).
Thus, Mishra fails to (a) explicitly disclose the first segment comprising a first aerosol generating material excluding nicotine and that that first aerosol generating material comprises a first moisturizing material in an amount of at least 30 mg by weight, and (b) disclose a thickness of the wrapper thickness ranges include a thickness of the first wrapper is in a range of 64 μm to 80 μm, a thickness of the second wrapper is in a range of 80 μm to 110 μm, and the thickness of the first wrapper is smaller than the thickness of the second wrapper.
Regarding (a), Sasaki teaches the first aerosol-generating material comprises a first moisturizing material in an amount of at least 30 mg by weight (e.g., glycerin is considered to be the first aerosol generating material, [0050], the glycerin content of the filter in the first segment is 50 mg, which falls within the claimed range of at least 30 mg by weight moisturizing material. Applicants specification discloses glycerin is a moisturizing material, (see instant specification on page 10), Sasaki teaches that moisturizers in the filter are important because they can help to lower the amount of aldehydes in the mainstream aerosol of an aerosol generating article [0020] while suppressing the detrimental effects such as degradation of tobacco taste [0008]. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter in the first segment of Mishra to include the first aerosol generating material of Sasaki (glycerin [0050]) which comprises the moisturizing material of Sasaki in order to lower the amount of aldehydes in the mainstream aerosol of the article while suppressing the detrimental effects such as degradation of tobacco taste.
Regarding (b) Mishra is silent to suitable thicknesses of wrappers for use in smoking devices.
However Hepworth teaches suitable thicknesses of wrappers and teaches a thickness of the wrappers preferably have a range in thickness from 20 μm to 100 μm (see page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom), which overlaps with the claimed wrapper thickness ranges a thickness of the first wrapper is in a range of 64 μm to 80 μm, a thickness of the second wrapper is in a range of 80 μm to 110 μm (the second being thicker than the first and both falling within the range taught by Hepworth), and the thickness of the first wrapper is smaller than the thickness of the second wrapper. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ranges to fall within the ranges disclosed on page 2 3rd paragraph from the bottom, because in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrappers of Mishra, to have a thickness of 20 μm to 100 μm as taught by Hepworth, because both Mishra and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles comprising wrappers, Mishra is silent in regards to suitable thicknesses for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable thicknesses for a similar smoking article, Hepworth teaches known thicknesses for similar wrappers, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Mishra teaches the second aerosol- generating material (plug 80) comprises at least one of nicotine, free-base nicotine, and nicotine salt, obtained from a tobacco cut filler [0071].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Mishra teaches the aerosol-generating article is heated by the single heater, the single heater heats a first portion of the first segment and a second portion of the second segment (See FIG 4-5, the heater heats the second segment and heat from the aerosol produced by the heating of the aerosol in the second segment heats the menthol in the first segment as set forth above).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Mishra does not explicitly disclose that a first area of the first portion and a second area of the second portion are equal to each other an ordinary artisan would appreciate that they are illustrated as being similar in area in FIG 1. Although the drawing is not necessarily drawn to scale, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the area of the first portion and the second portion to be equal to each other as an obvious matter of a change in size design choice. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Mishra teaches an aerosol generated by the single heater is filtered by remaining portions of the second segment excluding the second portion. (e.g., aerosol passes through part 90 and part 74 of the second segment, see FIG 1)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Mishra teaches the single heater heats the first portion and the second portion to at least 120 °C (see [0061], the flavor compound releases its flavor at a min temp of 200 °C, therefore the first and second portions much be at least 200 °C in order to aerosolize the flavor compound into the aerosol generated by the heating of the second segment by the heater.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Mishra teaches the aerosol-generating article is heated by the single heater, and the single heater heats a first portion of the first segment and a second portion of the second segment (see heater 25 in FIG 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, although Mishra does not explicitly disclose that a first area of the first portion and a second area of the second portion are equal to each other an ordinary artisan would appreciate that they are illustrated as being similar in area in FIG 1. Although the drawing is not necessarily drawn to scale, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the area of the first portion and the second portion to be equal to each other as an obvious matter of a change in size design choice. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Mishra teaches the first segment, which comprises the first aerosol-generating material, is adjacent to the second segment, which comprises the second aerosol-generating material, and wherein the first wrapper, which surrounds the first segment, is adjacent to the second wrapper, which surrounds the second segment (see annotated FIG 1).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Mishra teaches the first wrapper and the second wrapper are non-overlapping with respect to each other. (see FIG 1)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20070267033 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20050211260A1), and Hepworth (RU191893) English machine translation relied upon, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kuersteiner (EP3039972A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Mishra fails to explicitly disclose at least one wrapper surrounds the first segment so that the first moisturizing material does not leak out of the first segment.
However, Kuersteiner teaches a similar smoking article that similarly includes a plurality of segments that include a liquid material and menthol similar to Mishra [0044] and teaches at least one wrapper surrounds the first segment so that the first moisturizing material does not leak out of the first segment (the sheet forming the wrapper may be impermeable to the liquid active material so that the liquid does not leak through he wrapper [0046]). Kuersteiner teaches that this is beneficial because not only does it prevent the loss of material but also prevents the wrapper from being stained [0046].
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first wrapper that surrounds the first segment of Mishra with the wrapper of Kuersteiner that is impermeable to the liquid material so that the liquid does not leak through he wrapper, lose material, and prevent the wrapper from being stained as taught by Kuersteiner [0046].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20070267033 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20050211260A1), and Hepworth (RU191893) English machine translation relied upon, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Parry (WO2019129845A1), cited in IDS dated 1/26/2023.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Mishra teaches a plurality of sheets (See FIG 1) However, Mishra is silent to the first segment comprises a sheet impregnated with the first moisturizing material, and a weight of the first moisturizing material is less than or equal to 95 wt% of a weight of the sheet impregnated with the first moisturizing material.
However, Parry teaches that the first segment comprises a sheet impregnated with the first moisturizing material, and a weight of the first moisturizing material is less than or equal to 95 wt% of a weight of the sheet impregnated with the first moisturizing (humectant) material (see page 21 lines 23-30, 0-40%, which falls in the claimed range of 0-95%).
Parry teaches that using paper impregnated with humectant is advantageous because it is environmentally friendly in terms of minimizing excess packaging matter. Additionally, such bodies having a high weight of humectant are well suited to having their state of use identified by measuring the rate of increase of their temperature under heating as this can vary considerably as the humectant is used up, especially for bodies such as mousse where the humectant is almost completely used up during vaping. (see page 22, lines 3-7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first segment of the smoking article of Mishra with the sheet impregnated with the first moisturizing material of Parry because it is environmentally friendly in terms of minimizing excess packaging matter. Additionally, sheets having a high weight of humectant are well suited to having their state of use identified by measuring the rate of increase of their temperature under heating as this can vary considerably as the humectant is used up, especially for bodies such as mousse where the humectant is almost completely used up during vaping. (see page 22, lines 3-7).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Mishra teaches the second aerosol generating material comprises tobacco e.g., 100 mg [0059], but fails to explicitly disclose the second aerosol- generating material comprises a second moisturizing material and a weight of the second moisturizing material included in the second aerosol-generating material is less than or equal to 30 wt% of a total weight of the second aerosol-generating material.
Parry teaches a tobacco body and teaches the tobacco body should include a humectant because the humectant provides an aerosol former for the tobacco (page 28 line 10) and that the humectant should be propylene glycol or glycerin at a percentage of greater than 10wt% of the weight of the tobacco which overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 30 wt% (page 23 line 2). Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second aerosol generating material of Mishra to include a second moisturizing material included in the second aerosol-generating material is less than or equal to 30 wt% of a total weight of the second aerosol-generating material as taught by Parry, so that the tobacco body includes a humectant because the humectant provides an aerosol former for the tobacco (page 28 line 10).
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20070267033 A1), Sasaki (US 20050211260A1), and Hepworth (RU 191893 U1) English machine translation relied upon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White (US 20030178039A).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Mishra teaches the polymer material comprises at least one of paper. [0067], Mishra teaches the wraps can be paper.
Mishra fails to explicitly disclose the sheet in the first segment is impregnated with the first aerosol-generating material.
More specifically, Modified Mishra, as set forth above, teaches the first segment includes glycerin in the filter but fails to explicitly disclose the wrapper around the filter in the first segment is impregnated with glycerin (the first aerosol generating material).
However, White teaches wrappers for smoking devices for first segments (plug wraps) and teaches the wrapper is made from a polymer material (wood pulp e.g., paper) and impregnated with the first aerosol generating material (glycerin, [0026]) and that this wrapper material combination is beneficial because it has a smooth texture and good strength [0027].
A person or ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to further modify the first wrapper of Mishra with glycerin as taught by White in order to have a wrapper material that has a smooth texture and good strength [0027].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Mishra teaches the polymer material comprises at least one of paper. [0067], Mishra teaches the wraps can be paper.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20070267033 A1), Sasaki (US 20050211260A1), and Hepworth (RU 191893 U1) English machine translation relied upon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malgat (US 20160331031A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Mishra fails to explicitly disclose at least one from among the first wrapper and the second wrapper comprises a metal foil.
However, Malgat teaches a heat not burn smoking article with multiple segments in the article and teaches that a smoking article may be wrapped in a wrapper and teaches the wrapper should include a thermally conductive material that comprises a non flammable material [0009] and that the non flammable material may be a metal foil wrapper, specifically an aluminum foil wrapper [0018], and identifies highly efficient thermal conduction as important and preferred features of that wrapper, therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify at least one of the wrappers of Mishra with the thermally conductive metal foil material of Malgat in order to have a wrapper that is highly efficient and thermally conductive.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Mishra fails to explicitly disclose each of the first wrapper and the second wrapper comprises a metal foil as recommended by Malgat.
However, Malgat teaches a heat not burn smoking article with multiple segments in the article and teaches that a smoking article may be wrapped in a wrapper and teaches the wrapper should include a thermally conductive material that comprises a non-flammable material [0009] and that the non-flammable material may be a metal foil wrapper, specifically an aluminum foil wrapper [0018], and identifies highly efficient thermal conduction as important and preferred features of that wrapper, therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second wrapper of Mishra with the thermally conductive metal foil material of Malgat in order to have a wrapper that is highly efficient and thermally conductive as recommended by Malgat.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20070267033 A1), Sasaki (US 20050211260 A1), and Hepworth (RU 191893 U1) English machine translation relied upon, and Malgat (US 20160331031A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gladden (US 20140326260 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Mishra fails to explicitly disclose a suitable total basis weight of the metal foil of the first wrapper is in a range of 50 g/m2 to 60 g/m2, and a total basis weight of the metal foil of the second wrapper is in a range of 50 g/m2 to 60 g/m2.
However, Gladden teaches foil wrappers for smoking articles and teaches suitable thicknesses for aluminum foil wrappers and teaches such a wrapper should have a thickness of 20 microns. [0082] Aluminum is known to have a density of 2.70 g/cm3, accordingly the basis weight of a 20 micron thickness range corresponds to a basis weight range of 54 g/m2, falls within the claimed range of 50 g/m2 to 60 g/m2.
After selecting aluminum foil as a wrapper material as taught by Malgat, it would have been obvious to select Gladdens known 20 micron aluminum foil gauge for foil wrappers, because Gladden shows that the gauge is suitable for forming a foil wrapper in a smoking article. A skilled artisan would have recognized that foil gauge is a routine material selection variable for a wrapper, selected to provide a thin, reliable foil layer while retaining wrapper integrity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20070267033 A1), Sasaki (US 20050211260A1), and Hepworth (RU 191893 U1) English machine translation relied upon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holford (US20150272203A1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Mishra teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Mishra fails to explicitly disclose a total basis weight of the first wrapper is in a range of 80 g/m2 to 90 g/m2, and a total basis weight of the second wrapper is in a range of 120 g/m2 to 130 g/m2.
Holford teaches smoking article wrappers suitable for use in smoking articles and teaches wrappers can have suitable basis weights for use of 80 gsm and 90 gsm as well as weights up to 120 gsm in some embodiments [0056]. Holford further teaches different portions or segments of the smoking article can each be separately wrapped [0106] with wrappers. Thus, Holford supports selecting an 80 gsm sheet for Mishras first wrapper and a 120 gsm sheet for Mishras second wrapper, which each fall within the claimed ranges a total basis weight of the first wrapper is in a range of 80 g/m2 to 90 g/m2, and a total basis weight of the second wrapper is in a range of 120 g/m2 to 130 g/m2.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to made such a modification because Holford teaches that increasing wrapper weight reduces leak paths, improves plug wrap adhesion, and reducing bulging caused by compressed material during manufacture [0105], thereby increasing the wrapper strength with different predictable wrapper strength properties at the two locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 12, Mishra (US 20070267033 A1) teaches a multisegmented aerosol generating article comprising an upstream end of the first segment faces an downstream end of the second segment in a longitudinal direction of the aerosol-generating article (See annotated FIG 1 above)
However, Mishra fails to teach or suggest a second segment placed adjacent to a downstream end of the first segment, e.g., a downstream end of the first segment facing an upstream end of the second segment in the longitudinal direction, and at least one further segment placed adjacent to a downstream end of the second segment. Thus, Mishra teaches the first and second segments in the orientation opposite that which is required by claim 12.
Malgat (US 20160331031A1) teaches a multi-segmented aerosol generating article (see FIG 2-4), aerosol forming substrate 1020, hollow cellulose acetate tube 1030, spacer 1040, mouthpiece filter 1050, arranged sequentially and on coaxial alignment [0075], see also [0080]-[0081], however Malgat also fails to teach or suggest a second segment placed adjacent to a downstream end of the first segment, e.g., a downstream end of the first segment facing an upstream end of the second segment in the longitudinal direction, and at least one further segment placed adjacent to a downstream end of the second segment.
Uthurry (US20200029616A1) teaches a multisegmented aerosol generating article (See FIG 1-4), an aerosol forming substrate 2, followed by a support element 3, followed by a cooling element 104 and finally by a filter 105. [0081], see also FIG 1, however Uthurry also fails to teach or suggest a second segment placed adjacent to a downstream end of the first segment, e.g., a downstream end of the first segment facing an upstream end of the second segment in the longitudinal direction, and at least one further segment placed adjacent to a downstream end of the second segment.
The cited references do not provide an articulated reason to reverse or motivation to otherwise rearrange Mishra’s segment order while retaining the inherited claim limitations. Accordingly, claim 12 includes allowable matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks filed 7-10-2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the office action that Hepworth fails to disclose or suggest that a thickness of the first wrapper is in a range of 64 to 80 microns and a thickness of the second wrapper is in a range of 80 to 110 microns because Applicant argues the modification of Mishra with Hepworth would result in the first wrapper being thicker than the second wrapper and the claim requires the first wrapper to be thinner than the second wrapper. This is not found persuasive because as set forth above the ranges taught by Hepworth overlap with the claimed ranges and in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Accordingly Mishra in view of Hepworth meets the claim limitations within the guidance as set forth in MPEP 2144.05(I).
Applicant argues that Mishra fails to disclose the claim limitation that the first segment and second segment are heated to different temperatures because if such a premise is accepted a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to refer to Hepworth to design the thicknesses of the first and second wrappers to be different. This is not found persuasive because as set forth above. The temperature gradient between the first and second segments is a feature of the proximity to the source of heat of the first and second segments and not a feature necessarily of the wrappers comprising those segments as set forth above.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the combination of Mishra and Hepworth constitutes ex post facto analysis. This is not found persuasive because It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrappers of Mishra, to have a thickness of 20 μm to 100 μm as taught by Hepworth, because both Mishra and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles comprising wrappers, Mishra is silent in regards to suitable thicknesses for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable thicknesses for a similar smoking article, Hepworth teaches known thicknesses for similar wrappers, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus as Mishra teaches the known range required for thickness of wrappers substituting this known range of Mishra would have predictably achieved the claimed function and range and the analysis set forth is therefore not ex post facto because the reconstruction used only relies on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Lastly Applicant argues regarding the allowability of claim 12, which arguments are found persuasive as set forth in the allowable subject matter above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 on 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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
