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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 (“Amendment”) has been entered, which includes amendments to claims 1-7, 9, 12-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 24-25, cancellation of claim 19, new claim 27, and supporting remarks. Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 and for double patenting are withdrawn. New claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 103 and 112 are set forth below. Claims 1-7, 9, 12-15, 17-18, 20-22, 24-25, and 27 are pending, claims 12, 18, and 22 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 and new claim 27 (Amendment p. 8-13) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 24, and 27 recite a “second liquid holder”, which is objected to (1) because the term is inconsistent with the “second holder” recited elsewhere throughout the claims, and (2) for the reasons stated in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/09/2025. For purposes of this office action, each instance of “second liquid holder” in the claims is interpreted as reciting “second
Claim 20 recites “an elastic body” which is now introduced in claim 1, so claim 20 should refer back to “[[an]]the elastic body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 24 newly recite a “liquid guide core”, whereas claims 14-15 and 17 continue to recite a “liquid guide core body”. The claims on their face appear to recite two different terms. However, the specification refers to a “liquid guide core body” throughout and never to a “liquid guide core”, and only the liquid guide core body 401 is illustrated in the drawings. Thus, the claims are unclear. It appears to the Examiner that the “liquid guide core” newly recited in claims 1 and 24 is the same “liquid guide core body” recited in claims 14-15 and 17. For purposes of this office action, each instance of “liquid guide core” in claims 1 and 24 is interpreted as reciting “liquid guide core body”, and claim 14 is interpreted as referring back to “[[a]]the liquid guide core body” of claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 20-21, 25, and 27 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 20, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 111150101 A, US 2022/0183358 A1 relied upon herein, previously cited) in view of Liu (CN 207476948 U, previously cited, English translation provided with Restriction Requirement mailed 04/01/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Yang is directed to an atomizer having an air pressure surge bin (Title), the atomizer reading on an “aerosol generation device” as claimed. The atomizer includes:
a housing 10 (“shell”) which extends axially and includes an e-liquid bin 50 (“substrate cavity”) therein ([0044, 0048], Fig. 1, reproduced below);
an atomization seat 20 (“first holder”) in communication with the e-liquid bin 50 (“connected to the open end of the shell”) ([0050], Figs. 1-3). As shown in Fig. 2, annotated below, the atomization seat 20 has a wider body portion (“body”) and a narrower support portion (“support portion”) with an e-liquid guiding port 203, the support portion extending upward into the e-liquid bin 50 [0050];
a heating component 70 (“vaporization element”) and e-liquid guiding member 60 (“liquid guide core body”) within an atomizing chamber 201 of the atomization seat 20, for atomizing the e-liquid [0050];
an air inlet 401 (“air inlet”) for introducing ambient air [0047]; and
the air pressure surge bin 202 (“airflow buffer cavity”) within the atomization seat 20, between the air inlet 401 and the atomization chamber 201 (thus the bin 202 is “located upstream of the vaporization cavity” as claimed) ([0045, 0051], Figs. 1-6) (annotated Fig. 2 below shows 202 rather than 201, because 201 is clearly a typo in view of [0052] which describes a first and second depressurization chamber 204, 205 arranged on two sides of the air pressure surge bin 202);
Yang discloses a smoke channel 30 with an outlet end 302 (“aerosol outlet”), the channel 30 defining the atomization chamber 201 (“vaporization cavity”) with the atomization seat 20 as shown in Fig. 6 [0046]. However, the smoke channel 30 is not disclosed as being “elastic” nor having an “elastic body”, having a “seal portion”, nor having a “joint surface matching an outer surface of the” e-liquid guiding member 60, and thus Yang fails to disclose the claimed “second holder…wherein the second liquid holder is made of an elastic material and the second liquid holder comprises an elastic body and a seal portion, and the seal portion has a joint surface matching an outer surface of the liquid guide core body”.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu is directed to an anti-leakage oil atomizer (Title). The atomizer includes a sealing plug 3 (“second holder”) ([0028], Figs. 1-3). As shown in Fig. 1, the sealing plug 3 has a space (“aerosol outlet”) in communication with an air outlet channel 15 which receives heated vapor [0028, 0031]. The sealing plug 3 fits with an isolation ring 4 with a heating component between them ([0028], Figs 1-3), which reads on “wherein the second holder fits with the support portion of the first holder to define a vaporization cavity”. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the sealing plug 3 to be “made of an elastic material” and comprise an “elastic body” as claimed, in order to slightly deform and thus provide tight sealing. Alternatively, in combination with Yang, it would be obvious to modify the sealing plug 3 to be elastic (for instance, by forming the plug 3 from silicone which is a well-known elastic sealing material in the art of electronic vaporization devices) in order to allow such deformation and thus provide adequate sealing when fitting with Yang’s atomization seat 20. The bottom of the sealing plug 3 has a pit 32 (“seal portion”) matching a groove 41 of the isolation ring 4 to fit them together ([0028], Figs. 1-3). The sealing plug 3 and isolation ring 4 define an enclosed space with an insulating rod 5 and heating wire 6 enclosed therein ([0028], Figs. 1-3). Fig. 2 shows a surface (“joint surface”) of the pit 32 contacting the insulating rod 5 (see annotated Fig. 2 with arrows pointing to surface of pit 32). The sealing plug 3 advantageously prevents oil leakage while having a simple structure [0007-8].
PNG
media_image3.png
660
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
626
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
658
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Yang by providing Liu’s elastic sealing plug 3 between Yang’s smoke channel 30 and atomization seat 20, the sealing plug 3 being fit with the atomization seat 20 and e-liquid guiding member 60 and defining the atomization chamber 201 between the seat 20 and plug 3, and the sealing plug 3 having a space in communication with the outlet end 302 to allow vapor therethrough, because Yang and Liu are both directed to atomizers, because Liu teaches that the sealing plug 3 prevents oil leakage while having a simple structure, because changing the shape of the sealing plug 3 to fit with Yang’s atomization seat 20 and/or e-liquid guiding member 60 and changing the shape to provide the space in communication with the outlet end 302 would be mere changes in shape which are obvious in order to provide adequate sealing and provide a vapor path (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), and because 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, Yang’s atomization seat 20 extends in a width direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the atomizer, as shown in Figs. 1-2. As shown in Fig. 2, the air pressure surge bin 202 extends across the width of the atomization seat 20, whereas the atomization chamber 201 extends across a smaller width portion (see also [0052]; see also Applicant’s Fig. 6 showing the extension width of the airflow buffer cavity L2 and the extension width of the vaporization cavity L1).
Regarding claim 3, an air outlet 402 (“airflow hole”) communicates the air pressure surge bin 202 and the atomization chamber 201 ([0051], Fig. 5). The air inlet 401 includes first and second air inlets 4011, 4012 which are staggered with the air outlet 402 ([0052], Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in Fig. 4, annotated below, the atomization seat 20 has a depth less than its width (see also Applicant’s Fig. 7C showing the first liquid holder with the maximum dimension in the second width direction L3 and the maximum dimension in the first width direction L4).
PNG
media_image6.png
381
429
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses the atomization seat 20 with depth less than width (Fig. 4), as set forth above in the discussion of claim 4. However, Yang is silent as to the precise ratio of depth and width, and therefore fails to disclose the ratio of “0.2 to 0.4” as claimed. But Fig. 4 suggests that the width is approximately 3-4 times the depth (which falls within the claimed range), and a difference between the claimed ratio and the dimensions of Yang’s atomization seat 20 would be a mere change in size or proportion which would not patentably distinguish the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A); see also in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, as shown in Fig. 2, the air pressure surge bin 202 runs through the body of the atomization seat 20 along its width (see also [0051-52]).
Regarding claim 7, the air pressure surge bin 202 includes a first and second depressurization chamber 204, 205 (“first buffer cavity” and “third buffer cavity”) on each side of the central cavity 202 (“second buffer cavity”), formed by two dividing walls with openings 208 to allow cooling airflow ([0052], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, first and second sealing rubber rings 801, 802 (“first seal member” and “second seal member”) are provided between the atomization seat 20 and the housing 10, and the air pressure surge bin 202 is located between the rings 801, 802 ([0053], Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, the atomization seat 20 includes a sealing ring groove 2091, which as shown in Fig. 2 is located immediately below and on the exterior of a platform (“substantially cylindrical extension portion”; compare Applicant’s Figs. 6 and 7B showing extension portion 207 and accommodating groove 501 with annotated Fig. 2 above showing platform) ([0053], Figs. 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, the heating component 70 includes a heating wire (“heating wire”) wound around the e-liquid guiding member 60 ([0056], Figs. 6 and 9). In modified Yang as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, the sealing plug 3 fits with the atomization seat 20 to enclose the e-liquid guiding member 60 within the atomization chamber 201 (see also Yang [0050, 0055], Figs. 2-3 and 9).
Regarding claim 15, the atomization seat 20 includes an e-liquid guiding port 203 (“trench”) which accommodates the e-liquid guiding member 60, and the member 60 extends therethrough into the e-liquid bin 50 ([0050], Figs. 2-3). Yang fails to disclose the atomization seat 20 including “a first support arm and a second support arm opposite to each other” as claimed. But this difference is a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish the prior art, because such support arms would be formed by simply extending the port 203 upward so that the frame of the atomization seat 20 is divided into two arms (compare Yang’s Fig. 3 with Applicant’s Fig. 5 showing support arms 2031a, b and trench 2032). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 17, the atomization seat 20 has a wider body portion and a narrower support portion (“support portion”) extending upward, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1 (see annotated Fig. 2). As shown in Figs. 1-3, the body portion includes a platform (“extension portion”) extending to the side, the platform and narrow support portion being adjacent to the e-liquid bin 50 (compare Applicant’s Fig. 7A-B showing support portion 203 and extension portion 207 with annotated Fig. 2 showing support portion and platform). Yang does not explicitly discuss the claimed “liquid slowing cavity”, but the claim recites it as being defined by the extension portion and the support portion, each of which are disclosed by Yang. Yang’s atomization seat 20 similarly defines the claimed “liquid slowing cavity” because it defines a small space between the platform and support portion meeting the ends (“end portion”) of the e-liquid guiding member 60 ([0050], Figs. 1-3; see also Applicant’s specification at [0073] describing the liquid slowing cavity 208 as a relatively small space which may slow down a speed of liquid flow into the vaporization cavity 205).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Yang discloses the atomization seat 20 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to be formed of a rigid plastic or metal material typical to vaporizer devices, which reads on a “rigid body”. The atomization seat 20 with e-liquid guiding ports 203 defines a transfer path from the e-liquid bin 50 to the atomization cavity 201 ([0050], Figs. 1-3).
Modified Yang includes Liu’s elastic sealing plug 3 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which reads on the “elastic body fitting with the first holder” as claimed. Liu further discloses a gap 31 which receives tobacco oil flowing from an oil storage chamber 13 [0028]. In modified Yang, it would be obvious to align the gap 31 of the sealing plug 3 with the e-liquid guiding ports 203 of the atomization seat 20 in order to create a transfer path from the e-liquid bin 50 to the atomization cavity 201 (which reads on a “transfer path” as claimed), for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1 and in order to allow liquid in the e-liquid bin 50 to reach the atomization cavity 201.
Regarding claim 25, modified Yang discloses the atomizer as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. The atomizer further includes a power supply (“power supply device”) connected to the heating component 70 [0058].
Regarding claim 27, Yang discloses the smoke channel 30 (“vent tube”) which receives vapor flowing out from the atomization chamber 201 [0046]. In modified Yang as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, the sealing plug 3 is “disposed between” the smoke channel 30 and atomization seat 20, as claimed.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 111150101 A, US 2022/0183358 A1) in view of Liu (CN 207476948 U) and Dincer (US 2017/0325497 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, Yang discloses the housing 10 and airflow buffer cavity 202, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. However, Yang fails to disclose “wherein the shell is at least partially configured to be transparent or translucent, to view the airflow buffer cavity through an outer surface of the shell.”
Dincer is directed to an aerosol-generating article with a substantially transparent tubular segment 22, wherein aerosol passing through a cavity during use of the article is visible via the tubular segment 22 (Abstract). The segment 22 surrounds a cavity, which advantageously allows a consumer to view generated aerosol along a length of the article [0010]. Additionally, transparency is a well-known feature for allowing a user to observe the status of internal components [0004], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a transparent segment could similarly be applied to Yang to predictably allow a consumer to view internal components.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang by making the housing 10 transparent along its axial direction (including the portion surrounding the air pressure surge bin 202), because both Yang and Dincer are directed to aerosol-generating structures, Dincer teaches that this allows a user to view generated aerosol along the entire article, and this involves the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. 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 24, Yang is directed to an atomizer having an air pressure surge bin (Title), the atomizer reading on an “aerosol generation device” as claimed. The atomizer includes:
a housing 10 (“shell”) with front and rear surfaces and which includes an e-liquid bin 50 therein ([0044, 0048], Fig. 1);
an atomization seat 20 (“first holder”) in communication with the e-liquid bin 50 (“connected to the open end of the shell”) ([0050], Figs. 1-3). As shown in Fig. 2, the atomization seat 20 has a wider body portion and a narrower support portion with an e-liquid guiding port 203, the support portion extending upward into the e-liquid bin 50 [0050];
a heating component 70 (“vaporization element”) and e-liquid guiding member 60 (“liquid guide core body”) within an atomizing chamber 201 of the atomization seat 20, for atomizing the e-liquid [0050];
an air inlet 401 (“air inlet”) for introducing ambient air [0047]; and
the air pressure surge bin 202 (“airflow buffer cavity”) within and along the length of the atomization seat 20, between the air inlet 401 and the atomization chamber 201, and between the front and rear surfaces of the housing 10 ([0045, 0051], Figs. 1-6) (annotated Fig. 2 below shows 202 rather than 201, because 201 is clearly a typo in view of [0052] which describes a first and second depressurization chamber 204, 205 arranged on two sides of the air pressure surge bin 202).
Yang fails to disclose the housing 10 wherein “the front surface and the rear surface are at least partially transparent or translucent”.
Yang discloses a smoke channel 30 with an outlet end 302 (“aerosol outlet”), the channel 30 defining the atomization chamber 201 (“vaporization cavity”) with the atomization seat 20 as shown in Fig. 6 [0046]. However, the smoke channel 30 is not disclosed as being “elastic” nor having an “elastic body”, having a “seal portion”, nor having a “joint surface matching an outer surface of the” e-liquid guiding member 60, and thus Yang fails to disclose the claimed “second holder…wherein the second liquid holder is made of an elastic material and the second liquid holder comprises an elastic body and a seal portion, and the seal portion has a joint surface matching an outer surface of the liquid guide core body”.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu is directed to an anti-leakage oil atomizer (Title). The atomizer includes a sealing plug 3 (“second holder”) ([0028], Figs. 1-3). As shown in Fig. 1, the sealing plug 3 has a space (“aerosol outlet”) in communication with an air outlet channel 15 which receives heated vapor [0028, 0031]. The sealing plug 3 fits with an isolation ring 4 with a heating component between them ([0028], Figs 1-3), which reads on “wherein the second holder fits with the support portion of the first holder to define a vaporization cavity”. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the sealing plug 3 to be “made of an elastic material” and comprise an “elastic body” as claimed, in order to slightly deform and thus provide tight sealing. Alternatively, in combination with Yang, it would be obvious to modify the sealing plug 3 to be elastic (for instance, by forming the plug 3 from silicone which is a well-known elastic sealing material in the art of electronic vaporization devices) in order to allow such deformation and thus provide adequate sealing when fitting with Yang’s atomization seat 20. The bottom of the sealing plug 3 has a pit 32 (“seal portion”) matching a groove 41 of the isolation ring 4 to fit them together ([0028], Figs. 1-3). The sealing plug 3 and isolation ring 4 define an enclosed space with an insulating rod 5 and heating wire 6 enclosed therein ([0028], Figs. 1-3). Fig. 2 shows a surface (“joint surface”) of the pit 32 contacting the insulating rod 5 (see annotated Fig. 2 with arrows pointing to surface of pit 32). The sealing plug 3 advantageously prevents oil leakage while having a simple structure [0007-8].
PNG
media_image3.png
660
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
626
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
658
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dincer is directed to an aerosol-generating article with a substantially transparent tubular segment 22, wherein aerosol passing through a cavity during use of the article is visible via the tubular segment 22 (Abstract). The segment 22 surrounds a cavity, which advantageously allows a consumer to view generated aerosol along a length of the article [0010]. Additionally, transparency is a well-known feature for allowing a user to observe the status of internal components [0004], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a transparent segment could similarly be applied to Yang to predictably allow a consumer to view internal components.
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 Yang by providing Liu’s elastic sealing plug 3 between Yang’s smoke channel 30 and atomization seat 20, the sealing plug 3 being fit with the atomization seat 20 and e-liquid guiding member 60 and defining the atomization chamber 201 between the seat 20 and plug 3, and the sealing plug 3 having a space in communication with the outlet end 302 to allow vapor therethrough, because Yang and Liu are both directed to atomizers, because Liu teaches that the sealing plug 3 prevents oil leakage while having a simple structure, because changing the shape of the sealing plug 3 to fit with Yang’s atomization seat 20 and/or e-liquid guiding member 60 and changing the shape to provide the space in communication with the outlet end 302 would be mere changes in shape which are obvious in order to provide adequate sealing and provide a vapor path (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), and because 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).
It would further be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang by making the front and rear of the housing 10 transparent along its axial direction (including the portion surrounding the air pressure surge bin 202), because both Yang and Dincer are directed to aerosol-generating structures, Dincer teaches that this allows a user to view generated aerosol along the entire article, and this involves the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. 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
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