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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 12/11/2025.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 2, 4 and 5 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 over Fariss in view of Newton and Zuber have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, regarding modification (I), the Applicant argues that the combination of the prior art references to arrive at a thermoplastic porous polyester relies on impermissible hindsight. Specifically, the applicant appears to argue that Zuber does not appropriately teach the wick material, as the carrier to hold a liquid taught by Zuber is not equivalent to the wick claimed.
The Examiner disagrees.
Fariss teaches a capillary tube (18; Fig. 2; page 7, lines 5-9) that acts to absorb/wick liquid (page 7, lines 5-9). Newton teaches a porous substrate (38) that acts to absorb and transport liquid (col. 5, lines 32-42), therefore functioning as a wick. Zuber teaches a porous carrier material ([0038]) that acts to absorb liquid ([0014], [0038]), therefore also functioning as a wick.
It would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art that each of the above prior art materials are porous carriers that would be used for absorbing liquid, and are thus equivalent wicking structures. It would therefore be obvious to substitute one known wicking material for another to yield predictable results (such as substituting the wick material of Fariss for the polyester wick material of Newton). Furthermore, where a reference is silent to a specific type of material (such as Newton not teaching the specific polyester used), one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable type of material (such as the porous, thermoplastic PET of Zuber) to apply to yield predictable results.
On page 7, regarding modification (II), the Applicant argues that the prior art references do not appropriately teach that the wick maintains its own shape over repeated insertions.
While the Examiner agrees that the prior art does not explicitly disclose repeated insertion of the wick into the reservoir, the Examiner maintains that the prior art makes obvious the claim as written.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wick of Davis to be separable such that it may be inserted into the reservoir (or removed from the reservoir), because one having ordinary skill would recognize that making this component separable would improve device assembly, cleaning, and component replacement. Furthermore, making separable a component is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B). Thus, the device would be capable of repeated insertions of the wick.
It would further be obvious for the material (the thermoplastic porous polyester of Newton) to maintain its own shape over the course of insertion, as this would be necessary for assembly of the device. Furthermore, materials taught by the prior art are the same as in the claimed invention and would be capable of performing in the same manner such that the wick may maintain its shape during the course of insertion. The thermoplastic porous polyester wicking material of the modified device is comprised of the same material as the claimed invention, and thus would be expected to perform in the same manner as claimed.
On pages 7-8, regarding modification (III), the Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the water content of the fluid composition. Specifically, the Applicant argues that using a +/- 10% tolerance is impractical.
The Examiner disagrees.
Fariss teaches a water content of about 5 to about 40% (page 11, lines 30-32), whereas the claims require 41% to about 50%. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “about 40%” would allow for concentrations slightly above 40%, such as a concentration as close as 41%. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Additionally, regarding Applicant’s argument about the impracticality of a +/- tolerance, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art requires some amount of water, and would apply the tolerance appropriately.
Thus, the 103 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 over Davis in view of Fariss, Newton and Zuber have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, regarding modification (I), the Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the water content of the fluid composition.
The Examiner disagrees.
Fariss teaches a water content of about 5 to about 40% (page 11, lines 30-32), whereas the claims require 41% to about 50%. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “about 40%” would allow for concentrations slightly above 40%, such as a concentration as close as 41%. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Additionally, regarding Applicant’s argument about the impracticality of a +/- tolerance, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art requires some amount of water, and would apply the tolerance appropriately.
Thus, the 103 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
On pages 8-9, regarding modification (II), the Applicant argues that the prior art does not appropriately teach a wick comprising a porous polymer.
Fariss teaches a capillary tube (18; Fig. 2; page 7, lines 5-9) that acts to absorb/wick liquid (page 7, lines 5-9). Newton teaches a porous substrate (38) that acts to absorb and transport liquid (col. 5, lines 32-42), therefore functioning as a wick. Zuber teaches a porous carrier material ([0038]) that acts to absorb liquid ([0014], [0038]), therefore also functioning as a wick.
It would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art that each of the above prior art materials would be used for absorbing liquid, and are thus equivalent wicking structures. It would therefore be obvious to substitute one known wicking material for another to yield predictable results (such as substituting the wick material of Fariss for the polyester wick material of Newton). Furthermore, where a reference is silent to a specific type of material (such as Newton not teaching the specific polyester used), one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable type of material (such as the porous, thermoplastic PET of Zuber) to apply to yield predictable results.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fariss (WO 2018073261 A1) in view of Newton (US 8499766 B1) and Zuber et al. (US 20140373856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fariss teaches a nicotine containing cartridge assembly (cartridge 70; Fig. 1; page 5, lines 25-30) for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device (e-vaping device 60; Fig. 1; page 5, lines 25-30) comprising:
a body assembly (outer cylindrical housing 22; page 8, line 11) having an interior surface defining an interior volume, the interior volume including a reservoir (reservoir 14; Fig. 2; page 5, lines 33-35);
wherein the reservoir has an interior volume, wherein the interior volume of the reservoir contains a composition comprising:
a nicotine or a salt thereof in an amount of from about 2 % w/w to about 6 % w/w, (nicotine ~2-6% wt; page 12, lines 25-26)
propylene glycol in an amount of from 50 % w/w to about 65 % w/w (propylene glycol ~40-90% wt; page 11, lines 21-25), and
water in an amount of from 41 % w/w to about 50 % w/w (Fariss page 11, lines 30-32 teaches water about 5-40% wt, which when “about” is interpreted at +/- 10%, would overlap the claimed range),
and wherein the reservoir 14 is configured to receive a wick (capillary tube 18; Fig. 2; page 7, lines 5-9) of the medical electronic nicotine delivery device, such that the wick enters the reservoir contacts the composition contained within (Fig. 2 depicts wick 18 as entering valve 40 via outlet 62, wherein valve 40 is part of the reservoir (page 7, line 5). Thus, the wick enters the reservoir and contacts the composition contained within).
Fariss does not explicitly teach (I) that the wick comprises a thermoplastic porous polyester or (II) that the wick maintains its own shape over the course of repeated insertions into the reservoir.
Regarding (I), Newton, directed to a nicotine cartridge assembly (cartridge 12; Col. 4, lines 37-40) for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device (electronic cigarette 2; Col. 4, lines 35-40) comprising a reservoir 36 configured to receive a wick (porous substrate 38 acts to transport liquid from the reservoir to the perturbance 22, therefore functioning as a wick) such that the wick contacts the composition, teaches that the wick is porous polyester (col. 5, lines 32-42).
Newton does not specify the type of polyester used.
Zuber, directed to a nicotine containing medical electronic nicotine delivery device ([0015]) comprising a reservoir wherein an interior volume of the reservoir contains a composition (liquid substrate may be retained in a container; [0038]), wherein the reservoir is configured to receive a wick (porous carrier material; [0038]) of the medical electronic nicotine delivery device, such that the wick contacts the composition, teaches that the wick comprises porous PET ([0038]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fariss by using a porous polyester wicking material as taught by Newton and by further using PET as taught by Zuber, because both Fariss and Newton are directed to cartridge assemblies with liquid transport/wicking components, Zuber further specifies an appropriate wicking material for an nicotine delivery device, and this involves substituting one alternative liquid transport material for another to yield predictable results.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PET is a thermoplastic polyester.
Regarding (II), the Examiner notes that the claim limitation directed to the wick such that it will “maintain its own shape over the course of repeated insertions into the reservoir” is functional language, which merely requires the device to be capable of use in this way.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wick of Fariss to be separable such that it may be inserted into the reservoir (or removed from the reservoir), because one having ordinary skill would recognize that making this component separable would improve device assembly, cleaning, and component replacement. Furthermore, making separable a component is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B). Thus, the device would be capable of repeated insertions of the wick.
It would further be obvious for the material to maintain its own shape over the course of insertion, as this would be necessary for assembly of the device. Furthermore, materials taught by the prior art are the same as in the claimed invention and would be capable of performing in the same manner such that the wick may maintain its shape during the course of insertion. The thermoplastic porous polyester wicking material of the modified device is comprised of the same material as the claimed invention, and thus would be expected to perform in the same manner as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Fariss teaches that the reservoir comprises a port (outlet 62; Fig. 2; page 7, lines 5-9) to allow the insertion of the wick therethrough.
Regarding claim 6, Fariss teaches that the interior volume of the reservoir comprises a fibrous material (storage medium 25; page 5, line 36-page 6, line 5; page 9, lines 1-2), wherein the fibrous material contains the composition.
Regarding claim 7, Fariss teaches that the reservoir 14 has a top wall, a bottom wall and side walls having an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of side walls defining the interior volume of the reservoir (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Fariss teaches that the composition in reservoir comprises:
nicotine or a salt thereof in an amount of from about 2 to about 6 % w/w (page 12, lines 25-26 teaches nicotine at about 2-6% wt),
propylene glycol in an amount of 55 % to 60 % w/w (propylene glycol about 40-90% wt; page 11, lines 21-25), and
water in an amount of 41 % w/w to 43 % w/w (Fariss page 11, lines 30-32 teaches water about 5-40% wt, which when “about” is interpreted at +/- 10%, would overlap the claimed range).
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20170127722 A1) in view of Fariss (WO 2018073261 A1), Newton (US 8499766 B1) and Zuber et al. (US 20140373856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a nicotine containing cartridge assembly (cartridge 200; Figs. 7-8; [0047]) for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device (aerosol delivery device 300; [0047]) comprising:
a body assembly (outer body 204 [0060]) having an interior surface defining an interior volume, the interior volume including a reservoir (container 206; [0060]);
wherein the reservoir has an interior volume (internal compartment 214), wherein the interior volume of the reservoir contains a composition ([0070]),
and wherein the reservoir is configured to receive a wick (substrate 210 comprising liquid transport element) of the medical electronic nicotine delivery device, such that the wick enters the reservoir and contacts the composition contained within ([0042], [0065], [0070]).
Davis further teaches that the reservoir may contain an aerosol precursor composition.
Davis does not explicitly teach (I) what the composition comprises, (II) that the wick comprises a thermoplastic porous polyester or (III) that the wick maintains its own shape over the course of repeated insertions into the reservoir.
Regarding (I), Fariss, directed to a nicotine containing cartridge assembly (cartridge 70; Fig. 1; page 5, lines 25-30) for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device (e-vaping device 60; Fig. 1; page 5, lines 25-30) comprising a body assembly (outer cylindrical housing 22; page 8, line 11) having a reservoir (reservoir 14; Fig. 2; page 5, lines 33-35) containing an aerosol precursor composition (pre-vapor formulation; page 6; lines 10-11), teaches that the composition comprises:
a nicotine or a salt thereof in an amount of from about 2 % w/w to about 6 % w/w, (nicotine ~2-6% wt; page 12, lines 25-26)
propylene glycol in an amount of from 50 % w/w to about 65 % w/w (propylene glycol ~40-90% wt; page 11, lines 21-25), and
water in an amount of from 41 % w/w to about 50 % w/w (Fariss page 11, lines 30-32 teaches water about 5-40% wt, which when “about” is interpreted at +/- 10%, would overlap the claimed range).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis by using the aerosol precursor composition as taught by Fariss because both Davis and Fariss are directed to nicotine containing cartridge assemblies with aerosol precursor compositions, Davis is silent to the exact composition of the aerosol precursor composition and one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to prior art for a known an suitable composition, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Davis does not explicitly teach that the wick is thermoplastic porous polyester.
Newton, directed to a nicotine cartridge assembly (cartridge 12; Col. 4, lines 37-40) for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device (electronic cigarette 2; Col. 4, lines 35-40) comprising a reservoir 36 configured to receive a wick (porous substrate 38 acts to transport liquid from the reservoir to the perturbance 22, therefore functioning as a wick) such that the wick contacts the composition, teaches that the wick is porous polyester (col. 5, lines 32-42).
Newton does not specify the type of polyester used.
Zuber, directed to a nicotine containing medical electronic nicotine delivery device ([0015]) comprising a reservoir wherein an interior volume of the reservoir contains a composition (liquid substrate may be retained in a container; [0038]), wherein the reservoir is configured to receive a wick (porous carrier material; [0038]) of the medical electronic nicotine delivery device, such that the wick contacts the composition, teaches that the wick comprises a porous PET ([0038]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis by using a porous polyester wicking material as taught by Newton and by further using porous PET as taught by Zuber because both Davis and Newton are directed to cartridge assemblies with liquid transport/wicking components, Zuber further specifies an appropriate wicking material for an nicotine delivery device, Davis is silent to the material of the wick and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for known and suitable wicking materials to transport liquid from one point to another, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PET is a thermoplastic polyester.
Regarding (III), the Examiner notes that the claim limitation directed to the wick such that it will “maintain its own shape over the course of repeated insertions into the reservoir” is functional language, which merely requires the device to be capable of use in this way.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wick of Davis to be separable such that it may be inserted into the reservoir (or removed from the reservoir), because one having ordinary skill would recognize that making this component separable would improve device assembly, cleaning, and component replacement. Furthermore, making separable a component is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B). Thus, the device would be capable of repeated insertions of the wick.
It would further be obvious for the material to maintain its own shape over the course of insertion, as this would be necessary for assembly of the device. Furthermore, materials taught by the prior art are the same as in the claimed invention and would be capable of performing in the same manner such that the wick may maintain its shape during the course of insertion. The thermoplastic porous polyester wicking material of the modified device is comprised of the same material as the claimed invention, and thus would be expected to perform in the same manner as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches that the reservoir has a top wall, a bottom wall and side walls having an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of side walls defining the interior volume of the reservoir (see Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Annotated from Davis Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 8, Davis teaches that the cartridge additionally comprises two conduits (through holes 226; [0086]) formed between the outer surface of side walls of the reservoir 206 and the interior surface of the body assembly 204 (Fig. 7), the conduits having open top ends, open bottom ends, and being configured for conducting aerosolized nicotine (Fig. 7; [0086]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Fariss, Newton and Zuber as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Griffin et al. (US 20220160031 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Davis teaches a mouthpiece 212 ([0061]).
Davis does not teach a manifold for holding and distributing aerosolized nicotine.
Griffin, directed to a nicotine cartridge assembly for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device comprising a body (body 102; [0055]), a reservoir (reservoirs 108a and 108b; [0055]), and conduits (vapor airflow conduits 136a and 136b; [0079]) with outlets 150a and 150b ([0080]), teaches a manifold (mixed vapor airflow conduit 138; Fig. 2) within a mouthpiece (mouthpiece 106; [0079]) for holding and distributing aerosolized nicotine, the manifold positioned above the top wall of the reservoir (Fig. 2), the manifold having an open top end ([0079]) and two open bottom ends (inlets 151a and 151b; [0080]), and at least one interior channel connecting the open top end with the open bottom ends, wherein the open bottom ends of the manifold are secured onto the open top ends of the conduits and are in fluid communication with the conduits ([0080]; Fig. 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis by replacing the mouthpiece 212 with the manifold and mouthpiece as taught by Griffin because both Davis and Griffin are directed to cartridge assemblies with multiple conduits and mouthpieces, Griffin teaches that a mouthpiece in which multiple conduits converge through a manifold is a known mouthpiece in the art, and this involves substituting one alternative mouthpiece configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Griffin teaches that the mouthpiece (mouthpiece 106; [0079]) is positioned above the manifold (Fig. 2) having an outlet (suction opening 140) in fluid communication with the at least one interior channel of the manifold (Fig. 2; [0079]), the mouthpiece configured for delivering aerosolized nicotine into the mouth of a user ([0079]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fariss, Newton and Zuber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20200404977 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Fariss does not teach an anti-counterfeit element mounted to the outer surface of the body assembly.
Chen, directed to a nicotine containing cartridge assembly (cartridge 11; [0056]) for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device (cigarette rod 12; [0056]) comprising a body assembly (tube body 143; [0106]) and a reservoir (storage compartment 1434; [0113]), teaches an anti-counterfeit element (authentication circuit 112; [0061]) mounted to the outer surface of the body assembly, the anti-counterfeit element configured to enable use of the cartridge assembly in the electronic nicotine delivery device ([0061], [0146]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fariss by adding the anti-counterfeit element as taught by Chen because both Fariss and Chen are directed to cartridge assemblies, Chen teaches an anti-counterfeit element to provide cartridge authorization and information, and this involves using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches that the anti-counterfeit element comprises a plurality of electrically conducting pads (contact pads 1511, 1512 and 1513; Fig. 16, Fig. 19; [0107]) mounted on a substrate (PCB module 151; Fig. 16; [0107]) attached to the body assembly of the cartridge assembly, the plurality of electrically conducting pads configured to make electrical contact with corresponding electrical contact elements (pogo pins 1621, 1622, 1623; [0107]) on a circuit board (main control module 166 comprising main control circuit 123; [0061], [0146]) within a housing of the medical electronic nicotine delivery device, the plurality of electrically conducting pads being arranged in a predetermined pattern having predetermined electrical characteristics (Fig. 19; [0061], [0107], [0146]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Fariss, Newton and Zuber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minskoff et al. (US 20160021930 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Davis teaches that the cartridge may have electrical contacts on the cartridge configured to make electrical contact with a corresponding electrical connection mounted on a housing of the medical electronic nicotine delivery device ([0046]; [0058]).
Davis does not teach an anti-reuse element.
Minskoff, directed to a nicotine containing cartridge assembly (cartridge 150; [0109]) for use in a medical electronic nicotine delivery device (personal vaporizer unit 100; [0109]) including a reservoir ([0109]), teaches an electrically conductive, disruptable element (internal contact) mounted to the outer surface of a body assembly ([0230]), which element contacts the inside of the housing and is disrupted, changed or damaged upon removal of the cartridge assembly from the housing, precluding reuse of the cartridge assembly once removed from the medical electronic nicotine delivery device ([0229-0234], [0240-0241]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis by adding the electrically conductive, disruptable element as taught by Minskoff because both Davis and Minskoff are directed to cartridges comprising electrical contacts, Minskoff teaches an electrically conductive, disruptable mechanism to prevent misuse of a cartridge, and this involves use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 15, Minskoff teaches that the electrically conductive, disruptable element comprises a fuse or wire internal contact configured to make electrical contact with a corresponding electrical contact point mounted on circuit board within a housing of the medical electronic nicotine delivery device (bridges a circuit on outer surface of the atomizer housing; [0230], [0240]), the one or more internal contacts being configured to be disrupted upon removal of the cartridge assembly from the housing ([0240]).
The Examiner notes that while Minskoff does not explicitly teach that the internal contacts are springs, the anti-reuse mechanism of Minskoff is considered equivalent to the anti-reuse springs described in the instant specification, as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See MPEP § 2173.01(II).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755