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
Claims 1-2, 3-5, 11, 13 and 17-19 are amended. Claims 7-9 and 14 are withdrawn. Claim 10 is objected to. Claims 1-6, 10-13 and 15-20 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 8/19/2025 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 8/19/2025 are overcome.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “the suction nozzle is further configured to press and fix the heating body in the cavity,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed suction nozzle. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a suction nozzle that could press and fix components.
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 17-20 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.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the cylinder wall of the cylinder wall” (line 9). It is unclear how the cylinder wall can modify itself, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited the cylinder wall of the cylinder body. Claims 18-20 are indefinite by dependence.
The claim recites the limitation “the an outer wall of the heating body” (line 14). It is unclear whether this limitation refers to a previous outer wall or to a new outer wall, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it referred to a new outer wall.
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 1-2, 4-5, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Han (US 2019/0343180) in view of Saleem (US 2016/0044963) and Batista (US 10,149,498).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Han discloses an electromagnetic heating smoking paraphernalia having a heating tank (figure 1, reference numeral 10), an upper end wall (figure 5, reference numeral 2) having an upper end wall vent hole (figure 5, reference numeral 201), and a lower end wall (figure 5, reference numeral 3) having a lower end wall vent hole ([0029], figure 5, reference numeral 301), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a housing. Air enters through the lower end wall vent hole [0030], which is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet hole, and leaves through upper wall vent hole [0030], which is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of an outlet hole. A metal inductive cylinder is located within the heating tank ([0029], figure 5, reference numeral 4) and generates an eddy current when a high frequency alternating electric current is applied to it to heat tobacco particles to form a cigarette fragrance [0014]. The heating tank is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first cylinder body, the upper end wall of Han is considered to meet the claim limitation of an upper plug, and the lower end wall of Han is considered to meet the claim limitation of a lower plug. Han does not explicitly disclose (a) the metal inductive cylinder being held in a clamp, (b) the clamp being in the form of a groove and (c) the groove extending in the claimed direction.
Regarding (a), Saleem teaches an apparatus for heating smokable material [0067] in the shape of a cylindrical tube (figure 5, reference numeral 7) having a cylindrical heater extending along a central longitudinal axis of the tube ([0068], figure 5, reference numeral 3). The heater is secured to one of several surrounding components [0128] by a clamp [0129].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the metal inductive cylinder of modified Han to the heating tank using the clamp of Saleem. One would have been motivated to do so since Saleem teaches a clamp that secures a heater in position.
Regarding (b), Batista teaches a heater assembly for an aerosol generating system in which a filament arrangement is clamped to a substrate (abstract). The heater assembly is held within two slits (column 12, lines 18-36, figure 3a, reference numeral 4), which are considered to define a first clamping groove, indicating that the heater assembly would also be fixed within the housing in the combination.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the clamping groove of Batista as the clamp of modified Han. One would have been motivated to do so since Batista teaches a suitable form a clamp. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding (c), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the groove to extend in the claimed direction. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific direction of the groove is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 2, modified Han teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Han does not explicitly teach the components capable of being separated and disassembled such that the metal inductive cylinder could be detached from the other components.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the components of modified Han be capable of being separated and disassembled such that the metal inductive cylinder could be detached from the other components. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 V C.
Regarding claim 5, modified Han teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Han additionally discloses that the metal inductive cylinder is in the form a sheet that is shaped into a cylinder (figure 5). Modified Han does not explicitly teach (a) the metal inductive cylinder being held in a clamp and (b) the clamp being in the form of a groove.
Regarding (a), Saleem teaches an apparatus for heating smokable material [0067] in the shape of a cylindrical tube (figure 5, reference numeral 7) having a cylindrical heater extending along a central longitudinal axis of the tube ([0068], figure 5, reference numeral 3). The heater is secured to one of several surrounding components [0128] by a clamp [0129].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the metal inductive cylinder of modified Han to the heating tank using the clamp of Saleem. One would have been motivated to do so since Saleem teaches a clamp that secures a heater in position.
Regarding (b), Batista teaches a heater assembly for an aerosol generating system in which a filament arrangement is clamped to a substrate (abstract). The heater assembly is held within two slits (column 12, lines 18-36, figure 3a, reference numeral 4), which are considered to define a second clamping groove.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the clamping groove of Batista as the clamp of modified Han. One would have been motivated to do so since Batista teaches a suitable form a clamp. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses that the metal inductive cylinder has a smooth surface with holes (figure 5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a smooth surface.
Regarding claim 13, a portion of the segment defined by a chord defined on the outside of the metal inductive cylinder of Han is considered to define a vertical strip protrusion.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2019/0343180) in view of Saleem (US 2016/0044963) and Batista (US 10,149,498) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liu (US 9,993,024, hereafter referred to as Liu ‘024).
Regarding claim 3, modified Han teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Han does not teach or suggest the upper and lower end walls of Han being provided with airflow grooves.
Liu ‘024 teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a diffusion cover which is abutted against two adjacent components (column 5, lines 37-60, figure 2, reference numeral 18) having an open central portion which is communicated with an airflow through at least one first groove (column 6, lines 34-61, figure 6, reference numeral 181).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the outer surfaces of the end walls of modified Han with the groove of Liu ‘024. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu ‘024 teaches a cover that allows components to be abutted against it while still allowing airflow.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2019/0343180) in view of Saleem (US 2016/0044963) and Batista (US 10,149,498) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Liu (WO 2017/066938, English language equivalent US 10,791,762 relied upon, hereafter referred to as Liu ‘938).
Regarding claim 6, modified Han teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Han additionally discloses that a tobacco particle holding cavity is located immediately outside the metal inductive cylinder ([0029], figure 2, reference numeral 6). Modified Han does not explicitly teach the metal inductive cylinder having a layer with a lower thermal conductivity located outside a layer of higher thermal conductivity.
Liu ‘938 teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a liquid absorption element having an inner first layer (figure 3b, reference numeral 164a) with a higher thermal conductivity than an outer second layer (column 5, lines 65-67, column 6, lines 1-11) so that the surface temperature of the device is reduced (column 5, lines 19-35).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the metal inductive cylinder with the layers having different thermal conductivity of Liu ‘938. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu ‘938 teaches an arrangement of layers in a heating element that reduces the surface temperature of a device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2019/0343180) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Qi (US 2023/0108108).
Regarding claim 12, modified Han teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Han additionally discloses that a tobacco particle holding cavity is located immediately outside the metal inductive cylinder ([0029], figure 2, reference numeral 6). Modified Han does not explicitly teach a roughness of the smooth metal inductive cylinder surface.
Qi teaches a susceptor for an aerosol generation apparatus (abstract) having a susceptor ([0045], figure 3, reference numeral 30) and a protective layer made from quasicrystal protective layer ([0047], figure 3, reference numeral 32) having a specific roughness to reduce surface energy which [0050] to prevent various material generated during use of the article from adhering to the surface of the susceptor [0051]. The final surface roughness is [0060].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the outer surface of the metal inductive cylinder with the protective layer having a specific roughness of Qi. One would have been motivated to do so since Qi teaches a protective layer that prevents materials generated during use from adhering to a heating element.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2019/0343180) in view of Saleem (US 2016/0044963) and Batista (US 10,149,498) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Qiu (US 10,334,877).
Regarding claim 15, modified Han teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Han additionally discloses that the upper end wall forms part of the boundary of a tobacco particle holding cavity in which material is held for vaporization [0029]. Modified Han does not explicitly teach the upper end wall being made from silica gel.
Qiu teaches an atomizer head assembly (abstract) having a seal member in the form of an annular ring that seals the top of a tube to inhibit cigarette liquid from leaking out of the atomizer head assembly (column 12, lines 1-14, figure 3, reference numeral 4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upper end wall of modified Han from the silica gel of Qiu. One would have been motivated to do so since Qiu teaches that a silica gel seal inhibits cigarette liquid from leaking out of an atomizer head assembly. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2019/0343180) in view of Saleem (US 2016/0044963) and Batista (US 10,149,498) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 9,883,698).
Regarding claim 16, modified Han teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Han does not explicitly teach the lower end wall comprising a plug pillar and a seal ring arranged outside it.
Zhu teaches an electronic cigarette having an e-liquid storage tank (abstract) having a sealing ring (figure 2, reference numeral 116) located between an e-liquid storage tank outer cylindrical housing (figure 2, reference numeral 114) and a connector (column 8, lines 3-10, figure 2, reference numeral 118) that forms the base of the e-liquid storage tank (column 4, lines 62-67, column 5, lines 1-4), which is considered to define a plug pillar on its outer edge.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the sealing ring of Zhu between the heating tank and lower end wall of modified Han. One would have been motivated to do so since Zhu teaches a seal ring that forms a seal.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong (CN 207733675, machine translation relied upon) in view of Jochnowitz (US 12,419,352).
Regarding claim 17, Hong discloses an electronic cigarette [0002] having a housing, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a main body that connects with a battery case (figure 6, reference numeral 18), that contains a battery ([0036], figure 7, reference numeral 19), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a power supply. An induction coil ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 3), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a magnetic induction coil, heats an induction metal plate, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating element, to atomize an e-liquid [0009], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generation substrate. The induction coil is electrically connected to the battery [0017]. An upper cover has external air inlets ([0036], figure 4, reference numeral 17), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet channel. Air flows through the air inlet to reach the induction metal plate along airflow grooves (figure 3), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet channel. The heating cavity is defined by an inner support ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an outer wall of the heating body. The inner support is part of an upper cover that also defines the air inlets ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 1), which is considered to define a housing. The induction coil generates an oscillating magnetic field such that the surface of the metal sheet generates alternating magnetic force lines [0036], which are considered to meet the claim limitation of eddy currents. Additional components of Hong are labeled in annotated figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
421
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hong does not explicitly disclose (a) the cavity having a cylindrical shape and (b) the battery located in the main body itself rather than a separate component.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cavity cylindrical. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding (b), Jochnowitz teaches a heating assembly for heating an aerosol forming substrate (abstract) having a housing (figure 2, reference numeral 111) that contains a power supply (column 14, lines 7-15, figure 2, reference numeral 116) that powers an induction source of the assembly (column 8, lines 40-56).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the battery of Hong in the main body below the other components. One would have been motivated to do so since Jochnowitz teaches that a power supply of an inductive heating assembly can be located below the other components and within the main housing. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 18, modified Hong teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Hong additionally discloses that the upper cover has a suction nozzle in fluid communication with the airflow pathway ([0036], figure 4, reference numeral 8). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the mouthpiece being detachable.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the suction nozzle detachable. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 V C.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong (CN 207733675, machine translation relied upon) in view of Jochnowitz (US 12,419,352) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lee (US 11,998,052).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hong teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hong does not explicitly teach a ferrite film.
Lee teaches an aerosol generating device having a shield film that surrounds a portion of an outer surface of an induction coil to shield against electromagnetic interference (abstract). The shield includes ferrite (column 6, lines 55-63).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Hong with the shield of Lee. One would have been motivated to do so since Lee teaches a shield that protects an induction coil against electromagnetic interference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Liu (WO 2017/066938, English language equivalent US 10,791,762 relied upon, hereafter referred to as Liu ‘938) teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a liquid absorption element having an inner first layer (figure 3b, reference numeral 164a) with a higher thermal conductivity than an outer second layer (column 5, lines 65-67, column 6, lines 1-11) so that the surface temperature of the device is reduced (column 5, lines 19-35). However, Liu ‘938 does not teach or suggest specific values for the thickness and thermal conductivity of the layers.
Zhang (US 11,297,880) teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having an inner first layer (figure 2, reference numeral 111) and an outer second layer (column 3, lines 26-32, figure 2, reference numeral 112). The first layer has a thermal conductivity of 0-5 W/(m*K) and the second layer has a thermal conductivity of 5-35 W/(m*K). However, Zhang does not teach or suggest the outer layer having a lower thermal conductivity than the inner layer.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a heating body, detachably arranged in an aerosol-generation device, comprising: a housing for accommodating an aerosol-generation substrate, the housing having an air inlet hole and an air outlet hole; and a heating element arranged in the housing and configured to generate heat through an eddy current in an alternating magnetic field, the aerosol-generation substrate generating an aerosol in response to the heat from the heating element, the housing comprising a first cylinder body, the heating element being a sheet heating element, a first cylinder body; an upper plug; and a lower plug, wherein the upper plug and the lower plug are respectively arranged at two opposite ends of the first cylinder body, the heating element is detachably arranged in the first cylinder body, the air inlet hole is provided on the lower plug or on a cylinder wall of one end of the first cylinder body that is close to the lower plug, and the air outlet hole is provided on the upper plug, wherein a thickness of the magnetic metal conductor ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.6 mm, the thermal conductivity of the first thermal conductive layer ranges from 15 W/(m k) to 26 W/(m k), a thickness of the first thermal conductive layer ranges from 0.02 mm to 0.5 mm, and the thermal conductivity of the second thermal conductive layer ranges from 0.04 W/(m k) to 0.08 W/(m k), and a thickness of the second thermal conductive layer ranges from 0.02 mm to 0.05 mm.
Claim 19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Hong (CN 207733675, machine translation relied upon) teaches an electronic cigarette [0002] having a housing, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a main body that connects with a battery case (figure 6, reference numeral 18), that contains a battery ([0036], figure 7, reference numeral 19), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a power supply. An induction coil ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 3), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a magnetic induction coil, heats an induction metal plate, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating element, to atomize an e-liquid [0009], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generation substrate. The induction coil is electrically connected to the battery [0017]. An upper cover has external air inlets ([0036], figure 4, reference numeral 17), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet channel. Air flows through the air inlet to reach the induction metal plate along airflow grooves (figure 3), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet channel. The heating cavity is defined by an inner support ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an outer wall of the heating body. The inner support is part of an upper cover that also defines the air inlets ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 1), which is considered to define a housing. The induction coil generates an oscillating magnetic field such that the surface of the metal sheet generates alternating magnetic force lines [0036], which are considered to meet the claim limitation of eddy currents. Additional components of Hong are labeled in annotated figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
421
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hong does not teach or suggest the mouthpiece held in place using a magnet or the mouthpiece pressing and fixing the heating body.
Aw (US 12,089,635) teaches an aerosol generating device that includes a mouthpiece (figure 1, reference numeral 30) that contains an extractor (abstract, figure 1, reference numeral 10). The mouthpiece is fixed to the extractor so that they do not move relative to each other (column 14, lines 10-23). However, Aw does not teach or suggest a mouthpiece that interacts with the claimed heating body.
Besso (US 12,453,374) teaches an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a mouthpiece that docks with a docking station and is held in place by a magnetic coupling element (column 4, lines 35-50). However, Besso does not teach or suggest the mouthpiece pressing and fixing any components.
The prior art does not teach or suggest an aerosol-generation device, comprising: a main body having a cylinder body that provides a cavity; a power supply component disposed in the main body; a magnetic induction coil disposed outside a cylinder wall of the cylinder body and electrically coupled to the power supply component, the magnetic induction coil being configured to form an alternating magnetic field in the cavity; and a heating body detachably disposed in the main body, comprising: a housing for accommodating an aerosol-generation substrate, the housing being disposed inside the cylinder wall of the cylinder wall and having an air inlet hole and an air outlet hole; and a heating element arranged in the housing and configured to generate heat through an eddy current in the alternating magnetic field, the aerosol-generation substrate generating an aerosol in response to the heat from the heating element, wherein an air inlet channel is formed between the an outer wall of the heating body and an inner wall of the cylinder body, such that external air flows through the air inlet channel to enter the housing of the heating element through the air inlet hole, further comprising a suction nozzle, wherein the suction nozzle is in communication with the air inlet hole and the air outlet hole, the suction nozzle is configured to detachably cover an upper end of the main body, and wherein the suction nozzle and the main body are couple through a magnetic force, and the suction nozzle presses and fixes the heating body in the cavity through magnetic force.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are entered as set forth above.
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 RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights