CTFR 17/780,109 CTFR 88886 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, 13 and 20) in the reply filed on 06/13/2025 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 11-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/13/2025 . Examiner’s remark With respect to “a high thermal mass” in claim 4 is considered as definite because para.0084 of instant publication application states “[0084] High thermal mass may be taken to mean, herein, that the heater 230 is capable of storing around 50 J or more of energy”. MPEP 2111.01, IV and V . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ an aerosol generating mechanism for providing aerosol from an aerosol generating medium” in claim 2. “ the energy store provides energy to the heater to reach an operational temperature for a first smoking session” in claim 7. “An aerosol provision means” in claim 13. “the energy store means” in claim 13. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (1) “ an aerosol generating mechanism ” (claim 2) is interpreted as “In an example the aerosol generating mechanism 230 may be a heater 230. The heater 230 may be for providing heat to an aerosol generating medium. The heater 230 may be a resistive heater 230” (para.0079 of instant publication application). “ the energy store ” (claim 7) is interpreted as “a battery” (para.0076 of instant publication application). “ An aerosol provision means ” (claim 13) is interpreted as “an aerosol provision system 100” (0072 of instant publication application and fig.1, 100). “ the energy store means ” (claim 13) is interpreted as “battery”. (Para.0076 of instant publication application. The energy store 120 may, in an example, be a battery). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 5 and 8-10 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 10, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) in view of Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) . Regarding claim 1 , Counts et al. discloses “an aerosol provision system” ( abstract and fig.3 ) comprising: “ a heater” ( 14 and 14’ collectively forms a heater ) “for providing aerosol from an aerosol generating medium” (flavor-generating medium 12 must be heated to generate the desired aerosol ); and “an energy store” ( power source 16 ), wherein “the energy store is arranged to directly deliver energy to the heater for heating” ( 16 is arranged to directly deliver energy to the heater 14 and 14’ ), and wherein “a discharge current of the energy store when powering the heater” ( it is inherently and necessarily the energy store (i.e., power source) discharge current in order to powering the heater Col.4 at lines 58-60, i.e., power source 16 discharges electrical energy to heating element 14 ) has “a C rate” ( col.9 at lines 59-65, i.e., NiCd battery. The NiCd (Nickel-Cadmium) is inherently has a discharge current rate (C-rate) ) is less than 2C or less than 0.5 C . Counts et al. is silent regarding the C rate is less than 2C or less than 0.5 C. Holzherr discloses “an energy store” ( [0037] Preferably, the charging device power supply is a lithium-ion battery. Fig.1b, 126 ), wherein “the discharge current of the energy store is less than 2C or less than 0.5 C” ( [0012], i.e., determining a discharging current for the rechargeable power supply of the charging device … the discharging current is between about 0.1 C and about 0.3 C [0033], i.e., the charging device controller is further configured to control the supply of power from the charging device power supply to the electrically heated aerosol-generating device power supply to recharge the power supply. Such that: when the ambient temperature adjacent the charging device is within a third pre-determined temperature range, the controller is configured to provide a discharging current between about 0.1 C and about 0.3 C to the power supply of the electrically heated aerosol-generating device ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Counts et al. with Holzherr, by modifying Counts et al.’s power source C rate with holzherr’s power source discharge rate (C rate), to provide higher usable capacity, longer cycle life improved efficiency because lower C-rates generate less internal heat and reduce mechanical stress on the battery electrodes leading to a longer overall lifespan. Regarding claim 10 , modified Counts et al. discloses ( Counts et al., claim 79, i.e., said second predetermined time interval is between about seconds to about 30 seconds. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Counts et al. with Counts et al., by modifying Holzherr’s second duration according to Counts et al.’s second duration, to provide desired time interval for heating process (claim 79) as taught by Counts et al. Regarding claim 13 , Counts et al. discloses “an aerosol provision means” ( abstract and fig.3 ) comprising: “ an aerosol generating means” ( 14 and 14’ collectively forms a heater ) and “an energy store means” ( power source 16 ), wherein “a discharge current of the energy store means when powering the aerosol generating means” ( it is inherently and necessarily the energy store (i.e., power source) discharge current in order to powering the heater Col.4 at lines 58-60, i.e., power source 16 discharges electrical energy to heating element 14 ) has “a C rate” ( col.9 at lines 59-65, i.e., NiCd battery. The NiCd (Nickel-Cadmium) is inherently has a discharge current rate (C-rate) ) is less than 2C or less than 0.5 C . Counts et al. is silent regarding the C rate is less than 2C or less than 0.5 C. Holzherr discloses “an energy store” ( [0037] Preferably, the charging device power supply is a lithium-ion battery. Fig.1b, 126 ), wherein “the discharge current of the energy store is less than 2C or less than 0.5 C” ( [0012], i.e., determining a discharging current for the rechargeable power supply of the charging device … the discharging current is between about 0.1 C and about 0.3 C [0033], i.e., the charging device controller is further configured to control the supply of power from the charging device power supply to the electrically heated aerosol-generating device power supply to recharge the power supply. Such that: when the ambient temperature adjacent the charging device is within a third pre-determined temperature range, the controller is configured to provide a discharging current between about 0.1 C and about 0.3 C to the power supply of the electrically heated aerosol-generating device ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Counts et al. with Holzherr, by modifying Counts et al.’s power source C rate with holzherr’s power source discharge rate (C rate), to provide higher usable capacity, longer cycle life improved efficiency because lower C-rates generate less internal heat and reduce mechanical stress on the battery electrodes leading to a longer overall lifespan. Regarding claim 20 , modified Counts et al. discloses “the discharge current of the energy store is less than 0.5 C”. ( Holzherr, i.e., [0012], i.e., determining a discharging current for the rechargeable power supply of the charging device … the discharging current is between about 0.1 C and about 0.3 C ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) in view of Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) as applied in claims 1, 10, 13 and 20 above, and further in view of Hajaligol (US 5,530,225) . Regarding claim 4 , modified Counts et al. discloses the heater. Modified Counts et al. is silent regarding a high thermal mass for the heater. Hajaligol teaches “a high thermal mass” ( col.14 at lines 63-67 and co.15 at line 1, i.e., heater blades 120 … preferably consume between about 5 and about 50 Joules of energy. Examiner noted above in examiner’s remark, the specification supplies special definition with respect to the term “high thermal mass” which may be taken to mean, herein, that the heater is capable of storing around 50 J or more of energy. In this case, Hajaligol teaches the heater is capable of absorbing heat of about 50 J which meets the around 50 J ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Counts et al. with Hajaligol, by modifying the thermal mass according to Hajaligol, to provide cost efficiency heater (col.14 at lines 63-67) as taught by Hajaligol . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) in view of Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) as applied in claims 1, 10, 13 and 20 above, and further in view of Schuster et al. (US 6,694,975) Regarding claim 5 , modified Counts et al. discloses the heater. Modified Counts et al. is silent regarding the heater has a mass of around 5 grams. Schuster et al. teaches “the heater has a mass of around 5 grams” ( Col.16 at lines 40-53, i.e., In general, when the heating element is in the form of a thin nickel chromium ribbon the heating element has a weight of approximately 0.05 to 5 grams ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Counts et al. with Schuster et al., by modifying Counts et al.’s heater weight according to Schuster et al.’s heater weight, to provide desired weight based on the application (col.16 at lines 40-50) as taught by Schuster et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) in view of Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) as applied in claims 1, 10, 13 and 20 above, and further in view of Ademe et al. (US 2015/0313282) . Regarding claim 6 , modified Counts et al. discloses the energy store and the heater. Modified Counts et al. is silent regarding the aerosol provision system has a power section comprising the energy store and a heater section comprising the heater, wherein the power section and heater section are removably connectable to one another. Ademe et al. discloses “the aerosol provision system has a power section comprising the energy store and a heater section comprising the heater, wherein the power section and heater section are removably connectable to one another” ( the heater section 126 having a heater 134 and the power section 116 having an energy store 110. Fig.1 shows the heater section and power section are removably connectable to one another ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Counts et al. with Ademe et al., by modifying Counts et al.’s aerosol’s delivery device configuration according to Ademe et al.’s aerosol’s delivery device configuration, to provide replaceable battery for convenient use . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) in view of Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) as applied in claims 1, 10, 13 and 20 above, and further in view of Kuczaj (US 2015/0208727) . Regarding claim 7 , modified Counts et al. discloses the energy store and the heater. Modified Counts et al. is silent regarding the energy store provides energy to the heater to reach an operational temperature for a first smoking session, wherein the operational temperature is a temperature sufficient to generate an aerosol from the aerosol generating medium, the heater having a rate of heat transfer so that, in use, at least some energy provided to the heater for the first smoking session is retained to generate the aerosol from the aerosol generating medium in a second smoking session, and wherein the second smoking session is subsequent to the first smoking session. Kuczaj teaches “ the energy store provides energy to the heater to reach an operational temperature for a first smoking session, wherein the operational temperature is a temperature sufficient to generate an aerosol from the aerosol generating medium, the heater having a rate of heat transfer so that, in use, at least some energy provided to the heater for the first smoking session is retained to generate the aerosol from the aerosol generating medium in a second smoking session, and wherein the second smoking session is subsequent to the first smoking session” ( [0049] In both the first and second aspects of the invention, the aerosol-generating device may further comprise a power supply for supplying power to the heating element. The power supply may be any suitable power supply, for example a DC voltage source. In one embodiment, the power supply is a Lithium-ion battery. Alternatively, the power supply may be a Nickel-metal hydride battery, a Nickel cadmium battery, or a Lithium based battery, for example a Lithium-Cobalt, a Lithium-Iron-Phosphate, Lithium Titanate or a Lithium-Polymer battery. [0020] There are a number of possibilities for determining when to transition from the first phase to the second phase and equally from the second phase to the third phase. In one embodiment, the first phase, second phase and third phase may each have a predetermined duration. [0017] The allowable temperature range is dependent on the aerosol-forming substrate. The aerosol-forming substrate releases a range of volatile compounds at different temperatures. Some of the volatile compounds released from the aerosol-forming substrate are only formed through the heating process. [0018] The allowable temperature range may have a lower bound of between 240 and 340 degrees centigrade and an upper bound of between 340 and 400 degrees centigrade and may preferably be between 340 and 380 degrees centigrade. The first temperature may be between 340 and 400 degrees centigrade. The second temperature may be between 240 and 340 degrees centigrade, and preferably between 270 and 340 degrees centigrade. Examiner noted that the first smoking session could be first phase and the second smoking session could be the second phase. Fig.8 shows an example of a rate of heat transfer so that, in use, at least some energy provided to the heater for the first smoking session (0-t1) is retained to generate the aerosol from the aerosol generating medium in a second smoking session (t1-t2) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Counts et al. with Kuczaj, by modifying Counts et al.’s the heating pattern according to Kuczaj’s heating pattern, reduces or prevents the reduction in aerosol delivery over time (abstract) as taught by Kuczaj . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) in view of Holzherr (US 2017/0033568), Kuczaj (US 2015/0208727) as applied in claim 7 above, and further in view of Design Choice . Regarding claim 8 , modified Counts et al. discloses “the operational temperature is from around 220°C to around 260°C” ( Kuczaj, i.e., [0018], i.e., The first temperature may be between 340 and 400 degrees centigrade ). Modified Counts et al. is silent regarding the operational temperature is from around 220°C to around 260°C. However, the applicant has not disclosed that “the operational temperature is from 220°C to 260°C” solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results. The examiner notes that “the operational temperature is from around 220°C to around 260°C” just for heating aerosol. As such, the examiner considers this limitation to be a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to modify Counts et al. having the operational temperature is from 220°C to 260°C as proposed by the applicant, since the applicant has not disclosed that “the operational temperature is from 220°C to 260°C” solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results and it appears that Kuczaj’s temperature may be between 340 and 400 degrees centigrade would perform equally well, since 220°C to 260°C just for heating aerosol . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) in view of Holzherr (US 2017/0033568) as applied in claim 7 above, and further in view of Fleischhauer et al. (US 6,040,560) . Regarding claim 9 , modified Counts et al. discloses “the rate of heat transfer of the heater” (it is inherently and necessarily that the heater has a rate of heat transfer). Modified Counts et al. is silent regarding the rate of heat transfer of the heater is from around 15 J/s to around 30 J/s. Fleischhauer et al. teaches “ the rate of heat transfer of the heater is from around 15 J/s to around 30 J/s” ( Col.13 at lines 65-66, i.e., a first phase duration in the range of approximately 0.5 to 1.0 seconds and a first phase energy of approximately 12 to 18 Joules. Examiner noted that the joules per second in the range of 12 to 36 joules per second which has overlapping range with 15-30 J/s. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Counts et al. with Fleischhauer et al., by modifying Counts et al.’s the rate of heat transfer of heater according to Fleischhauer et al.’s rate of heat transfer, to provide a preferred energy input over time (col.13 at lines 65-66) as taught by Fleischhauer et al . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (1) Applicant argues “objections to claims… but has amended claims 1 and 20 … 35 USC 112b … has amended claims 5 and 8-10 … ” on page 5 of remark. In response , the amendment to claim 1 overcome the claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections. Thus, claim objection and 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant argues “35 USC 102 and 103 … ” on page 6 of remark. In response , the amendment to claims changed the scope of invention (i.e., a discharge current of the energy store when powering the heater is less than 2C or less that 0.5C) and overcome prior rejections. For this reason, examiner has provided another reference with respect to the amended features. (3) Applicant argues “Holzherr does not teach the limitations of claim 1. Holzherr describes a two-component system comprising a separate charging device (which contains battery 106) and a separate electrically heated aerosol-generating device (which contains battery 126 and heater 134). Holzherr at al. [0074] and [0079]. The battery 106 in the charging device supplies power to the rechargeable battery 126 of the aerosol-generating device. Id. at [0079]. When the aerosol- generating device is used, power is provided from rechargeable battery 126 via the control electronics 128 to heater 134 to generate aerosol. Id. at [0080]. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) of Holzherr (reproduced below) show the charging device and aerosol-generating device as separate components.” In response , examiner agree that Holzherr does not teach the features of “energy store is arranged to directly deliver energy and discharge current when powering the heater”. However, examiner has introduced Counts et al. (US 5,144,962) with respect to the amended features. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday. 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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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. /JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 12 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 13 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 14 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 15 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 16 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 17 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 17/780,109 Page 18 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights