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, 10, and 13 and supporting remarks filed on 07/20/2026 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the objections to the specification and claims are withdrawn, and the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained (albeit modified in view of the amended claim language). Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-13 are pending and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 (Amendment p. 7-10) have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Aramendy cannot be reasonably combined because Aramendy’s charging port 115 acts as an air inlet rather than an “air discharging channel” as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the fact that Aramendy uses the charging port 115 as an air inlet would not discourage one of ordinary skill from using the charging port 115 as both an inlet and outlet, because Liu provides motivation to use Nakano’s path 720 as a discharge channel, and the same motivation would apply when incorporating Aramendy’s port 115 into Nakano’s path 720. The person of ordinary skill in the art possesses ordinary knowledge and creativity, and would recognize that an air inlet is merely a passageway for air to travel through, and air can travel in either direction, particularly in view of Liu. Furthermore, Aramendy may rely on a motorized fan 116, but Nakano does not, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Aramendy’s port 115 could be incorporated with Nakano’s path 720 without such a fan 116.
Additionally, as noted in the rejection below with regard to Nakano, the claim language “in order to prevent pressurization of the accommodating cavity” is merely intended use, and Nakano’s path 720 with Aramendy’s port 115 reads on the claimed “air discharging channel” because the path 720 and port 115 “communicate the accommodating cavity with an outside” and are capable of discharging air, regardless of whether the references explicitly teach discharging air. Nakano’s path 720 (and by extension Aramendy’s port 115) would in fact discharge air upon insertion of a device into Nakano’s port 122 due to the structural geometry, regardless of whether the path 720 and port 115 are explicitly taught as air inlets. Thus, even if Aramendy’s port 115 were combined solely for use as an air inlet, the resulting structure would still read on the claim language.
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 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2019/0387806 A1, of record, previously cited) in view of Liu (US 2017/0229888 A1, of record, previously cited) and Aramendy (US 2023/0276854 A1, of record, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano is directed to a smoking system (an “aerosol-generation system” as claimed) with a primary device and a secondary device (Title).
The secondary device (“vaporization device”) includes a load (“vaporizer”) for atomizing an aerosol source (Abstract). Nakano fails to disclose the claimed “airflow sensor” and “airflow detection port”.
The primary device 120 (“charging box”) has a main body part 120A (“housing”) ([0051, Fig. 1). Nakano fails to disclose the “charging interface” as claimed. Nakano discloses a primary power source 126 for supplying electric power to the secondary device 140 ([0053], Fig. 1).
The primary device 120 has a connection port 122 defined by surrounding walls for holding the secondary device 140 ([0051, Fig. 1) (the surrounding walls read on the “holder”, a top end of the port 122 reads on “at least one opening is defined at an end surface of the holder”, and the port 122 itself reads on “an accommodating cavity in communication with each of the at least one opening extends away from each opening inside the holder”).
The primary device 120 may include an air taking-in flow path 720 (“air discharge channel”) ([0096], Fig. 7B, reproduced below). The flow path 720 is in communication with the port 122 ([0096], Fig. 7B), and thus the flow path 720 includes a “pore or notch formed at the holder” which is “adjacent a bottom” of the port 122, “opposite to” the top end of the port 122, and “penetrates a solid portion of the holder” (i.e., the surrounding walls of the port 122), as shown in Fig. 7B. Although Nakano describes this path 720 for taking in air rather than “discharging” it as claimed, Nakano’s path 720 is “configured to communicate the accommodating cavity with an outside” and therefore reads on the “air discharging channel”. The claim language “in order to prevent pressurization of the accommodating cavity” is considered mere language of intended use which does not limit the claimed structure. See MPEP 2111.02(II); see also Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also MPEP 2114(II); see also ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the path 720 as arranged in Fig. 7B would discharge air when the secondary device 140 is inserted into the connection port 122 (compare path 720 in Fig. 7B with Applicant’s port 108 of the air discharge channel in Fig. 3). Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to intentionally use Nakano’s path 720 as an air discharging channel in view of Liu, as set forth immediately below. Nakano fails to disclose the flow path 720 being “in communication with the outside of the housing via the charging interface”.
In sum, Nakano fails to explicitly disclose the claimed “airflow sensor”, “airflow detection port”, “charging interface”, and “the pore or the notch…is in communication with the outside of the housing via the charging interface”.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu is directed to an electronic cigarette charger (Title). The electronic cigarette has an airflow sensor which generates an action upon sufficient airflow (which reads on an “airflow sensor” and implicitly discloses an “airflow detection port” so that the airflow sensor can receive air) [0044]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an airflow sensor is useful to allow a user to breath-activate the device, which is well known in the art.
Liu’s charger includes a vent groove 41, which advantageously prevents excessive airflow and false triggering during connection of the electronic cigarette to the charger [0044]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Nakano’s air taking-in flow path 720 could be used like Liu’s vent groove 41 to predictably vent the connection port 122 during insertion of the secondary device 140, in order to similarly prevent excessive airflow and false triggering (“in order to prevent pressurization of the accommodating cavity when the at least a part of the vaporization device is accommodated in the accommodating cavity from the opening”).
PNG
media_image2.png
672
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
656
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Aramendy is directed to an aerosol generating device with odour inhibition assembly (Title). The device 100 may include a charging port 115 (“charging interface”) for connecting the device 100 to an external power supply ([0148], Fig. 5). The charging port 115 may also act as an air inlet ([0155], Fig. 5), which advantageously reduces the number of openings needed in the housing of the aerosol generating device, which reduces manufacturing complexity and improves the appearance of the device [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Aramendy’s charging port 115 could similarly be used in Nakano as a charging port (for instance to provide an additional or alternative power source to the primary power source 126) and as an air inlet and outlet in communication with Nakano’s flow path 720 (which reads on “the pore or the notch…is in communication with the outside of the housing via the charging interface”).
PNG
media_image4.png
770
672
media_image4.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 Nakano by including Liu’s airflow sensor with airflow detection port in Nakano’s secondary device 140, and by configuring Nakano’s air taking-in flow path 720 to discharge air when the secondary device 140 is inserted into the port 122, because both Nakano and Liu are directed to charging systems for electronic vaporization devices, Liu discloses the airflow sensor for activating the electronic cigarette which is well known in the art, Liu teaches the vent groove 41 for preventing false activation upon insertion of the electronic cigarette into the charger which can be similarly applied to Nakano’s path 720, 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).
Further, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano by incorporating Aramendy’s charging port 115 into Nakano’s primary device 120 as both a charging port for connection to an external power supply and as an air inlet and outlet in communication with the flow path 720, because Nakano and Aramendy are both to directed to aerosolization devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the charging port 115 provides an alternative or additional power supply for Nakano, Aramendy teaches that using the charging port 115 as an air inlet advantageously reduces the number of housing openings requires, 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, Nakano fails to explicitly disclose that the connection port 122 is “defined, by the holder, into a shape matching at least a part of an outer surface of the vaporization device”. But the port 122 is provided for holding the secondary device 140 and maintaining electrical connection between the devices 120, 140, and a lid 120B and alternative holding parts 120B are broadly disclosed for restricting movement of the secondary device 140 [0051-52]. From these disclosures, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the connection port 122 to match and thus better hold the device 140, for instance via interference fit which is well known in the art. Additionally, a mere change in shape is generally not a patentable distinction over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Liu is silent on the location of the airflow detection port and thus modified Nakano fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the airflow detection port is located on the at least a part of the vaporization device capable of being accommodated in the accommodating cavity”.
However, Nakano suggests that the entire secondary device 140 may fit within the port 122 (because a lid 120B may close over top of the device 140 and contain it within the port 122 [0051]), in which case the airflow detection port would necessarily be located on the “part” of the device (i.e., its entirety) accommodated in the port 122. Additionally, Liu discloses using the vent groove 41 to avoid inadvertent airflow and activation of the airflow sensor [0044], so one of ordinary skill in the art would expect Liu’s airflow detection port to be located in the vicinity of the connection area, and thus in modified Nakano the airflow detection port could similarly be located in the vicinity of the port 122 where the secondary device 140 is inserted (which reads on the claim language). Further, changing the location of the airflow detection port is a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, Nakano discloses connection terminals 146-1, 124-2 (“first” and “second conductive contact member”) which electrically connect the devices 120, 140 within the connection port 122 ([0052], Fig. 1). The path 720 (which includes the “pore or notch” as set forth above) is “located adjacent” to the terminal 124-2 as shown in Fig. 7B.
Regarding claim 8, Nakano discloses a lid 120B (“cover body”) on the main body 120A and pivotally connected to a hinge 120C ([0051], Figs. 1-2). The lid 120B may be opened or closed for insertion/removal or retention of the secondary device 140. Nakano fails to explicitly disclose a “cavity for accommodating a part of the vaporization device that is not accommodated in the accommodating cavity”. But forming such a cavity in the lid 120B would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, because an aerosol-generating article 160 extends out from the primary device 140 which would need to be accommodated by the closed lid 120B ([0043], Fig. 1), and because Nakano encourages such modifications by disclosing alternative forms of the lid 120B and alternative holding parts 120B [0051].
Regarding claim 9, Nakano fails to disclose a “keeping mechanism for keeping the cover body at the first position or the second position” as claimed.
Liu discloses a suspension structure which allows its charger to be easily carried by a user [0050]. The suspension structure includes a switching mechanism 9 which may be opened or closed to allow insertion of a carrying rope therethrough ([0050], Figs. 6-8). The mechanism 9 includes a torsion spring 93 (“keeping mechanism”) which elastically abuts a movable arm 92 [0051]. Torsion springs are well-known means of rotatably biasing an accompanying structure into a certain position. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Liu’s torsion spring 93 could similarly be applied to Nakano’s lid 120B and hinge 120C to bias the lid 120B into either an open or closed position, in order to hold the lid 120B open or closed for the user’s convenience.
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 Nakano to include Liu’s torsion spring 93 configured to bias the lid 120B open or closed, because Liu teaches using the torsion spring 93 to conveniently carry the charger (and thus using the spring 93 to keep the switching mechanism 9 closed), torsion springs and other biasing means are well-known in the art, and this would involve 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 10, the claim is definitively broader than claim 1 because it claims a “charging box” with the same limitations as claim 1 (and claim 10 does not claim the “at least one vaporization device” of claim 1; claim 10 recites “adjacent to a bottom” rather than “adjacent a bottom” as in claim 1 but this is an immaterial difference not affecting the claim scope). Claim 10 is therefore rendered obvious for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, modified Nakano discloses the system of claim 8 as set forth above. Nakano further discloses that the lid 120B may be constructed using the attracting force of a magnet to restrict movement of the secondary device 140 [0051]. Additionally, magnetic connections between totally/partially detachable components are well-known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect Liu’s magnetic lid 120B to use a “first magnetic element” and “second” which repel one another, and a “third magnetic element” and “fourth” which attract one another, as claimed, because such repulsions and attractions are required in order to create an adjustable magnetic connection which can be opened or closed.
Regarding claim 13, modified Nakano discloses the system of claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to disclose “wherein the air discharging channel comprises a plurality of grooves recessed at an inner wall of the holder and opened to face the accommodating cavity, and each of the plurality of grooves extends from the bottom of the accommodating cavity to the opening”.
Liu discloses the vent groove 41 as set forth above, which prevents excessive airflow and false triggering during connection of the electronic cigarette to the charger [0044]. This disclosure motivates one of ordinary skill in the art to use Nakano’s path 720 to vent the port 122 when inserting the secondary device 140, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. Additionally, the disclosure motivates one to incorporate Liu’s vent groove 41 running along a wall of Nakano’s port 122 from top to bottom (“groove[s] recessed at an inner wall of the holder and opened to face the accommodating cavity, and each of the plurality of grooves extends from the bottom of the accommodating cavity to the opening”), because Liu’s vent groove 41 is adjacent to the connected electronic cigarette in the same manner that Nakano’s port 122 is adjacent to the inserted vaporization device 140 (compare Liu [0044] and Figs. 1-2 with Nakano Fig. 1), and because providing such a vent groove 41 would provide more encompassing ventilation of the port 122. Furthermore, duplicating the vent groove 41 into a plurality (“plurality of grooves”) would be a mere duplication of parts which would be obvious in view of Liu. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B); see also in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Arranging such grooves 41 to extend vertically along the port 122 would be an obvious rearrangement of parts in view of Liu. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Nakano by including Liu’s vent groove 41 in a side wall of Nakano’s port 122, such that the path 720 and vent groove 41 discharge air from the port 122 when the secondary device 140 is inserted into the port 122. It would further be obvious to duplicate and arrange such grooves 41 vertically within the port 122. Such modifications are obvious for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, and because duplicating and arranging the vent groove 41 within the port 122 are obvious modifications of Liu’s disclosure which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as providing more encompassing ventilation of the port 122.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2019/0387806 A1, of record, previously cited) in view of Liu (US 2017/0229888 A1, of record, previously cited) and Aramendy (US 2023/0276854 A1, of record, previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 5.
Claims 6 and 11 are interpreted as requiring at least one accommodating cavity. This rejection over Nakano, Liu, and Aramendy is based on a prior art configuration disclosing one accommodating cavity. The rejection further below over Nakano, Liu, Aramendy, and Seidenfeld is based on a configuration disclosing two accommodating cavities.
As set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, Nakano discloses the connection port 122 defined by surrounding walls (“holder”) of the main body part 120A, and Nakano discloses the flow path 720 which communicates the port 122 with external air (the path 720 including a “pore”). However, Nakano discloses a single main body part 120A surrounding the connection port 122. Nakano and Liu fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the holder comprises a first holder and a second holder on which the opening is defined, the second holder is connected to an end of the first holder away from the opening, and defines the accommodating cavity together with the first holder, and the pore or the notch is defined on the second holder” as recited in each of claims 6 and 11. But dividing the main body part 120A into two separate pieces is a mere duplication and/or separation 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); see also MPEP 2144.04(V)(C); see also in re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Dividing the main body part 120A which surrounds the port 122 into two pieces would read on the claimed first and second holders, because the pieces would be connected at their ends along the walls or bottom of the port 122 which is away from the opening as shown in Fig. 7B, the pieces would together define the port 122, and the path 720 would be defined on one piece (the piece containing the path 720 is interpreted as the “second holder”).
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 Nakano by dividing the main body part 120A into two connected pieces defining the connection port 122, because this is a mere duplication and/or separation of parts.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2019/0387806 A1, of record, previously cited) in view of Liu (US 2017/0229888 A1, of record, previously cited) and Aramendy (US 2023/0276854 A1, of record, previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 5, further in view of Seidenfeld (US 2019/320716 A1, of record, previously cited).
As set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, Nakano discloses the connection port 122 defined by surrounding walls (“holder”) of the main body part 120A, and Nakano discloses the flow path 720 which communicates the port 122 with external air (the path 720 including a “pore”). However, Nakano discloses a single main body part 120A surrounding the single connection port 122. Nakano and Liu fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the holder comprises a first holder and a second holder on which the opening is defined, the second holder is connected to an end of the first holder away from the opening, and defines the accommodating cavity together with the first holder, and the pore or the notch is defined on the second holder” as recited in each of claims 6 and 11.
Seidenfeld is directed to a recharging case for use with a vaporization device (Title). The body of the case may include a first channel for storing the vaporization device and a second channel for storing associated cartridges (Abstract, Figs. 1-2, reproduced below), which helps to avoid the common problem of misplacing the cartridges [0003]. As shown in Figs. 1-2 and 4, the first and second channels 124, 400 together define an upper opening (the channels 124, 400 each define an opening 128, 404 which reads on the claimed “opening”, particularly when the claim is interpreted in light of Applicant’s specification at Fig. 2 showing opening 106a, 106b) [0019, 0038]. The channels 124, 400 are defined by portions of the body 104 with a common bottom near the distal end 112 (which reads on “the second holder is connected to an end of the first holder away from the opening, and defines the accommodating cavity together with the first holder”) (Figs. 1-2, 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
654
740
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 Nakano by forming the main body part 120A to define an additional parallel connection port 122 for storing cartridges (the portion of the main body part 120A containing the path 720 and for storing the device is considered to be the claimed “second holder” with “pore” 720 thereon, whereas the portion for storing the cartridges is considered the “first holder”), because both Nakano and Seidenfeld are directed to charging cases for vaporization devices, Seidenfeld teaches providing a second channel 400 to accommodate cartridges for the device, and this would involve 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
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
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights