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 .
Response to Amendment
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/01/2026.
Claims 16-20 and 23-37 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 16 is amended.
Claims 21-22 are cancelled.
Claims 33-37 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 16-20 and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Applicant has amended the claim to include the paper is substantially free of fillers.
On pages 5-6, the Applicant argues that Sakurai does not disclose a paper layer substantially free of fillers and instead teaches a filler-containing wrapping paper.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Sakurai only discloses embodiments that include filler in the examples, Sakurai does disclose that filler is an optional limitation and thus not required by the disclosure. Sakurai discloses “a filler may be added as long as the effects of the present invention are not impaired.” ([0035]). Therefore, Sakurai is not limited to embodiments only comprising filler. However, to advance prosecution an additional reference that teaches paper layers without fillers has been provided below.
On page 7, the Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to eliminate fillers from Sakurai’s wrapping paper because Sakurai states that the inventors conducted extensive studies and found that when a basis weight, a pulp freeness, an air permeability, and an opacity of a wrapping paper are controlled to be within a specific range, the occurrence of stains is suppressed, and completed the present invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Sakurai discloses preferable ranges of filler within the composition, there are still ranges wherein Sakurai discloses very little filler, such as 5% ([0032]) or may include filler suggesting it is an optional additive to the composition ([0031]). Therefore, there is nowhere in the disclosure that prevents Sakurai from using less filler than some of the disclosed embodiments.
A modified rejection based on the amendments and new claims is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20, 23-32, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 16 is rejected for reciting the limitation “wherein the paper layer is substantially free of fillers” as there is no definition in the instant specification for what constitutes “substantially free of fillers”. The instant specification describes a preferable embodiment wherein the paper layer can comprise no fillers but there is no description wherein a certain amount of fillers is acceptable and there is no upper or lower limit for substantially free.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20, 23-32, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16, lines 7-8 are indefinite for reciting “substantially free of fillers” because it is unclear what “substantially free” means. It is unclear if substantially free means no filler or if some nominal amount is allowed. There is no support or definition provided in the instant specification for the amendment and therefore is indefinite.
For purposes of this examination “substantially free of filler” will be interpreted as a paper layer free of filler.
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 16-17, 18, 26, 30-32, and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US-20210120867-A1) and further in view of Dashley et al. (GB-2143150-A as cited in the IDS dated 11/19/2021) and Bachmann et al. (US-20190059443-A1).
In regards to claim 16, Sakurai directed to non-combustible heated smoking article comprising a wrapping paper, discloses the aerosol generating article comprising:
A tobacco rod part (i.e., aerosol generating substrate) ([0060]), which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude contains nicotine,
An aerosol generating base material (i.e., aerosol former) in the weight of preferably 10 weight% or more ([0074]-[0075]); and
A wrapper 12 disposed about the aerosol generating substrate (Figure 1 and [0084]), the wrapper comprises a paper layer with a water contact angle less than 90 degrees and more preferably less than 50 degrees (claim 2, [0018], [0051]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of a water contact angle of at least 30 degrees, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The wrapper can further comprise a polyvinyl alcohol as an auxiliary agent and a paper strength enhancing agent ([0035]).
Wherein the wrapper has an air permeability of 1 to 20 Coresta units ([0044]). The range discloses by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the wrapper comprising an air permeability of 5 Coresta units or less, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Sakurai further discloses calcium carbonate can be used in the wrapping paper as a filler and while calcium carbonate is preferable to maintain whiteness of the wrapper, the use of calcium carbonate is not necessary and magnesium carbonate can be used instead ([0031]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Sakurai discloses embodiments of the invention that are free of calcium carbonate.
Sakurai discloses the wrapper comprising polyvinyl alcohol ([0035]), but does not explicitly disclose the polyvinyl alcohol is a surface treatment on the paper.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that adding a paper strength enhancing agent such as polyvinyl alcohol could be added as a surface treatment to the paper.
In addition, Dashley, directed to smoking articles and paper for smoking articles, discloses the paper coated with polyvinyl alcohol (page 1, lines 83-87).
Dashley further discloses polyvinyl alcohol can either be coated (i.e. treated) onto the paper or added to the paper mixture during the paper making stage (page 1, lines 97-99).
Dashley further discloses polyvinyl alcohol is used for its stain resistant properties (page 1, lines 79-87).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakurai by making the paper further comprise polyvinyl alcohol as a surface treatment, as taught by Dashley, because both are directed to smoking articles, Dashley teaches polyvinyl alcohol has stain resistance properties (page 1, lines 79-87), and this involves applying polyvinyl alcohol of a similar paper of a smoking article as a surface treatment to the wrapper, to yield predictable result of a stain resistant paper layer.
Sakurai further discloses fillers as an optional addition to the paper layer but does not explicitly disclose the paper layer free of filler. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the paper layer of Sakurai can be free of filler as it is an optional addition to the paper layer and therefore is considered a prima facie obvious claim limitation.
Additionally, Bachmann discloses a filter wrapping paper that wraps around the tobacco portion (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) of the article ([0002]-[0008]) wherein the paper layer can comprise filler materials, however that it is preferable to not include filler materials because filler materials reduce the strength of the paper and can influence the porous structure in an undesirable way ([0033]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakurai by making the paper layer filler free, as taught by Bachmann, because both are directed to articles comprising paper wrapping layers, Bachmann teaches filler negatively impacts the strength of the paper and the porosity of the structure ([0033]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of not using filler in a similar paper layer of a similar article to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 17, Sakurai discloses the wrapper comprises a paper layer with a water contact angle less than 90 degrees and more preferably less than 50 degrees (claim 2, [0018], [0051]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of a water contact angle of at least 40 degrees, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 18, Sakurai discloses the wrapping paper has a basis weight of at least 35 g/m^2 (abstract and [0018]) and a thickness of the wrapping paper is preferably 30 micrometers or more ([0050]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of a grammage of 25 gsm to 45 gsm and a thickness in a range from about 35 microns to about 50 microns, respectively, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 26, Sakurai discloses the tobacco rod includes tobacco plant and the tobacco plant is dried and crushed to perform homogenizing before being filled into the tobacco rod (i.e., homogenized tobacco material) ([0071]).
In regards to claim 30, Sakurai discloses the wrapping paper is in direct contact with the aerosol generating substrate (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 31, Sakurai discloses the wrapper comprises a paper layer with a water contact angle less than 90 degrees and more preferably less than 50 degrees (claim 2, [0018], [0051]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of a water contact angle of at least 45 degrees, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 32, Sakurai discloses the aerosol former in the weight is 10 to 60 weight percent ([0074]-[0075]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the aerosol formed being greater than 20% of the aerosol generating substrate, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 33, Sakurai directed to non-combustible heated smoking article comprising a wrapping paper, discloses the aerosol generating article comprising:
A tobacco rod part (i.e., aerosol generating substrate) ([0060]), which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude contains nicotine,
An aerosol generating base material (i.e., aerosol former) in the weight of preferably 10 weight% or more ([0074]-[0075]); and
A wrapper 12 disposed about the aerosol generating substrate (Figure 1 and [0084]), the wrapper comprises a paper layer with a water contact angle less than 90 degrees and more preferably less than 50 degrees (claim 2, [0018], [0051]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of a water contact angle of at least 30 degrees, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The wrapper can further comprise a polyvinyl alcohol as an auxiliary agent and a paper strength enhancing agent ([0035]).
Wherein the wrapper has an air permeability of 1 to 20 Coresta units ([0044]). The range discloses by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the wrapper comprising an air permeability of 5 Coresta units or less, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Sakurai discloses the wrapper comprising polyvinyl alcohol ([0035]), but does not explicitly disclose the polyvinyl alcohol is a surface treatment on the paper.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that adding a paper strength enhancing agent such as polyvinyl alcohol could be added as a surface treatment to the paper.
In addition, Dashley, directed to smoking articles and paper for smoking articles, discloses the paper coated with polyvinyl alcohol (page 1, lines 83-87).
Dashley further discloses polyvinyl alcohol can either be coated (i.e. treated) onto the paper or added to the paper mixture during the paper making stage (page 1, lines 97-99).
Dashley further discloses polyvinyl alcohol is used for its stain resistant properties (page 1, lines 79-87).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakurai by making the paper further comprise polyvinyl alcohol as a surface treatment, as taught by Dashley, because both are directed to smoking articles, Dashley teaches polyvinyl alcohol has stain resistance properties (page 1, lines 79-87), and this involves applying polyvinyl alcohol of a similar paper of a smoking article as a surface treatment to the wrapper, to yield predictable result of a stain resistant paper layer.
Sakurai discloses cellulosic material ([0029]), but is silent to a weight percent of cellulosic material and therefore does not explicitly disclose the paper layer is formed of at least 90% wt. cellulosic material.
Bachmann discloses a filter wrapping paper that wraps around the tobacco portion (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) of the article ([0002]-[0008]) wherein the paper layer comprises the paper comprises long-fiber pulp fibers (i.e., cellulosic material) particularly preferably at least 95% by weight, and highly particularly preferably 100% by weight of the filter paper with respect to the weight of the filter paper ([0009]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the paper having at least 90% wt. of cellulosic material and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakurai by making the paper layer comprise preferably at least 95% wt. cellulosic material, as taught by Bachmann because both are directed to articles comprising paper wrapping layers, Bachmann teaches filler negatively impacts the strength of the paper and the porosity of the structure ([0033]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of not using filler in a similar paper layer of a similar article to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 34, Sakurai further discloses calcium carbonate can be used in the wrapping paper as a filler and while calcium carbonate is preferable to maintain whiteness of the wrapper, the use of calcium carbonate is not necessary and magnesium carbonate can be used instead ([0031]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Sakurai discloses embodiments of the invention that are free of calcium carbonate.
In regards to claim 35, Modified Sakurai discloses a filter wrapping paper that wraps around the tobacco portion (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) of the article (Bachmann [0002]-[0008]) wherein the paper layer comprises the paper comprises long-fiber pulp fibers (i.e., cellulosic material) particularly preferably at least 95% by weight, and highly particularly preferably 100% by weight of the filter paper with respect to the weight of the filter paper (Bachmann [0009]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the paper having at least 95% wt. of cellulosic material and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claims 36-37, Sakurai discloses cellulosic material ([0029]), but is silent to a weight percent of cellulosic material and therefore does not explicitly disclose the paper layer is formed of at least 90 and at least 95% wt. cellulosic material, respectively.
Bachmann discloses a filter wrapping paper that wraps around the tobacco portion (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) of the article ([0002]-[0008]) wherein the paper layer comprises the paper comprises long-fiber pulp fibers (i.e., cellulosic material) particularly preferably at least 95% by weight, and highly particularly preferably 100% by weight of the filter paper with respect to the weight of the filter paper ([0009]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the paper having at least 90% wt. and at least 95% wt. of cellulosic material respectively and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sakurai by making the paper layer comprise preferably at least 95% wt. cellulosic material, as taught by Bachmann because both are directed to articles comprising paper wrapping layers, Bachmann teaches filler negatively impacts the strength of the paper and the porosity of the structure ([0033]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of not using filler in a similar paper layer of a similar article to yield predictable results.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US-20210120867-A1) in view of Dashley et al. (GB-2143150-A as cited in the IDS dated 11/19/2021), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jain (WO-2010118122-A1) or alternatively Xu (CN-106480778-A, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided).
In regards to claims 19-20, Modified Sakurai discloses an aerosol generating article comprising a paper wrapper but does not explicitly disclose a wrapper comprising siloxane or a surface treatment comprising siloxane.
Jain, directed to a smoke filtration device, discloses a filter wrapped with paper (page 4, lines 1-4).
Jain further discloses polymethyl siloxane (PDMS) or a derivative thereof (in accordance with the instant specification at page 3, lines 18-19) is a component of the filter (page 2, lines 19-22) and suitable filters include paper materials, where PDMS may be incorporated in or coated on the paper (page 3, lines 17-29).
Jain further discloses PDMS or a derivative thereof can efficiently remove toxic gas components from a gas stream (page 2, lines 13-14).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Sakurai, by making the paper layer comprise PDMS, as taught by Jain, because all are directed to smoking articles, Jain teaches PDMS can remove toxic gas components (page 2, lines 13-14), and this involves modifying a similar paper with a known material in the art to yield predictable results.
Alternatively, Xu directed to a cigarette tipping paper, discloses the tipping paper including an oil-resistant layer and an oleophobic hydrophilic layer sequentially stacked on at least one side of the tipping base paper ([0008]).
Xu further discloses the first oleophobic and hydrophilic layer 30 may further include at least one of the following additives: slip agent, anti-settling agent, defoamer, leveling agent, etc., to make the first oleophobic and hydrophilic layer 30 smoother and more even ([0035]).
Xu further discloses the leveling agent may be one or more of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), alkyl-modified organosiloxane, and polyether polyester-modified organosiloxane (i.e., paper layer comprises a surface treatment comprising siloxane) ([0035]).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to either modify Sakurai or further modify Modified Sakurai, by making the paper further comprise siloxane as taught by Xu, because all are directed to aerosol generating articles, Xu teaches siloxane makes the surface treatment smoother and more even ([0035]), and this involves modifying a similar paper of an aerosol generating article with a known surface treatment in the art to yield predictable results.
Claims 23-25 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US-20210120867-A1) in view of Dashley et al. (GB-2143150-A as cited in the IDS dated 11/19/2021), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Aoun et al. (US-20210177041-A1).
In regards to claims 23-24, Modified Sakurai discloses an aerosol generating substrate comprising a filler that can comprise but is not limited to propylene glycol and glycerine ([0074]), but does not explicitly disclose the aerosol generating substrate comprising a gel composition and the gel composition comprising a majority of glycerine.
Aoun, directed to an aerosol generating articles, discloses an aerosol generating article comprising a tubular substrate where the substrate comprises a slurry set to a gel ([0007], [0011] and further dried to an amorphous solid, which is a dried gel ([0024]).
Aoun further discloses the amorphous solid (i.e., gel) comprises an aerosol generating agent consisting essentially of glycerol (i.e., glycerine), in a range from about 20 to about 80 weight percent of the gel ([0135]).
Aoun further discloses that if the aerosol generating agent (i.e., glycerine) is too low, than the gel may be brittle and easily broken. The glycerine content provides a gel flexibility which allows the solid sheet to be wound ([0135]).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Sakurai, by modifying the aerosol generating substrate to comprise a gel composition comprising a majority of glycerine, as taught by Aoun, because all are directed to aerosol generating articles, Aoun teaches the glycerine content provides the gel flexibility and it is known in the art to use gel in aerosol generating substrates ([0135]), and this involves applying a known technique of using glycerine in a gel composition to the aerosol generating substrate of a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 25, Sakurai does not explicitly disclose the use of xanthan gum in the gel composition, however Modified Aoun discloses the gel composition comprising xanthan gum (Aoun [0132]).
In regards to claims 28 and 29, Sakurai discloses a heater inside the electrical heating device generates heat under the control unit, which transfers heat to the aerosol generating substrate to generate an aerosol ([0085]), but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of heating elements.
Aoun discloses the aerosol forming compositions may comprise embedded heating means, such as inductive heating elements (i.e., plurality of induction heating elements) ([0046]).
Aoun further discloses at least a first and second heating element, which allows the heat to be applied to different sections of the aerosol generating article, at different times and rates ([0060]-[0061]).
Aoun further discloses that staggering the times and rates of heating may allow for both fast aerosol production and longevity of use ([0060]).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Sakurai, by making the aerosol generating article further comprise a plurality of metallic heating elements, as taught by Aoun, because all are directed to smoking articles, Aoun teaches the plurality of heating elements may allow for both fast aerosol production and longevity of use ([0060]), and this involves applying a known technique of using a plurality of induction heating elements for a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US-20210120867-A1) in view of Dashley et al. (GB-2143150-A as cited in the IDS dated 11/19/2021), as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Sciboz et al. (US-20180310608-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 11/19/2021).
In regards to claim 27, Sakurai discloses the homogenized material is tobacco plant material ([0071]) and the aerosol generating base material (i.e., aerosol former) in the weight of preferably 10 weight% or more ([0074]-[0075]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the tobacco material comprises about 5 to 30% an aerosol former and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Sakurai is silent to the use of a binder and does not explicitly disclose a binder from about 1 to about 5% in dry weight basis.
Sciboz, directed to an aerosol generating article, discloses the article comprising homogenized tobacco material comprising from about 1 to 5 % of a binder ([0047]) and from about 5 to 30% an aerosol former in dry weight basis ([0045]).
Sciboz further discloses there is a practical limit to the amount of binder that may be present in a tobacco slurry and hence in a homogenized tobacco material formed by casting the slurry. This is due to the tendency of the binders to gel when coming in contact with water. Gelling strongly influences the viscosity of the tobacco slurry, which in turn is an important parameter of the slurry for subsequent web manufacturing processes, like for example casting. It is therefore preferred to have a relatively low amount of binder in the homogenized tobacco material. In some embodiments, binder may comprise between about 1 percent and about 5 percent in dry weight of the homogenized tobacco material ([0047]).
The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the tobacco material comprises about 1 to 5% of a binder in dry weight basis and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Sakurai by making the homogenized tobacco material further comprise a binder in an amount of 1 to 5 dry weight percent, as taught by Sciboz, because all are directed to aerosol generating articles, Sciboz teaches it is preferred to have a relatively low amount of binder in the homogenized tobacco material and that it is known in the art to use binders in an amount from 1 to 5 weight percent based on dry weight in the composition ([0047]), and this merely involved applying a known amount of binder to a similar homogenized tobacco product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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 MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip 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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights