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 Submission
The amendments and remarks filed on 2026 January 28 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 16, 18, and 20-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21:
Under the subheading “monitor a time between successive detections”, the limitation “wherein the aerosol provision device comprises the aerosol provision device further comprising an indicator” should be “the aerosol provision device further comprising an indicator”.
Under the subheading “monitor a time between successive detections”, in the final line, the limitation “the control circuitry the processor” should be “the processor” to clearly point to the processor recited earlier in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-4, 10-13, and 16 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.
Claims 3-4, 10-13, and 16: the term "the control circuitry" lacks proper antecedent basis and is interpreted as “the processor” to clearly point to the same processor recited earlier in claim 1.
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 1-3, 4-5, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 109998180 A cited on an IDS and with reference made to machine translation) in view of Lee (WO 2020197142 A2 with priority to KR10-2019-003040, translation of which is provided) and Watkins (US 5934289 A).
Claim 1: Peng teaches an aerosol provision system (fig. 2) for generating aerosol from an aerosol-generating material [25], the system comprising:
an article (103) comprising the aerosol-generating material ([36], figs. show an electronic cigarette #100 which must comprise aerosol-generating material in order to be considered a cigarette; #101 and #102 are circuitry which cannot comprise aerosol-generating material, leaving #103; [50], #103 comprises a heating wire which heats by conductive contact, so #103 comprises aerosol-generating material surrounding a heating wire);
an aerosol provision device [25] configured to engage with the article and to enable generation of aerosol from the aerosol-generating material ([47], a user smokes);
detection circuitry (101 and 102) for detecting when the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device ([41-42], the device detects plugging and unplugging of article #103);
a processor (101);
a non-transitory computer-readable memory (#101 executes software control; [64], software control instructions are stored in non-transitory computer-readable memories) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (101), cause the aerosol provision device to:
count the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device based on signals from the detection circuitry ([43], the device acts upon a preset plugging and unplugging times which requires counting);
switch ([43], the device switches between states) the aerosol provision device from a first operating mode (output locked state) to a second operating mode (output unlocked state) when the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device surpasses a predetermined threshold (preset plugging and unplugging times);
count the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device within a first predetermined time period (preset time range) from when the detection circuitry first detects (start of preset time range) the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device, and if the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device surpasses a predetermined threshold (if the device reaches a preset plugging and unplugging times) within the first predetermined time period (within a preset time range) from the initial detection of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device, switch the aerosol provision device from the first operating mode (output locked state) to the second operating mode (output unlocked state).
Peng uses “plug-in and unplugging times” to mean “plug-in and unplugging (counts/instances)” and “time range” to mean “duration of time”. See [Peng 46] describing that plug-in and unplugging times are instances and a time range is a duration.
Peng does not explicitly teach that aerosol provision device can monitor the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device and, if the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device is within a second predetermined time period, the control circuitry increases the count of the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device by one,
and an indicator configured to indicate to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted by the processor.
Lee teaches an aerosol provision system (title) comprising control circuitry configured to monitor the time between successive detections of inputs within a first time period (fig. 8, length of horizontal axis corresponding to total input time) and, if the time between successive detections of inputs is within a second predetermined time period (T1 or T2), the control circuity counts the successive detections of input as valid [127], such that the device can distinguish user inputs [131] which represent a password [129], thereby increasing security of the device.
Peng’s engagements and/or disengagements and Lee’s inputs are both user interactions with the device to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to configure Peng’s control circuitry to monitor the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device and, if the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device is within a second predetermined time period, the control circuitry increases the count of the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device by one as taught by Lee, because doing so would enable the control circuitry to distinguish engagements and/or disengagements as valid user inputs.
Peng teaches, in an alternative embodiment, an indicator (fig. 4 and [59-60], #105) configured to indicate to a user the status of the device [105], such that a user can perceive the status in an intuitive and aesthetically-pleasing manner [60].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Peng’s indicator to the present embodiment of Peng, because doing so would enable a user to perceive a status of the device in an intuitive and aesthetically-pleasing manner.
Watkins teaches an aerosol provision system (fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 26-31) comprising an indicator (detector #116 indicates a count of aerosol-generating article engagements and/or disengagements) configured to indicate to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted by the processor (detector #116 indicates the count which a user can perceive by, for example, display #51), such that a user can track the count for the purpose of, for example, cleaning (col. 14, lines 27-31).
The device’s count of engagements and/or disengagements falls within the scope of modified Peng’s broader device status to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to make Peng’s indicator configured to indicate to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted by the control circuity, because doing so would enable a user to track the count for the purpose of, for example, cleaning.
Claim 2: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein the first operating mode ([46], output locked state) is a mode in which the generation of aerosol from the aerosol-generating material of the article is prevented [46], and wherein the second operating mode ([47], output unlocked state) is a mode in which the generation of aerosol from the aerosol-generating material of the article is permitted [47].
Claim 3: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1.
Modified Peng does not explicitly teach that the control circuitry is configured to cause activation of an indicator to indicate to the user that the aerosol provision device has switched from the first operating mode to the second operating mode.
Peng teaches an alternative embodiment of the same aerosol provision system, wherein a control circuitry is configured to cause activation of an indicator (fig. 4, #105) to indicate to the user that the aerosol provision device has switched from the first operating mode to the second operating mode ([60], “indicate different output states”), such that a user can intuitively know the output state of the device [60], and such that aesthetics of the device are improved [60].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that the control circuitry is configured to cause activation of an indicator to indicate to the user that the aerosol provision device has switched from the first operating mode to the second operating mode, because doing so would enable a user to intuitively know the output state of the device and would improve aesthetics of the device.
Claim 4: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein the detection circuitry is configured to output a signal indicative of an engagement state of the article and aerosol provision device ([42], #101 detects a potential change and counts once), and wherein the control circuitry is configured to receive the signal indicative of an engagement state of the article and aerosol provision device, to count instances when the engagement state has changed (the device counts once), and to switch ([43], the device switches between states) the aerosol provision device from the first operating mode to the second operating mode when the control circuitry determines the engagement state has changed a plurality of times [43].
Claim 5: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined time period is 2 seconds [46].
Claim 8: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1.
Modified Peng does not explicitly teach that the second predetermined time period is different between a first pair of successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged and a second pair of successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device.
Lee teaches an aerosol provision device (title) comprising a control circuitry configured to have a second predetermined time period (fig. 8 and [125-129], #T1 or #T2) that is different between a first pair (input stop coinciding with start of T1 and input start coinciding with end of T1) of successive detections of an article being engaged and/or disengaged in which a first pair of successive detections must occur and a second pair (input stop coinciding with start of T2 and input stop coinciding with end of T2) of successive detections of an article being engaged and/or disengaged, such that device can distinguish user inputs [131] which represent a password [129], thereby increasing security of the device.
Peng’s positive actuation (plug-in) and negative actuation (unplug) are similar to Lee’s positive actuation (input) and negative actuation (lack of input within time T2) to yield expectation to succeed. One of ordinary skill weighing the analogies between Peng’s actuations and Lee’s actuations would consider Lee’s different T2 time as motivating a different time for the second pair of Peng’s detections.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to make Peng’s second predetermined time period be different between a first pair of successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged and a second pair of successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device, because doing so would enable the device to distinguish user inputs which represent a password and thereby increase security of the device.
Claim 10: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 8, wherein the indicator (Peng fig. 4, #105 modified in view of Watkins) is configured to indicate to the user that the control circuitry has successfully counted the successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device ([Peng 43], counting engagements/disengagements switches the output state; [Peng 60], the indicator indicates different output states; Watkins col. 14, lines 27-31, the indicator indicates the count of engagements/disengagements).
Claim 11: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein when the aerosol provision device is in the second operating mode ([47], output unlocked state), the control circuitry is configured to switch the aerosol provision device from the second operating mode to the first operating mode when the control circuitry determines the article has been engaged with and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device at least one time ([43], the device switches between states).
Claim 12: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein when the aerosol provision device is in the second operating mode ([47], output unlocked state), the control circuitry is configured to switch the aerosol provision device from the second operating mode to the first operating mode after a fourth predetermined period (the time period in which the device detects the engagements and disengagements as in [43]) has elapsed.
Claim 14: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein the detection circuitry is configured to detect when the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device by sensing a parameter indicative of the presence and/or absence of the article ([41-42], potential change). Language following “wherein optionally” is interpreted as non-limiting.
Claim 16: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to supply power to an electrical component of the aerosol provision device designed to transfer electrical power to the article ([41], potential change), and when the article is engaged with the aerosol provision device (the device is in a normal physical connection state), the detection circuitry is configured to determine a change in the electrical properties associated with the electrical component (potential change). Language following “wherein optionally” is interpreted as non-limiting.
Claim 18: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein the article comprises a pair of electrical contacts (fig. 2, two wires leaving #103) coupled to a resistive element (R1), and wherein an electrical component (ADC1) of the aerosol provision device comprises corresponding electrical contacts (two wires leaving ADC1) arranged to engage with the electrical contacts of the article (fig. 2), and wherein the detection circuitry is configured to detect whether the article is engaged and/or disengaged as a result of a change in the resistance between electrical contacts of the aerosol provision device ([41-42], potential change). Language following “wherein optionally” is interpreted as non-limiting.
Claim 20: modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein the aerosol provision device does not include a user operated button ([49], the algorithm replaces traditional buttons; fig. 2 shows no buttons).
Claim 21: Peng teaches an aerosol provision device (fig. 2, #100 comprising #101 and #102) for use with an aerosol generating system for generating aerosol from an aerosol-generating material, the system comprising an article (103) comprising the aerosol-generating material, the aerosol provision device comprising:
an interface (102) configured to engage with the article and to enable generation of aerosol from the aerosol-generating material [47];
detection circuitry (101 and 102) for detecting when the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device [41-42];
a processor (101);
a non-transitory computer-readable memory (#101 executes software control; [64], software control instructions are stored in non-transitory computer-readable memories) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (101), cause the aerosol provision device to:
count the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device based on signals from the detection circuitry ([43], the device acts upon a preset plugging and unplugging times which requires counting);
when the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device surpasses a predetermined threshold (preset plugging and unplugging times), switch (the device switches between states) the aerosol provision device from a first operating mode (output locked state) to a second operating mode (output unlocked state);
count the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device within a first predetermined time period (preset time range) from when the detection circuitry first detects (start of preset time range) the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device, and if the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device surpasses a predetermined threshold (if the device reaches a preset plugging and unplugging times) within the first predetermined time period (within a preset time range) from the initial detection of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device, switch the aerosol provision device from the first operating mode (output locked state) to the second operating mode (output unlocked state).
Peng uses “plug-in and unplugging times” to mean “plug-in and unplugging (counts/instances)” and “time range” to mean “duration of time”. See [Peng 46] describing that plug-in and unplugging times are instances and a time range is a duration.
Peng does not explicitly teach that the control circuitry is further configured to monitor the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device and, if the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device is within a second predetermined time period, the control circuitry increases the count of the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device by one,
or an indicator configured to indicate to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted by the control circuitry.
Lee teaches an aerosol provision system (title) comprising control circuitry configured to monitor the time between successive detections of inputs within a first time period (fig. 8, length of horizontal axis corresponding to total input time) and, if the time between successive detections of inputs is within a second predetermined time period (T1), the control circuity counts the successive detections of input as valid [127], such that the device can distinguish user inputs [131] which represent a password [129], thereby increasing security of the device.
Peng’s engagements and/or disengagements and Lee’s inputs are both user interactions with the device to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to configure Peng’s control circuitry to monitor the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device and, if the time between successive detections of the article being engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device is within a second predetermined time period, the control circuitry increases the count of the number of times the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device by one as taught by Lee, because doing so would enable the control circuitry to distinguish engagements and/or disengagements as valid user inputs.
Peng teaches, in an alternative embodiment, an indicator (fig. 4 and [59-60], #105) configured to indicate to a user the status of the device [105], such that a user can perceive the status in an intuitive and aesthetically-pleasing manner [60].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Peng’s indicator to the present embodiment of Peng, because doing so would enable a user to perceive a status of the device in an intuitive and aesthetically-pleasing manner.
Watkins teaches an aerosol provision system (fig. 10 and col. 14, lines 26-31) comprising an indicator (detector #116 indicates a count of aerosol-generating article engagements and/or disengagements) configured to indicate to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted by the control circuitry (detector #116 indicates the count which a user can perceive by, for example, display #51), such that a user can track the count for the purpose of, for example, cleaning (col. 14, lines 27-31).
The device’s count of engagements and/or disengagements falls within the scope of modified Peng’s broader device status to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to make Peng’s indicator configured to indicate to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted by the control circuity, because doing so would enable a user to track the count for the purpose of, for example, cleaning.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN 109998180 A) in view of Lee (WO 2020197142 A2) and Watkins (US 5934289 A) as applied to claim 1 in further view of Jordan (US 20160374397 A1).
Modified Peng teaches the aerosol provision system of claim 1, wherein aspects of the control circuitry associated with switching the aerosol provision device from the first operating mode to the second operating mode are predetermined [55].
Modified Peng does not explicitly teach that the control circuitry is configured such that the user is able to program the aspects.
Jordan teaches an aerosol provision system (fig. 1) comprising an article (50) comprising an aerosol-generating material [63];
an aerosol provision device (100) configured to engage with the article and to enable generation of aerosol from the aerosol-generating material [61];
detection circuitry (fig. 12, #1200) for detecting when the article is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device [148];
and control circuitry (502) for controlling operation of the aerosol provision device [148], wherein the control circuitry is configured to switch the aerosol provision device from a first operating mode (fig. 13, #S1320, “sleep mode”) to a second operating mode (S1340, “operation mode”) when the control circuitry determines the article has been engaged with and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device a plurality of times (S1340), wherein aspects of the control circuitry associated with switching the aerosol provision device from the first operating mode to the second operating mode are programmed by equivalent alternatives of predetermination or active input by a user [163].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that the control circuitry is configured such that the user is able to program aspects of the control circuity associated with switching the aerosol provision device from the first operating mode to the second operating mode, because doing so would be a simple substitution of programming mechanisms and would predictably enable aspects of the control circuitry to be configured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 January 28 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 9-13) that the amended claims integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner agrees and withdraws the rejection over 35 U.S.C. § 101. In particular, the amended claims improve a processor that locks and unlocks an aerosol-generating device, per MPEP 2106.05(a), and limit the abstract processing to an aerosol-generating device that can receive an article, per MPEP 2106.05(e).
Applicant argues (p. 14, “Peng Does Not Teach the Processor…”) that Peng does not teach a processor executing instructions stored on non-transitory memory. However, Peng does teach a processor executing instructions stored on non-transitory memory (fig. 2 and [40], control unit #101; [64], control is accomplished by a computer device executing instructions stored on non-transitory memory).
Applicant further argues that there is “uncertainty in Peng’s actual teaching” with respect to the word “time”. However, one of ordinary skill reading [Peng 43] in context would be taught measuring plugging and unplugging times (instances) within a preset time range (duration). See [Peng 46] describing that plug-in and unplugging times are instances and a time range is a duration.
Applicant argues (p. 14-15, “Lee Teaches an Incompatible System…”) that Peng and Lee serves different technical purposes. However, combined prior art need not be analogous to each other and need only be analogous to the instant invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Peng is in the same field of endeavor as (aerosol-generating devices) and reasonably pertinent to (locking and unlocking aerosol-generating devices) the instant invention.
Lee is in the same field of endeavor as (aerosol-generating devices) and reasonably pertinent to (locking and unlocking aerosol-generating devices) the instant invention.
That Peng’s inputs are article engagements and disengagements, while Lee’s inputs are button presses, does not break the pertinence of Lee to Peng. Peng and Lee are both aerosol-generating devices that can be locked and unlocked by a series of user inputs. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to monitor a time between Peng’s plugging and/or unplugging and, if the plugging and/or unplugging occurs within a second time period, increment the plugging and unplugging count by one, as motivated by Lee, for Lee’s benefit of distinguishing which pairs of inputs represent one action by a user and which pairs of inputs represent two actions by a user [Lee 127 and 131].
Applicant argues (p. 15-16, “Watkins Does Not Teach Real-Time Indication…”) that Watkins teaches displaying a number of articles that have been engaged and disengaged, rather than displaying whether a current engagement or disengagement has been counted. However, displaying a running count of the number of articles that have been engaged and disengaged as in Watkins would indicate whether a current engagement or disengagement has been counted. If the running count increments, then the engagement or disengagement has been counted, and if the running count remains the same, then the engagement or disengagement has not been counted to read on the claimed “indicat[ing] to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted.”
Applicant argues (p. 16, “No Motivation to Combine…”) that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to apply Lee to Peng. However, Lee teaches monitoring a time between user inputs (fig. 8) and, if the user inputs occur within a second time period (T1), incrementing the user inputs count by one [127], for the benefit of distinguishing which pairs of inputs represent one action by a user and which pairs of inputs represent two actions by a user [127 and 131]. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to apply Lee’s time-monitoring to Peng for the same benefit in monitoring user inputs.
Applicant argues (p. 16-17, “The Combination Would Alter Peng’s Principle of Operation”) that modifying Peng to arrive at claims 1 and 21 would make Peng “complex” and “difficult-to-use” and therefore change Peng’s principle of operation. However, making an invention more complex does not constitute a change in principle of operation. Peng is directed to locking and unlocking an aerosol-generating device by monitoring engagements and disengagements, and the application of Lee maintains such a principle.
Applicant argues (p. 17, “Watkins Provides No Motivation…”) that Watkins displaying a running count of user inputs teaches away from displaying real-time feedback of user inputs. However, displaying a running count of the number of articles that have been engaged and disengaged as in Watkins would indicate whether a current engagement or disengagement has been counted. If the running count increments, then the engagement or disengagement has been counted, and if the running count remains the same, then the engagement or disengagement has not been counted to read on the claimed “indicat[ing] to the user that the current engagement or disengagement of the article has been counted.”
Applicant argues (p. 17-18, “The Rejection of Claim 13…”) that Jordan does not motivate making Peng’s processor programmable. However, Jordan teaches an aerosol-generating device lockable and unlockable by a processor that can either be programmable or predetermined. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to enable programming Peng, as taught by Jordan, for the predictable benefit of programming and customization by a user. See MPEP 2143(B, F, and G).
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 Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747