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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/15/2026.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Paragraph 0067 of the specification refers to Figure 1 as depicting “conventional technologies.” See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11 and 20: “convert a DC…” should be “convert a DC from the direct current power supply” to be consistent.
Claim 12: “converts the DC…” should be “convert the DC from the direct current power supply” to be consistent.
Claim 13: “the current instantaneous value” should be “the instantaneous value” to be consistent with the terminology of claim 11.
Claim 13: “the current variation” should be “the periodic variation” to be consistent with the terminology of claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “power supply control module” in claims 11 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “power supply control module” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “…configured to control connection and disconnection of the current output terminal with the electrical heating module and to convert a DC into a supply current having a periodic variation…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The phrase “power supply control” conveys only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 11-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Paragraph 0041 states that the power supply control module includes a voltage modulation module and a microprocessor providing an actuation signal to the voltage modulation module.
Para. 0045 states that the voltage modulation module includes a power conversion circuit that modulates a voltage of the DC power supply.
Para. 0055 states the use of a forward and reverse connection current module
Para. 0056 states that the forward and reverse connection current module includes a first and second switch control module that are configured to switch on and off.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 14 and 18 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.
Claim 14 requires that the power conversion circuit to be a combined circuit that “is designed to be switched into a boost control circuit in one time interval and switched to a buck circuit in another time interval” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what structural requirements are needed for such circuit to be “designed.” For instance, it is unclear if the power conversion circuit comprises a boost control circuit and a buck circuit that are electrically separated via a controllable switch such that in one position the switch allows for current to flow through the boost control circuit and not the buck circuit and in a second position the switch allows for the current to flow through the buck circuit and not the boost control circuit. Alternatively, it is unclear if the power conversion circuit requires actual switches to convert between the circuits or if the ”switching” occurs by some other means (for instance, user reconfiguration).
Claim 18 recites that the forward and reverse connection current generation module is configured to generate a forward connection current and a reverse connection current according to the second target voltage, and couple the forward connection current and the reverse connection current to the electrical heating module at different time intervals within “the same signal time interval of the second target voltage,” which renders the claim indefinite as “the same signal time interval” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what time interval is being referenced. Further, it is unclear in what way, if any, the “signal time interval of the second target voltage” relates to the regulating of the voltage by the voltage modulation module. For instance, it is unclear if the voltage modulation modules regulates the voltage of the DC power supply to the second target voltage so that the second target voltage occurs, or is applied to the forward and reverse connection current generation module, for a period of time that is the “signal time.” In other words, it is not reasonably clear what time interval is being referenced or how such time interval relates to the voltage regulation.
Claim 18 requires “wherein the first time interval is a first duration of the second target voltage preset in the same voltage signal time interval,” which renders the claim indefinite as “the second target voltage preset” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if Applicant intends to reference the second target voltage coming from the voltage modulation module. Additionally, the phrase “in the same voltage signal time interval” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what interval is being referenced. Further, with respect to “the same voltage signal time interval,” it remains unclear where this time interval originates leading to ambiguity in what is being claimed.
Claim 18 requires “wherein the second time interval is a second duration of the second target voltage preset in the same voltage signal time interval,” which renders the claim indefinite as “the second target voltage preset” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if Applicant intends to reference the second target voltage coming from the voltage modulation module. Additionally, the phrase “in the same voltage signal time interval” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what interval is being referenced. Further, with respect to “the same voltage signal time interval,” it remains unclear where this time interval originates leading to ambiguity in what is being claimed. Additionally, the limitation of “not larger than a duration threshold of the same voltage signal time interval” further compounds the confusion for the same reasons detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fursa et al. (US2020/0037664), as evidenced by Wildi (US 5814792).
Regarding claim 11, power supply control circuit (Figs. 6-7) for an electrical heating module of a personal vaping device (para. 0001) (heating module 110), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
448
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Fursa (annotated)
a current input terminal configured to be connected to a direct current (DC) power supply (Annotated above and taken to be the terminal that allows for current from DC source 150 to be supplied to the power supply control module) (See also Figures 4-5 and paragraph 0187; electrical terminal 152);
a current output terminal separated from the current input terminal and configured to be connected to the electrical heating module (Annotated above and taken to be the terminal that allows for current to be supplied to the heating module 110); and
a power supply control module arranged between the current input terminal and the current output terminal (as shown above; 160),
wherein the power supply control module is configured to control connection and disconnection of the current output terminal with the electrical heating module (para. 0187 details 160 allowing for the heating module 110 to be actuated) (para. 0198 details 160 interrupting the supply of power from DC power supply 150 to heating module 110), and to convert a DC into a supply current having a periodic variation in at least one of a direction, an instantaneous value, or an on-state time (Para. 0187 details the power supply control module 160 including a DC/AC converter/inverter 162 for supplying the heating module with alternating current) [“Alternating Current” or “AC” would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to mean “an electric current that reverses its direction at regularly recurring intervals.” See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternating%20current, viewed on 02/18/2026. As such, the control module 160 including inverter 162 that functions to convert direct current from DC source 150 into AC to supply the heating module with AC would require that the current supplied to the heating module has a periodic variation in direction and “on-state time,” which is taken to refer to the recurring intervals in which the direction of the current changes.].
While Fursa does not explicitly state that the periodic variation includes an instantaneous value, Wildi provides evidence that such limitation is inherently disclosed as a result of relying of alternating current. Wildi states that “[b]ecause the currents are alternating, they change in value and direction from one instant to the next” (3:30-35). Here, those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using converting DC into an AC supply current would provide a supply current that has a periodic variation in at least one of a direction, an instantaneous value, or an on-state time.
Regarding claim 13, Fursa teaches the power supply control circuit, as applied in claim 11, and further teaches the power supply control module (160) comprising a voltage modulation module (DC/AC inverter 162) and a microprocessor (161) being configured to provide an actuation signal (via communication indicated by the arow between 161 and 162) to the voltage modulation module (162), wherein the microprocessor is configured to output the actuation signal according to a plurality of preset parameters including a variation range of the current instantaneous value and a frequency of the current variation [The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not require, nor is limited to, the microprocessor receiving via, for instance, sensors measuring the variation range of the current instantaneous value and the frequency of the current variation. Rather, the claim merely requires that the microprocessor outputs the actuation signal according to a plurality of preset parameters and that the parameters include a variation range of the current instantaneous value and a frequency of the current variation. In other words, the microprocessor merely requires the structure necessary to receive such information. In the case of Fursa, MCU 161 receives Vdc and Idc as input parameters to control supply of AC power to the heating module.], wherein the voltage modulation module is configured to convert the DC flowing from the current input terminal into the supply current by modulating the actuation signal (162 functions to convert DC from source 150 into AC and is controlled via MCU 161), and to establish a circuit to connect the electrical heating module through the current output terminal (See Fig. 6), wherein the voltage modulation module comprises a power conversion circuit (Inverter 162 necessarily includes a conversion circuit to convert DC into AC. See para. 0191), wherein the power conversion circuit is configured to modulate a voltage of the DC power supply according to a modulation signal sent by the microprocessor (MCU 161 controls the AC going to the heating module 110 which is converted from DC from DC source 150 by the inverter 162) , and to output a boost voltage, a buck voltage, or a pass-through voltage according to the modulation signal (voltage leaving 162 passes through matching network 163 prior to being supplied to heating module 110).
Regarding claim 15, Fursa teaches the power supply control circuit, as applied in claim 11, and further teaches wherein in a duty cycle, the on-state time of the supply current varies (See claim 1 above, the conversion of DC into AC means that the on-state time of the supply current varies).
Regarding claim 16, Fursa teaches the power supply control circuit, as applied in claim 13, and further teaches wherein the power supply control module (162) is configured to continuously maintain the supply current in an on state (MCU 161 receives Vdc and Idc as input parameters to control supply of AC power to the heating module), wherein the power supply control module (160) is configured to reverse a direction of the supply current at least once in a duty cycle to form an AC (Inverter 162 converts DC into AC, which reverses direction), wherein a working duration of the AC is less than or equal to a time interval threshold (The AC necessarily has a working duration which, of course, is less than or equal to some interval of time), and wherein the power supply control module is configured to maintain an output energy of the supply current at a preset constant level during each duty cycle (MCU 161 receives Vdc and Idc as input parameters to control supply of AC power to the heating module).
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations recited in claim 11 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rational. In this case, Fursa, as detailed above, teaches an electrical heating module (110) that is an atomizer configured to atomize electronic cigarette liquid (para. 0001; aerosol-generating system comprising an inductive heating device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa et al. in view of Bleloch et al. (US2015/0320116).
Regarding claim 12, Fursa teaches the claimed power supply control circuit, as applied in claim 11, and further teaches wherein the power supply control module converts the DC (See above in claim 11, DC/AC converter/inverter), the power supply control module is configured to: control the periodic variation of the supply current at a frequency within a range of about 1 to about 30 MHz (para. 0076).
Fursa, therefore, fails to teach a frequency within a range of 300-1000 Hz in a cleaning state, or within a range of 2-200 Hz in a vaping state.
Bleloch relates to an electronic vaporizer (para. 0002) in which an induction heating module is supplied with an alternating current at a frequency “between a few tens of Hz to many megahertz” (para. 0074).
Bleloch, therefore, teaches an alternative frequency range of alternating current supplied to an induction heating module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fursa with Bleloch, by replacing the about 1 to about 30 MHz frequency of Fursa, with the “between a few tens of Hz” taught by Bleloch, for in doing so would provide an alternative range of frequencies in which an induction heating module can operate to vaporize a liquid.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa et al. in view of Sur (US2020/0046021).
Regarding claim 14, Fursa teaches the claimed power supply control circuit, as applied in claim 13, except for wherein the power conversion circuit is a combined circuit, which is designed to be switched into a boost control circuit in one time interval and switched to a buck circuit in another time interval; or the power conversion circuit comprises a boost control circuit and a buck circuit independent of each other.
Sur relates to aerosol delivery devices (para. 0001) and teaches a combined circuit which is designed to be switched into a boost control circuit in one time interval and switched to a buck circuit in another time interval (Fig. 7a/b, 718 and para. 0118. Buck-boost circuit functions to regulate output voltage and current from the power supply and selectively operates in a buck mode, a boost mode, or a buck-boost mode.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fursa with Sur, by adding to the power conversion circuity of Fursa, with the combined circuit taught by Sur, for in doing so would provide a means for regulating the output voltage and output current based upon the condition of the power supply (see para. 0013 and 0017 of Sur).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the combination of limitations required by claim 17 including “wherein the power supply control module further comprises: a forward and reverse connection current generation module, wherein the microprocessor is configured to control the voltage modulation module and the forward and reverse connection current generation module, and wherein the voltage modulation module is configured to regulate a voltage of the DC power supply to a first target voltage and a second target voltage, and couple the second target voltage to the forward and reverse connection current generation module, wherein the first target voltage is configured to control on and off of the forward and reverse connection current generation module.”
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the combination of limitations required by claim 19 including “wherein the power conversion circuit comprises a boost control circuit and a buck circuit; the boost control circuit is configured to modulate the voltage of the DC power supply to obtain a first target voltage and a first target current according to a first preset parameter set sent by the microprocessor in a first time range, wherein the first target voltage is higher than the voltage of the DC power supply; and the buck circuit is configured to modulate the first target voltage to obtain a second target voltage and a second target current according to a second preset parameter set sent by the microprocessor in a second time range, wherein the second target voltage is lower than the first target voltage.”
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the combination of limitations required by claim 18 including “wherein the forward and reverse connection current generation module is configured to generate a forward connection current and a reverse connection current according to the second target voltage, and couple the forward connection current and the reverse connection current to the electrical heating module at different time intervals within the same signal time interval of the second target voltage, wherein the forward and reverse connection current generation module comprises a first switch control module and a second switch control module, wherein the first switch control module is configured to be switched on in a first time interval, generate the forward connection current according to the second target voltage, and couple the forward connection current to the electrical heating module, wherein the first time interval is a first duration of the second target voltage preset in the same voltage signal time interval, and wherein the second switch control module is configured to be switched on in a second time interval, generate the reverse connection current according to the second target voltage, and couple the reverse connection current to the electrical heating module, wherein the second time interval is a second duration of the second target voltage preset in the same voltage signal time interval, and a sum of the first time interval and the second time interval is not larger than a duration threshold of the same voltage signal time interval.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761