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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 09/25/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-18, 20, 22, 24-25, 28-29 and 32-35 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 9 is amended.
Claims 32-35 are previously withdrawn.
Claims 4, 11-13, 19, 21, 23, 26-27 and 30-31 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-14, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that prior art Baldwin does not appropriately teach fibers loaded with calcium carbonate as specified, as one having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the “loading” of Baldwin to be the same “loading” as additional evidence Doelle. The Examiner maintains that Baldwin teaches pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate to the extent required by the claim and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “loaded”. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. In order to address the applicant’s concerns, an additional obviousness ground of rejection is made over Baldwin in view of Doelle (US 20070151681 A).
On pages 8-10 the Applicant argues that the claimed fiber loading requires a chemical process to produce a specific loaded fiber not taught by Baldwin. The Examiner maintains that Baldwin teaches pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate to the extent required by the claim. The claim does not require any specific interpretation of “loading”. As such, as long as the calcium carbonate particles are on or touching the pulp fibers, the prior art meets the claimed invention. It would be apparent for one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the term “loaded” would impart a connection between the pulp fibers and the calcium carbonate particles, as both are being comprised within the same material. Thus, the fibers and particles would inherently be appropriately connected.
The Applicant further argues that fiber loading retains a specific meaning in the art to imply a chemical process. The Examiner notes that as “loading” is indicated by the Applicant to have a known meaning in the art, one having ordinary skill in the art would also be inclined to apply the known meaning to the loading of Baldwin. The Examiner further notes that claim 1 is additionally rejected over Baldwin in view of Doelle, which teaches the required fiber loaded with calcium carbonate, as acknowledged by the Applicant on page 7.
On pages 11-12 the Applicant argues that Baldwin does not appropriately teach the claimed content of calcium carbonate particles within the loaded pulp fibers. The Examiner disagrees. Baldwin teaches "a loading of between 20% by weight and about 40% by weight" (col. 4, lines 44-45). Thus, the Examiner maintains that Baldwin makes obvious that 20-80% of the weight of the loaded fibers is calcium carbonate, as this range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art. It would be expected that when Baldwin teaches “loading”, this means the totally amount loaded within the pulp fibers. It would further be expected that the application of the loading process of Doelle (as in the 103 rejection below) would not change this proportion, and that the taught proportion of calcium carbonate would still be loaded. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Doelle teaches a loaded filler content of 1-60% ([0014]), thus indicating that the claimed range is known in the art.
The Applicant further argues that Baldwin does not teach a ratio of free to loaded calcium carbonate particles. However, the claim does not require a “free calcium carbonate” content, only a loaded calcium carbonate content. Baldwin thus appropriately teaches the claimed requirements.
On pages 12-13 the Applicant argues that prior art Baldwin does not appropriately teach the wrapper air permeability as claimed, as the air permeability of Baldwin would be different from commonly known cigarette papers due to changes made to Baldwin reduce burn rate that decrease oxygen permeability. The Examiner disagrees. While Baldwin does teach permeability of a “base paper” without the addition of a fibrous mat, it is precisely this base paper that renders the claimed invention obvious. Thus, the permeability still applies. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Baldwin does not disclose that the addition of the fibrous mat decreases permeability (or decreases permeability to below the claimed range), merely that it alters burn characteristics.
On page 13 the Applicant argues that the prior art does not appropriately teach the improvements of the claimed invention. The Examiner notes that the prior art teaches the same structure as claimed. Thus, the structure would be expected to perform in the same way and have the same inherent characteristics despite what is explicitly disclosed.
On pages 14-16 the Applicant argues that claim 7, which depends from claim 1, is not appropriately taught by the prior art, as the prior art of record does not appropriately teach precipitated calcium carbonate particles with a rhombohedral structure. The Examiner notes that the new rejection of claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, regards obviousness over Baldwin in view of Doelle. Doelle teaches precipitated calcium carbonate particles with a rhombohedral structure ([0031]). Thus, the previous rejection of claim 7 is withdrawn and the claim is rejected over Baldwin in view of Doelle as applied to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that Baldwin does not appropriately teach free filler materials that are not connected to the pulp fibers. Upon further review, the Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of Cline et al. (US 4231377 A).
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5, 7-8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baldwin et al. (US 5263999 A) as evidenced by Doelle (US 20070151681 A), or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Doelle.
Regarding claim 1, Baldwin teaches a wrapper paper for smoking articles, which comprises
pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles (col. 4, line 41-45),
wherein the mass of the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles is at least 1% of the mass of the wrapper paper (Baldwin teaches that the wrapper paper comprises pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate (col. 4, lines 41-45), which must necessarily be present in an amount greater than 0%. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious.)
and the calcium carbonate particles in the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles make up at least 20% and at most 80% of the mass of the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles, (Baldwin teaches loading between about 20 percent to about 40 percent by weight; col. 4, lines 44-45)
and the wrapper paper has an air permeability in accordance with ISO 2965:2019 of at least 50 cm3/(cm2-min-kPa) and at most 300 cm3/(cm2-min-kPa). (Baldwin teaches a range of about 2 to about 150 Coresta units (col. 4, lines 52-54), which overlaps the claimed range. The claimed range is therefore prima facie obvious).
It would be apparent for one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the term “loaded” would impart a connection between the pulp fibers and the calcium carbonate particles, as both are being comprised within the same material. Thus, the fibers and particles would inherently be appropriately connected as claimed.
Doelle, directed to a method of producing cigarette paper comprising pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles ([(0013-0014]), teaches that fiber loaded precipitated calcium carbonate filler particles are "uniformly distributed and adhered to" ([0013]). Thus, the calcium carbonate particles are not considered to be free particles, but are rather adhered (connected) to the fibers. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by referencing pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles, Baldwin would refer to the same fiber loading as Doelle, such that the calcium carbonate particles are connected to or attached with the pulp fibers. The material of Baldwin would thus be structurally comparable to that of the claimed material.
In the alternative, Baldwin does not explicitly teach that in said pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles such that calcium carbonate particles are connected with said pulp fibers.
Doelle, directed to a wrapper paper for smoking articles (fiber loaded cigarette paper; [0014-0015]), teaches that pulp fibers may be loaded with calcium carbonate to improve stock processing efficiency, including faster drying ([0015]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Baldwin by loading the pulp fibers with calcium carbonate as taught by Doelle because both Baldwin and Doelle are directed to wrapper paper for smoking articles comprising pulp fibers and calcium carbonate particles, Doelle teaches that loading the fibers with the calcium carbonate may improve production efficiency, and this involves applying a known technique to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Baldwin teaches that the addition of pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate alters the burn characteristics of the wrapper paper (col. 3, lines 45-60).
Baldwin does not explicitly teach that in addition to the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles, the wrapper paper also contains pulp fibers which are not loaded with calcium carbonate particles and their proportion is at least 10% and at most 80%, each with respect to the mass of the wrapper paper.
However, given that this range is dependent on the proportion of pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization to change the proportion of pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate in order to optimize the burn characteristics of the wrapper paper, and thus also change the proportion of pulp fibers which are not loaded with calcium carbonate. It follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed 10%-80% proportion of pulp fibers which are not loaded with calcium carbonate through routine optimization, absent evidence indicating the range is critical. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 3, Baldwin teaches that the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles and, if present, also the pulp fibers not loaded with calcium carbonate particles, are at least partially sourced from flax (col. 4, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 5, Baldwin teaches that the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles are at least partially located in the bulk of the wrapper paper, altering the burn characteristics of the wrapper paper (col. 3, lines 45-60).
Baldwin does not teach that the proportion of pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles is at least 5% and at most 80%, each with respect to the mass of the wrapper paper.
However, given that this range is dependent on the desired burn characteristics of the wrapper paper, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization to optimize the burn characteristics of the wrapper paper, thereby changing the proportion of pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate. It follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed 5%-80% proportion of pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate through routine optimization, absent evidence indicating the range is critical. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Doelle teaches that the calcium carbonate particles of the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles are formed by precipitated calcium carbonate particles with a rhombohedral structure ([0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Baldwin teaches that the mass of the calcium carbonate particles with respect to the mass of the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles is at least 20% and at most 60% (col. 4, lines 44-45 teaches loading between about 20 percent to about 40 percent by weight).
Regarding claim 22, Baldwin teaches that the wrapper paper has a basis weight of at least 20 g/m2 and at most 120 g/m2, wherein a coating, if present, counts towards the basis weight of the wrapper paper (col. 4, lines 61-62 teaches a basis weight of about 25 to about 30 g/m2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Doelle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasbo et al. (US 5170807 A).
Regarding claim 6, Baldwin teaches a coating which contains pulp fibers (fibrous cellulose coating; col. 3, lines 14-25; col. 5, lines 17-45). Baldwin further teaches that the addition of inorganic fillers or burn chemicals to the coating, similar to the addition of calcium carbonate to the base paper, would alter burn characteristics of the wrapper paper (col. 4, lines 19-22; col. 3, lines 54-68).
Baldwin does not teach that the pulp fibers are loaded with calcium carbonate particles.
Kasbo, directed to a wrapper paper for smoking articles (Abstract), teaches a coating to optimize burn characteristics of the wrapper paper, comprising calcium carbonate particles (col. 2, lines 14-24) wherein their proportion, in the case in which the calcium carbonate particles are exclusively located in the coating, is at least 1% and at most 30%, each with respect to the mass of the wrapper paper (col. 2, lines 41-44 teaches at least 3% and at most 10%, which would indicate at least 3% fibers loaded with calcium carbonate, which anticipates 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 Baldwin by adding fibers loaded with calcium carbonate in a proportion of at least 1% and at most 30% to the coating as taught by Kasbo to alter the combustion speed because both Baldwin and Kasbo are directed to wrapper papers, Kasbo teaches that calcium carbonate is a known component for modifying burn characteristics of wrapper paper coatings, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Doelle as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Cline et al. (US 4231377 A).
Regarding claim 9, Baldwin teaches that the wrapper material may contain a combination of fillers (col. 4, lines 45-49).
Baldwin does not teach the exact content of these fillers or that they may be free fillers.
Cline, directed to a wrapper paper for smoking articles (col. 2, lines 13-16), teaches the addition of at least 15% free magnesium oxide fillers with respect to the mass of the wrapper paper to reduce visible side stream smoke (col. 2, lines 17-45).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Baldwin by adding magnesium oxide free fillers in an amount of at least 15% with respect to the mass of the wrapper paper as taught by Cline because both Baldwin and Cline are directed to wrapper papers for smoking articles, Cline teaches that the addition of magnesium oxide may be used to reduce side stream smoke, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Cline teaches that the free filler materials are formed of magnesium oxide (col. 2, lines 17-20 and 26-28).
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Doelle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasbo et al. (US 5170807 A).
Regarding claim 14, Baldwin teaches that the wrapper paper surface has a coating which contains pulp fibers (fibrous cellulose coating; col. 3, lines 14-25; col. 5, lines 17-45). Baldwin further teaches that the addition of inorganic fillers or burn chemicals to the coating, similar to the addition of calcium carbonate to the base paper, would alter burn characteristics of the wrapper paper (col. 4, lines 19-22; col. 3, lines 54-68).
Baldwin does not teach (I) that at least 95% of the surface has a coating or (II) that the pulp fibers are loaded with calcium carbonate particles.
Regarding (I), Baldwin teaches that application of the coating mat be varied to produce different wrapper paper burn rates (col. 4, lines 26-30).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the surface area covered by the coating, because Baldwin teaches that surface coating is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to optimize burn characteristics of the wrapper paper, and because it has been held that, where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding (II), Kasbo, directed to a wrapper paper for smoking articles (Abstract), teaches a coating to optimize burn characteristics of the wrapper paper, comprising calcium carbonate particles (col. 2, lines 14-24) wherein their proportion, in the case in which the calcium carbonate particles are exclusively located in the coating, is at least 1% and at most 30%, each with respect to the mass of the wrapper paper (col. 2, lines 41-44 teaches at least 3% and at most 10%, which anticipates 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 Baldwin by adding calcium carbonate to the coating as taught by Kasbo to alter the combustion speed because both Baldwin and Kasbo are directed to wrapper papers, Kasbo teaches that calcium carbonate is a known component for modifying burn characteristics of wrapper papers, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Baldwin teaches that the coating further comprises a binder (col. 5, lines 22-24; col. 6, lines 63-68) that is suitable for binding the free calcium carbonate particles or the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles to the wrapper paper.
Regarding claim 16, Baldwin teaches that the coating comprises further components, including substances for adjusting the viscosity (col. 7, lines 14-20 teaches addition of binders to improve coating rheological properties (such as viscosity)).
Regarding claim 17, Baldwin teaches that the coating is located on a side of the wrapper paper (col. 3, lines 53-57).
The examiner notes that, as the claims are directed to a wrapper paper, the limitation directed to a smoking article (“the coating is located on that side of the wrapper paper that faces the outside of the smoking article to be manufactured therein”), which is not part of the wrapper paper, is merely intended use of the wrapper paper. The limitation does not impart additional structure on the device and thus does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Baldwin teaches that the mass per unit area of the coating is at least 0.5 g/m2 and at most 10 g/m2 (col. 7, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 20, Baldwin teaches that the wrapper paper additionally contains pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles in the bulk (col. 4, line 41-45), wherein the mass of the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles in the wrapper paper without the coating is at least 1% and at most 60% of the mass of the wrapper paper (col. 4, lines 64-66 teaches calcium carbonate concentration of about 25 to about 37 percent, which anticipates the claimed range) and the calcium carbonate particles in the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles make up at least 10% and at most 60% of the mass of the pulp fibers loaded with calcium carbonate particles (col. 4, lines 44-45 teaches loading between about 20 percent to about 40 percent by weight, which anticipates the claimed range).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Doelle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 20200022404 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Baldwin does not teach a tensile strength of the wrapper paper.
Yoshimura, directed to a wrapping paper for smoking articles comprising pulp fibers ([0024]), teaches that tensile strength for wrapper papers is preferably 12.5 N/15 mm or greater so that the paper can endure machinery during smoking article manufacturing ([0035]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Baldwin by making the wrapper paper with a tensile strength of 12.5 N/15 mm or greater as taught by Yoshimura because both Baldwin and Yoshimura are directed to wrapper papers comprising pulp fibers, Baldwin is silent to the wrapper paper tensile strength and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable tensile strength, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The claimed range of at least 10 N/15 mm overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Baldwin does not teach a tensile strength of the wrapper paper.
Yoshimura, directed to a wrapping paper for smoking articles comprising pulp fibers ([0024]), teaches that tensile strength for wrapper papers is preferably 12.5 N/15 mm or greater so that the paper can endure machinery during smoking article manufacturing ([0035]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Baldwin by making the wrapper paper with a tensile strength of 12.5 N/15 mm or greater as taught by Yoshimura because both Baldwin and Yoshimura are directed to wrapper papers comprising pulp fibers, Baldwin is silent to the wrapper paper tensile strength and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable tensile strength, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The claimed range of at most 100 N/15 mm overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Doelle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayden et al. (US 5109876 A).
Regarding claim 28, Baldwin does not teach a brightness of the wrapper paper.
Hayden, directed to a wrapper paper for smoking articles comprising pulp fiber and calcium carbonate (col. 7, lines 42-47), teaches a brightness of about 90.3% (col. 7, lines 59-60).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Baldwin by making the wrapper paper with a brightness of at least 90% as taught by Hayden because both Baldwin and Hayden are directed to wrapper papers comprising pulp fibers and calcium carbonate, Baldwin is silent to the wrapper paper brightness and one with ordinary skill that desired a brighter wrapping paper would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable brightness for a similar wrapping paper, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin and Doelle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snow et al. (US 5830318 A).
Regarding claim 29, Baldwin does not teach an opacity of the wrapper paper.
Snow, directed to a wrapper paper (tipping paper) for smoking articles comprising pulp fibers (col. 5, lines 19-25) and calcium carbonate particles (col. 5, lines 26-27), teaches an opacity of higher than 80% to prevent printing or marks from being visible through the paper (page 5, lines 25-30).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Baldwin by making the wrapper paper with a opacity of at least 80% as taught by Snow because both Baldwin and Snow are directed to wrapper papers comprising pulp fibers and calcium carbonate, Baldwin is silent to the wrapper paper opacity and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable opacity, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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