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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 4/21/2026.
Claim 15 is amended.
Claims 1-14 and 23 are cancelled.
Claims 30-31 are newly added.
Claims 15-22 and 24-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lord does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation regarding the structural integration of a heating element within a gel-based aerosol-generating substrate, and is limited to modifying bore diameters, lengths, and wall thicknesses of downstream hollow-bore filter elements that are physically separate from, and downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate (p. 7-8).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive because “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145(IV). Here, the Examiner does not rely on Lord for any integration of a heating element within the aerosol-generating substrate. Rather, the Examiner merely uses Lord to modify the dimensions of Hufnagel’s hollow cellulose acetate tube and transfer section.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of incorporating an elongate susceptor element into Hufnagel’s article (p. 8). Specifically, Applicant argues that the article is adapted to be used in conjunction with an aerosol-generating device including a heating element that penetrates the rod of aerosol-generating substrate when the article is inserted into the aerosol-generating device (p. 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mironov provides such motivation. Specifically, Mironov similarly uses an internal heating element in the form of a bi-layer susceptor (4) with a solid aerosol-forming substrate in the form of a gel ([0048]). Mironov teaches that the bi-layer susceptor allows for heating to be optimized and temperature of the susceptor to be controlled without any direct temperature monitoring (abstract). In other words, the benefit Mironov’s bi-layer susceptor provides over Hufnagel’s internal heating element is the optimized heating without additional components that would make the device more costly to manufacture. Therefore, Mironov provides the requisite motivation for substituting Hufnagel’s heating element with a bi-layer susceptor.
Applicant argues that the Office Action’s asserted combination relies on impermissible hindsight by selectively extracting (i) downstream filter geometries from Lord and (ii) an elongate susceptor from Mironov to retrospectively embed these features into Hufnagel’s aerosol-generating article without any teaching or suggestion that would have motivated the person of ordinary skill in the art to redesign the article to incorporate an internal susceptor specifically for heating a water-containing gel substrate (p. 8-9).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner merely uses knowledge gained from the disclosures of Hufnagel, Lord, and Mironov to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have considered replacing a heating element associated with an aerosol-generating article with an elongate susceptor element within the aerosol-generating article because Hufnagel’s heating element is associated with the aerosol-generating device and is not an integral component of the aerosol-generating article (p. 9).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In addition to the motivation mentioned above, Mironov further teaches disadvantages of internal heating elements like those in Hufnagel. Specifically, Mironov teaches that these internal heating elements suffer disadvantages in that (1) volatile compounds may become deposited on a surface of the heating element that may prevent the heating element from functioning in an optimal manner, (2) volatile compounds break down and impart unpleasant or bitter flavors to the user, (3) the heating element requires cleaning such that if cleaning is carried out inappropriately, the heating element may be come damaged or broken, and (4) inappropriate or careless insertion of an aerosol-generating article may also damage or break the heating element ([0008]). Thus, the substitution of Hufnagel’s internal heating element with Mironov’s bi-layer susceptor provides the additional benefit of solving the problems associated with the internal heating element.
Applicant argues that Hufnagel’s one mention of a gel composition in relation to a carrier for the aerosol-generating substrate and not in relation to the aerosol-generating substrate itself, and therefore Hufnagel does not teach or suggest an aerosol-generating substrate int the form of a gel composition including a gelling agent, an alkaloid, or cannabinoid and an aerosol former (p. 9-10).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts that the context of [0045], as a whole, would not lead one of ordinary skill to conclude that the carrier is a gel. [0045] first describes that the carrier takes the form of “powder, granules, pellets, shreds, spaghetti strands, strips or sheets.” Here, [0045] already describes what form the carrier takes. Directly after, [0045] describes that “the aerosol-forming substrate may be deposited on the surface of the carrier in the form of… [a] gel.” The subject of the sentence is the “aerosol-forming substrate,” which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the aerosol-forming substrate in the form of a gel is deposited onto the carrier. Thus, one of skill in the art would understand that [0045], as a whole, describes that the carrier is a solid, and the aerosol-forming substrate is deposited onto the carrier in various forms including a gel.
Applicant' s arguments, see p. 9-11, filed 4/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufnagel in view of Lord and Mironov have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 15 to include the limitation “wherein the gel composition comprises at least 5 percent by weight water.” The prior art of record fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ghanouni et al. (US 2021/0315266; of record).
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.
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 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 15, 20-22, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufnagel et al. (US 2016/0286851; of record) in view of Lord et al. (US 2021/0251280; of record), Mironov et al. (US 2016/0150825; of record), and Ghanouni et al. (US 2021/0315266; of record).
Regarding claims 15 and 30-31, Hufnagel discloses a smoking article (abstract; “aerosol-generating article”) configured to generate aerosol with heat without combustion ([0002]), the smoking article (101; Fig. 2) comprising:
a rod (see [0072]) of an aerosol-forming substrate (111) comprising a gel ([0045]; “gel composition” and “at least one gelling agent”) having at least nicotine ([0045]; “alkaloid compound”), an aerosol former ([0045]), and water ([0047], [0060]);
a mouthpiece filter (105; “mouthpiece element”); and
an intermediate hollow section between the rod of aerosol-generating substrate and the mouthpiece filter (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a hollow cellulose acetate tube (109; “support element”) downstream of the rod of aerosol-forming substrate (see Fig. 2) comprising a hollow tube (“first hollow tubular segment”) defining a first longitudinal cavity providing a first unrestricted flow channel (see Fig. 2) and having a wall thickness (see Fig. 2), and
a transfer section (107; “aerosol-cooling element”) that cools volatile substances within ([0072]) in axial alignment with the mouthpiece filter and abutting an upstream end of the mouthpiece filter (see Fig. 2), comprising a second hollow tube (see Fig. 2; “second hollow tubular segment”) having a length (see Fig. 2) and defining a second longitudinal cavity providing a second unrestricted flow channel (see Fig. 2),
wherein the first and second unrestricted flow channels are empty (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hufnagel does not explicitly teach (1) the first hollow tubular segment having a wall thickness of at least 1 millimeter or (2) the second hollow tubular segment having a length of less than 10 millimeters and an internal diameter of at least 2 millimeters. Specifically, Hufnagel does not mention the possible lengths or diameters of the hollow cellulose acetate tube or transfer section.
Lord teaches an aerosol-forming article (abstract) comprising a heat-not-burn (HNB) consumable (1d; Fig. 17) comprising an aerosol-forming substrate (2d), an upstream filter element (4d; “support element”), a cooling element (6d; “aerosol-cooling element”) and a downstream (terminal) filter element (5d; “mouthpiece”), wherein the aerosol-forming substrate has a diameter of between 5 and 10 mm ([0047]), wherein the upstream filter element has a diameter substantially matching the diameter of the aerosol-forming substrate ([0052]) and may have a hollow bore filter element ([0056], see also Fig. 17) having a bore diameter between 1 and 5 mm ([0056]), and wherein the cooling element has an axial length of less than 20 mm, e.g., between 8 and 18 mm ([0196]; see also [0407], describing an axial length between 5 and 15 mm; overlaps the claimed range of “less than 10 millimeters”) and a bore (8d) having a diameter of between 3 and 7 mm ([0252], see also [0571], describing a diameter of 4 mm; “internal diameter of at least 2 millimeters”). Moreover, Lord teaches another embodiment (Fig. 1-2) comprising an aerosol-forming substrate (2), an upstream filter element (4; “support element”), an intermediate hollow bore filter element (6; “aerosol cooling element”) that acts as a cooling/mixing chamber ([0021]), and a downstream filter element (5), wherein the aerosol-forming substrate has a diameter of between 5 and 10 mm ([0047]), wherein the upstream filter element has a diameter substantially matching the diameter of the aerosol-forming substrate ([0052]) and may have a hollow bore filter element ([0056], see also Fig. 17) having a bore diameter between 1 and 5 mm ([0056]), and wherein each filter, including the intermediate filter, has an axial length of less than 20 mm, e.g., between 8 and 18 mm ([0196]; overlaps the claimed range of “less than 10 millimeters”) and a bore having a larger bore diameter than any other hollow bore filter element in the filter arrangement ([0053]) that is greater than 3 mm ([0054]; “internal diameter of at least 2 millimeters”).
This means that Lord’s upstream filter element may have a wall thickness in the range of 0 mm ((5-5)/2) to 9 mm ((10-1)/2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hufnagel such that (1) the hollow cellulose acetate tube has a wall thickness of 0 to 9 mm as in Lord and (2) the transfer section has an axial length less than 20 mm (e.g., between 5 and 15 mm or between 8 and 18 mm) and a bore diameter greater than 3 mm (e.g., between 3 and 7 mm) as in Lord because (a) the modification to the diameters of the hollow cellulose acetate tube and transfer section would cause vapors passing through the hollow cellulose acetate tube to expand into the larger axial bore of the transfer section to result in effective cooling/mixing (Lord; [0057]), (b) the modification to the diameter and length of transfer section maximizes the volume of the axial bore to maximize mixing/cooling of the generated vapors (Lord; [0054]), and (c) such a modification involves a mere change in the size on of an element. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Moreover, modified Hufnagel discloses a heating element (113) is located within the aerosol-forming substrate such that heat generated by the heating element is transferred by conduction to the aerosol-forming substrate ([0073]).
However, modified Hufnagel is silent as to an elongate susceptor element extending in a longitudinal direction through the rod of aerosol-generating substrate.
Mironov teaches an aerosol-generating article with a multi-material susceptor (title) comprising a an aerosol-forming substrate (20; Fig. 3) and an elongate bi-layer susceptor (4) within the aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 3, [0126]) wherein the elongate susceptor extends in a longitudinal direction through the aerosol-generating substrate (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Hufnagel’s heating element for Mironov’s elongate bi-layer susceptor in order to allow heating to be optimized and temperature of the susceptor to be controlled without direct temperature monitoring (Mironov; abstract).
Lastly, modified Hufnagel discloses the aerosol-generating substrate the aerosol-generating substrate comprises a gel ([0045]) having at least nicotine ([0045]), and flavor composition may be made with water ([0047], [0060]).
However, modified Hufnagel is silent as to the gel composition comprising at least 5 percent by weight water (claim 15) and up to 22 percent of weight by water (claims 30-31). Specifically, Hufnagel does not disclose the amount of water present in the aerosol-forming substrate.
Ghanouni teaches an aerosol generating substrate comprising an aerosol generating material comprising an amorphous solid (abstract), wherein the amorphous solid comprises 1-50% wt% of a gelling agent ([0033]), 10-80 wt% of an aerosol generating agent ([0034]) optionally 10-60 wt% of a tobacco extract and/or nicotine and/or flavorants ([0032]), and about 5 wt% to about 15 wt% water ([0037]). Ghanouni further teaches that if the water content of the amorphous solid is too high, (1) its performance in use is compromised because the high heat capacity of water requires more energy to generate an aerosol, (2) may be less satisfactory to the consumer due to generation of hot and humid puffs (i.e., hot puff” ), and (3) microbial growth may occur; but if the water content is too low, the material may be brittle and difficult to handle ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hufanagel’s aerosol-generating substrate having water to be 5-15 wt% water as in Ghanouni because such a modification (1) prevents the disadvantages of the water content being too high (i.e., inefficient aerosol generation, hot puff, and microbial growth) (2) prevents the disadvantages of the water content being too low (i.e., brittle material), and (3) involves optimization within prior art conditions. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, modified Hufnagel discloses the aerosol-generating article as discussed above with respect to claim 15, wherein the aerosol-generating substrate comprises a gel ([0045]) having at least nicotine ([0045]; “alkaloid compound”).
However, modified Hufnagel is silent as to the gel composition further comprises at least 1 percent by weight of nicotine and between 1 percent by weight and 6 percent by weight of the at least one gelling agent. Specifically, Hufnagel does not disclose the amount of nicotine or gel present in the aerosol-generating substrate.
Ghanouni teaches an aerosol generating substrate comprising an aerosol generating material comprising an amorphous solid (abstract), wherein the amorphous solid comprises 1-50% wt% of a gelling agent ([0033]), 10-80 wt% of an aerosol generating agent ([0034]) optionally 10-60 wt% of a tobacco extract and/or nicotine and/or flavorants ([0032]), and about 5 wt% to about 15 wt% water ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hufanagel’s gel having nicotine to have 1-50 wt% of a gelling agent and 10-60 wt% nicotine as in Ghanouni because such a modification involves optimization within prior art conditions. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hufnagel further discloses a flavor precursor compound including 2-hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butyric acid ([0031]; “an acid”).
Regarding claims 24 and 27, modified Hufnagel discloses the mouthpiece filter is a conventional mouthpiece filter formed from cellulose acetate tow ([0072]; “fibrous filtration material”).
However, modified Hufnagel is silent as to wherein a length of the mouthpiece element is at least 10 millimeters.
Lord further teaches the terminal filter element (5, 5d) is comprised of cellulose acetate ([0051]) and may have an axial length be less than 20 mm (for example between 10 and 12 mm) ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified Hufnagel’s mouthpiece filter to be less than 20 mm long, e.g., 10-12 mm long, as in Lord because such a modification involves a mere change in the size on of an element. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 25, modified Hufnagel discloses the transfer section having a length of axial length between 5-15 mm (Lord; [0407]) and the mouthpiece filter having a length less than 20 mm (e.g., between 10-12 mm) (Lord; [0052]). Therefore, the mouthpiece filter is -5 mm (10-15) to 7 mm (12-5) longer than the transfer section (overlapping “length of the mouthpiece element is at least 2 mm greater than a length of the aerosol-cooling element”). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 26, modified Hufnagel discloses wherein the aerosol-forming substrate has a diameter of between 5 and 10 mm (Lord; [0047]), and wherein the cooling element/intermediate filter element has a diameter substantially matching the diameter of the aerosol-forming substrate ([0052]) and a bore diameter of diameter of between 3 and 7 mm (Lord; [0252], see also [0571], describing a diameter of 4 mm).
Therefore, modified Hufnagel discloses the modified transfer section has a wall thickness of 0 (the diameter of the transfer section is the same as the diameter of the bore) to 3.5 mm ((10-3)/2). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 28, modified Hufnagel further discloses a front-plug (103; “upstream element”) provided upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, modified Hufnagel discloses the length of the transfer section between 5 and 15 mm (Lord; [0407]).
However, modified Hufnagel is silent as to a ratio between a length of the aerosol-cooling element and a length of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate is 0.25 to 1.
Lord further teaches the aerosol-forming substrate may have an axial length of between 10 and 15 mm ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified Hufnagel’s rod of aerosol forming substrate to have a length of 10-15 mm as in Lord because such a modification involves a mere change in the size on of an element. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
This means that modified Hufnagel would have a ratio of length of aerosol-cooling element to length of aerosol-generating substrate of 0.33 (5/15) to 1.5 (15/10). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufnagel et al. in view of Lord et al., Mironov et al., and Ghanouni et al., as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Abi Aoun (US 2023/0010782; of record).
Regarding claims 16-17, modified Hufnagel discloses the aerosol-generating article as discussed above with respect to claim 15, wherein the aerosol-generating substrate comprises a gel ([0045]).
However, modified Hufnagel is silent as to the aerosol-generating substrate further comprises a plug of porous medium loaded with the gel composition, wherein the porous medium is in the form of a crimped sheet.
Abi Aoun teaches a method of manufacturing an amorphous solid comprising an aerosol-former material (title) comprising forming a slurry comprising a particulate botanical material, gelling agent, and aerosol-former ([0034]), forming a layer of the slurry ([0035]) and drying the slurry to provide a sheet of amorphous solid ([0036]), wherein the aerosol-generating material is provided on a support in the form of a carrier sheet such that both the carrier sheet and sheet of aerosol-generating material is crimped [0052]; “crimped sheet”) which is then gathered to form a rod ([0033]; “porous medium loaded with the gel composition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hufnagel’s aerosol-generating substrate to be a crimped and gathered sheet of aerosol-generating substrate and carrier sheet as in Abi Aoun in order to obtain an aerosol-generating substrate with higher flavor loading that is stabilized at high concentration and have a good shelf life (Abi Aoun; [0027]).
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufnagel et al. in view of Lord et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2022/0175015; of record).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, modified Hufnagel discloses the aerosol-generating article as discussed above with respect to claim 15, wherein the aerosol-generating substrate comprises a gel ([0045]).
However, modified Hufnagel is silent as to the aerosol-generating substrate further comprises a plug of porous medium loaded with the gel composition, wherein the porous medium comprises cotton fibers.
Jeong teaches a gel aerosol-forming substrate cartridge (abstract) comprising a gel aerosol-forming substrate that exists in a gel, semi-solid form, or solidified form ([0007]) received in a gel receptor ([0007], [0015]; “porous medium loaded with the gel composition”), wherein the gel receptor is made by crumpling or rolling a cotton woven or non-woven fabric into a cylindrical shape ([0019] “cotton fibers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hufnagel’s aerosol-generating substrate to be cotton that includes the gel aerosol-forming substrate as in Jeong in order to allow the composition to remain absorbed in the gel receptor without flowing out resulting in much greater amount of aerosol than existing heated cigarettes (Jeong; [0071]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hufnagel is silent as to the plug of porous medium loaded with the gel composition is circumscribed by a water repellent wrapper.
Jeong further teaches wrapping paper wrapped around the side of the gel receptor ([0007]), wherein the wrapping paper (61) is a laminated paper made by attaching aluminum foil to paper and is wrapped such that the aluminum foil comes into contact with the gel receptor to eliminate or minimize the possibility that the gel aerosol-forming substrate in liquid from dampening the gel receptor may flow through the side of the gel aerosol-forming substrate cartridge ([0073]; “water repellant wrapper”).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have added the laminated paper made of aluminum foil and paper as in Jeong to modified Hufnagel’s aerosol-forming substrate in order to eliminate or minimize the possibility that liquid, including water, flows through the side of the cartridge (Jeong; [0073]).
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 SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST.
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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights