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
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 13, along with supporting remarks filed 03/11/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered. The claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn. New rejections under 35 USC 103 are necessitated by the amendment and set forth below. Claims 1-11 and 13 remain pending and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 (Amendment p. 9-15) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Applicant’s argument that Qiu fails to teach the amended claim language (Amendment p. 9-12) is moot because Yamada is cited for such claim language. Applicant’s arguments regarding Spencer (Amendment p. 12-14) are moot because Spencer is no longer cited for the argued claim limitations, nor for the amended claim language, with Yamada being cited in both instances.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-11 are directed to an “aerosol generation device”, but the claims also introduce an “aerosol-generating article” and components thereof. The article and components thereof are not positively recited components of the claimed device (see previous rejections under 35 USC 112 in Office Actions mailed 03/12/2025 and 07/08/2025 based on a lack of clarity regarding whether the article was a required claim element; the amended claims dated 09/08/2025 are clear that the article is not a required element of the claimed device). Therefore, for purposes of this office action, in claims 1-11, the recited “aerosol-generating article” and limitations thereto (such as the form of the flavoring agent recited in claims 4-6, the additive being a moisturizer in claim 7, the additive accommodation part including first and second parts in claim 8, and the additive being a flavoring agent added to wrappers in claims 10-11) are considered to have patentable weight only to the extent that they dictate the structure of the claimed aerosol generation device. See MPEP 2115; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Nevertheless, these claim recitations directed to the article and components thereof are discussed in the prior art rejections below in the interest of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (US 2019/0208820 A1, previously cited) in view of Qiu (US 2019/0357598 A1, previously cited), Spencer (US 2019/0045837 A1, previously cited), and Yamada (US 2016/0206003 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Reevell is directed to an electrically operated aerosol-generating system with multiple component aerosol-generating article (Title):
The system 1 includes a mouthpiece 22 (“a housing” as claimed) with a cavity which receives the aerosol-generating article 2 ([0132, 0145], Figs. 5-6). The aerosol-generating article 2 includes a first component 4 with a first aerosol-forming substrate 6 and a second component 5 with a second aerosol-forming substrate 8 [0125, 0127] (“an aerosol forming substrate part and an additive accommodation part”). The first and second substrates 6 and 8 may have the same or different compositions and the second substrate 8 may include a tobacco-containing material with volatile tobacco flavour compounds released upon heating [0013, 0064, 0066];
The system 1 includes a main unit 3 with a proximal portion 11 with first and second heating portions 14 and 15 [0132] (“heater part”);
The first heating portion 14 (“first heater”) is surrounded by the first component 4 and first substrate 6, and the first heating portion 14 includes seven electric heaters 17 [0137]. Reevell discloses heating the substrates to different temperatures [0012, 0099] which implies that the first heating portion 14 operates “based on a pre-stored temperature profile” as claimed.
The second heating portion 15 (“second heater”) similarly is surrounded by the second component 5 and second substrate 8 and includes seven electric heaters 18 [0139].
A user pushes button 21 to cause electronic circuitry 20 to switch the first and second heating portions 14 and 15 between various heating modes and to turn the power off (which reads on “a third user input to turn the second heater on or off”) [0142-0144]. However, the heating modes merely involve sequential or simultaneous heating [0142-0144]. Reevell fails to disclose the second heating portion 15 being configured “to operate in an automatic mode or a manual mode in response to a user input, wherein, when operating in the automatic mode, the second heater is configured to be turned on or off, and to have a heating strength adjusted, based on a puff pattern of a user, wherein the heating strength increases in response to one of: a puff intensity of the user increasing, an interval between puffs decreasing, or a puff length increasing, and the heating strength decreases in response to one of: the puff intensity of the user decreasing, the interval between puffs increasing, or the puff length decreasing, wherein, when operating in the manual mode, the second heater is configured to control a heating strength of the second heater based on a plurality of user inputs, wherein the plurality of user inputs comprise: a first user input to set the second heater at a first heating strength, regardless of the pre-stored temperature profile, wherein the second heater is not turned off when operating at the first heating strength; a second user input to set the second heater at a second heating strength greater than the first heating strength, regardless of the pre-stored temperature profile” and “wherein the first heater is configured to heat the aerosol forming substrate part at a third heating strength associated with the pre-stored temperature profile, regardless of the plurality of user inputs”.
The Examiner acknowledges a discrepancy in Reevell: Reevell describes the first heating portion 14 within the first component 4 [0137-0140], but in Fig. 6 Reevell shows the heaters 18 of the second heating portion 15 within the first component 4. Notably, the first and second substrates 6 and 8 may have the same or different compositions as set forth above, and thus the discrepancy is considered to be immaterial. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets Reevell as disclosing the first heating portion 14 with heaters 17 surrounded by the first component 4 and first substrate 6 (i.e., the claimed “first heater” and “aerosol-forming substrate part”) and the second heating portion 15 with heaters 18 surrounded by the second component 5 and second substrate 8 (i.e., the claimed “second heater” and “additive accommodation part”).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Qiu is directed to an electronic cigarette control method (Title). The control method advantageously provides greater intelligence and diversity of operation to the electronic cigarette (Abstract). The electronic cigarette 2 includes a user input interface 204 and a second controller 205 which allow a user to select a manual or automatic operating mode [0045] (which reads on “a second heater configured…to operate in an automatic mode or a manual mode in response to a user input”). In the automatic mode, the electronic cigarette 2 operates according to a first smoking parameter D1 calculated by the controller 205, the parameter D1 including a working temperature/voltage/power of a heat generator 209 and a number of user inhalations [0039, 0045] (which reads on “in the automatic mode, the second heater is configured to…have a heating strength adjusted, based on a puff pattern of a user”). In the manual mode, the electronic cigarette 2 operates according to a second smoking parameter D2 which is input by a user into the interface 204, the parameter D2 including a working temperature/voltage/power of the heat generator 209 [0045-46] (which reads on “operating in the manual mode, the second heater is configured to control a heating strength of the second heater based on a plurality of user inputs, wherein the plurality of user inputs comprise: a first user input to set the second heater at a first heating strength…wherein the second heater is not turned off when operating at the first heating strength; a second user input to set the second heater at a second heating strength greater than the first heating strength”). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Qiu’s automatic and manual modes to Reevell in order to advantageously provide greater intelligence and diversity of operation as taught by Qiu.
Spencer discloses a flavor delivery device for adding flavor to an aerosol stream generated by a smoking article (Abstract). Spencer’s device advantageously provides a user with more control over the amount of flavor delivered in a puff of aerosol [0004-6]. Spencer discloses supplying power to a flavor delivery device 25 and to an aerosol source heater, independently from one another, so that the user may control the flavor delivery [0069-70]. In view of Spencer’s disclosure for controlling flavor delivery, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Qiu’s automatic and manual modes specifically to Reevell’s second heating portion 15 which heats the flavored second substrate 8 (which reads on “wherein the second heater is configured to control a heating strength of the second heater…regardless of the pre-stored temperature profile” and “wherein the first heater is configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate part…regardless of the plurality of user inputs”).
Yamada is directed to a non-burning type flavor inhaler (Title). The inhaler has a control unit supplying different amounts of power according to standard or reduced modes (Abstract, [0028]). A user first takes one puff action for a time, and the control unit applies either a standard mode if the puff time is equal to a required time, or a reduced mode with lower power if the puff time is shorter [0028], which reads on “wherein the heating strength increases in response to one of…a puff length increasing, and the heating strength decreases in response to one of…the puff length decreasing”. The control circuit 50 may automatically turn off the inhaler 100 when no inhalation is performed for a predetermined period [0152], which reads on “in the automatic mode, the second heater is configured to be turned on or off…based on a puff pattern of a user”.
One of ordinary skill would recognize that Yamada’s disclosure could predictably be applied to Qiu’s automatic mode because they both operate without user inputs aside from puff characteristics. For instance, Qiu’s parameter D1 could be at least partially determined based on Yamada’s determination of whether to apply the standard or reduced mode.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by (1) configure Reevell’s button 21 and circuitry 20 to allow for selection of automatic and manual modes with regard to the second heater 15 as taught by Qiu and motivated by Spencer, and (2) further configuring Reevell’s circuitry 20 to apply Yamada’s standard and reduced modes to the second heater 15 and to allow for automatic termination after a period of inactivity as taught by Yamada. Such modifications are obvious because Reevell, Spencer, Qiu, and Yamada are all directed to aerosol-generating devices, Qiu teaches that this advantageously provides greater intelligence and diversity of operation, Spencer teaches advantageously providing more user control over flavor delivery, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Yamada further provides greater intelligence and diversity of operation in the same manner as Qiu, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Reevell discloses the push button 21 (“button”) as set forth above, which is provided on the distal portion 12 of the main unit 3 [0144].
Regarding claim 3, Reevell discloses that the volatile substrates (for instance, the second aerosol-forming substrate 8) may include volatile tobacco flavour compounds (which reads on “wherein the second heater is configured to heat a flavoring agent additive” as claimed) [0064, 0066].
Regarding claim 4, Reevell discloses that the volatile substrates (for instance, the second aerosol-forming substrate 8) may comprise powder, granules, pellets, shreds, strands, strips, or sheets (which reads on “wherein the second heater is configured to heat the flavoring agent additive in a form of a flavoring sheet” as claimed), or may be deposited on a carrier which is formed as such [0065, 0067].
Regarding claim 5, Reevell discloses that the volatile substrates (for instance, the second aerosol-forming substrate 8) may comprise shreds, strands, strips, or sheets [0065, 0067] (which reads on “the second heater is configured to heat the flavoring sheet added in a cut form”). Shreds, strands, and strips as disclosed by Reevell represent a cut form of a sheet.
Regarding claim 6, Reevell discloses that the volatile substrates (for instance, the second aerosol-forming substrate 8) may comprise a gathered textured sheet of homogenised tobacco material, “gathered” meaning a sheet that is convoluted, folded, or otherwise compressed or constricted substantially transversely to a longitudinal axis of the aerosol-generating article [0068] (which reads on “the second heater is configured to heat the flavoring sheet added in a rolled or folded form”).
Regarding claim 7, Reevell discloses that the volatile substrates (for instance, the second aerosol-forming substrate 8) may comprise an aerosol-former, such as glycerine [0063, 0071] (which reads on “wherein the second heater is configured to heat a moisturizer additive”). Applicant’s specification discloses that the moisturizer may include glycerin [0071].
Regarding claim 8, Reevell discloses the second component 5 with the second aerosol-forming substrate 8 [0127] surrounding the second heating portion 15 as set forth above [0139]. Reevell fails to explicitly disclose “the additive accommodation part includes a first accommodation part and a second accommodation part; and the second heater includes a third heater configured to heat the first accommodation part and a fourth heater configured to heat the second accommodation part” as claimed. However, this limitation which provides two accommodation parts and two second heaters is considered to be a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Additionally, the claim element is obvious in view of Spencer.
Spencer discloses a flavor delivery device for adding flavor to an aerosol stream generated by a smoking article (Abstract). The flavorant delivery device 25 may have two flavorant provider portions 66a, 66b and two heating elements 64a, 64b ([0061] and Fig. 7) (which reads on “the additive accommodation part includes a first accommodation part and a second accommodation part; and the second heater includes a third heater configured to heat the first accommodation part and a fourth heater configured to heat the second accommodation part”). Spencer discloses that having multiple flavorant portions and heating elements allows a consumer to release flavor from a selected portion on demand [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reevell’s second component 5, second substrate 8, and second heating portion 15 to include two portions each thereof, because both Reevell and Spencer are directed to aerosol devices with flavorants, Spencer teaches this would allow a consumer to release flavor from a selected portion on demand, this would involve a mere duplication of Reevell’s parts, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, modified Reevell discloses the push button 21 and electric circuitry 20 for allowing selection of heater strength in the manual mode, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1 (the electric circuitry 20 reading on “a controller configured to adjust the heating strength of the second heater based on the plurality of user inputs”).
Claim 13 recites an “aerosol generating device” with the same limitations as the “aerosol generation device” of claim 1, and these limitations are rendered obvious over Reevell, Spencer, Qiu, and Yamada for the same reasons as discussed above. Claim 13 further recites an “aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol forming substrate part and an additive accommodation part” which is rendered obvious by Reevell’s disclosure of an aerosol-generating article. Reevell’s aerosol-generating article 2 includes a first component 4 with a first aerosol-forming substrate 6 and a second component 5 with a second aerosol-forming substrate 8 [0125, 0127]. The first and second substrates 6 and 8 may have the same or different compositions and may include a tobacco-containing material with volatile tobacco flavour compounds released upon heating [0013, 0064] (which reads on an “additive accommodation part” as claimed).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (US 2019/0208820 A1) in view of Qiu (US 2019/0357598 A1), Spencer (US 2019/0045837 A1, previously cited), and Yamada (US 2016/0206003 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Moloney (WO 2020/025731 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Reevell discloses the second component 5 with the second aerosol-forming substrate 8 [0127] surrounding the second heating portion 15 [0139], as set forth above. The volatile substrates (for instance, the second aerosol-forming substrate 8) may include volatile tobacco flavour compounds [0064, 0066] (which reads on “an additive is a flavoring agent”). The volatile substrates may comprise a gathered textured sheet, “gathered” meaning a sheet that is convoluted, folded, or otherwise compressed or constricted substantially transversely to a longitudinal axis of the aerosol-generating article [0068]. Reevell also discloses that the components 4 and 5 may include one or more wrappers wrapped around the volatile substrates [0072]. However, modified Reevell fails to explicitly disclose (1) “the second heater is of an external heating type” and (2) “the flavoring agent is also added to a wrapper of the additive accommodation part” as claimed.
Moloney is directed to an aerosol generating article and assembly (p. 16 l. 1). Regarding (1), the assembly includes a heater arrangement 23 in the form of a hollow cylindrical tube, with a hollow interior heating chamber 29 into which an article 101 is inserted for heating (p. 26 l. 11-15 and Fig. 8) (which reads on “the second heater is of an external heating type”). Moloney discloses that numerous heater arrangements 23 are possible, such as one or more heating elements which are annular, tubular, or part-annular or part-tubular, and further discloses that each heating element may be arranged so that selected zones of the substrate can be independently heated (p. 26 l. 16-p. 27 l. 10).
Regarding (2), Moloney discloses an amorphous solid including menthol flavourant as a sheet circumscribing a rod of aerosolisable material (p. 31 l. 31; p. 32 l. 14) (which reads on “the flavoring agent is also added to a wrapper of the additive accommodation part”). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Moloney’s amorphous solid could be combined with Reevell’s second substrate 8 according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As set forth above, Reevell’s second substrate 8 has a flavourant and a wrapper, and the amorphous solid of Moloney has a sheet of menthol flavourant circumscribing a rod of aerosolisable material. A skilled artisan would be capable of circumscribing Moloney’s sheet around Reevell’s rod-like substrate 8, and both the sheet and rod would perform their same functions of generating heated aerosol when combined. One of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that this result is predictable.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify (1) the second heating portion 15 of Reevell to include the heating arrangement 23 of Moloney surrounding the second component 5, because both Reevell and Moloney are directed to aerosol generating articles and devices, Moloney teaches independently heating selected zones of its aerosol-forming substrate, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It would have further been obvious to modify (2) Reevell’s second component 5 to include the amorphous solid of Moloney in the form of a sheet circumscribing the second substrate 8, because this would predictably produce a rod-like substrate 8 circumscribed by an amorphous solid including menthol flavourant which will generate aerosol and flavor when heated, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Reevell discloses the second component 5 with the second aerosol-forming substrate 8 [0127] surrounding the second heating portion 15 [0139], as set forth above. The volatile substrates (for instance, the second aerosol-forming substrate 8) may include volatile tobacco flavour compounds as set forth above [0064, 0066] (which reads on “an additive is a flavoring agent”). Applicant’s specification discloses that the aerosol-forming substrate part 151 is considered to be a segment adjacent to the additive accommodation part [0085], and thus Reevell’s first component 4 is similarly considered to be a “segment adjacent to the additive accommodation part” as claimed. The first and second substrates 6 and 8 may have the same or different compositions [0013]. The first and second components 4 and 5 may include one or more wrappers wrapped around the volatile substrates [0072]. However, Reevell fails to explicitly disclose (1) “the second heater is of an external heating type” and (2) “the flavoring agent is also added to a wrapper of a segment adjacent to the additive accommodation part” as claimed.
Moloney is directed to an aerosol generating article and assembly (p. 16 l. 1). Regarding (1), the assembly includes a heater arrangement 23 in the form of a hollow cylindrical tube, with a hollow interior heating chamber 29 into which an article 101 is inserted for heating (p. 26 l. 11-15 and Fig. 8) (which reads on “the second heater is of an external heating type”). Moloney discloses that numerous heater arrangements 23 are possible, such as one or more heating elements which are annular, tubular, or part-annular or part-tubular, and further discloses that each heating element may be arranged so that selected zones of the substrate can be independently heated (p. 26 l. 16-p. 27 l. 10).
Regarding (2), Moloney discloses an amorphous solid including menthol flavourant as a sheet circumscribing a rod of aerosolisable material (p. 31 l. 31; p. 32 l. 14) (which reads on “the flavoring agent is also added to a wrapper of the additive accommodation part”). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Moloney’s amorphous solid could be combined with Reevell’s first substrate 6 according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As set forth above, Reevell’s first substrate 6 has a flavourant and a wrapper, and the amorphous solid of Moloney has a sheet of menthol flavourant circumscribing a rod of aerosolisable material. A skilled artisan would be capable of circumscribing Moloney’s sheet around Reevell’s rod-like substrate 6, and both the sheet and rod would perform their same functions of generating heated aerosol when combined. One of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that this result is predictable.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify (1) the second heating portion 15 of Reevell to include the heating arrangement 23 of Moloney surrounding the second component 5, because both Reevell and Moloney are directed to aerosol generating articles and devices, Moloney teaches independently heating selected zones of its aerosol-forming substrate, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It would have further been obvious to modify (2) Reevell’s first component 4 to include the amorphous solid of Moloney in the form of a sheet circumscribing the first substrate 6, because this would predictably produce a rod-like substrate 6 circumscribed by an amorphous solid including menthol flavourant which will generate aerosol and flavor when heated, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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 MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights