DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 08/03/2026.
Claims 1, 4-14, 16-19, 22-28, 30 and 35 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 2-3, 15, 20-21, 29, 31-34, 36-90 are previously cancelled.
Claim 35 is previously withdrawn.
Claim 91 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection(s) of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant references arguments presented on pages 7-9 of the response dated 07/01/2026.
Firstly, the Applicant argues that there is not sufficient reason to modify Liu with the temperature based resistance measurement of Peleg, as Liu already teaches a mechanism for monitoring the relevant wick condition. The Applicant notes that Liu and Peleg use resistance measurements for different purposes (monitoring wetness and monitoring temperature, respectively).
The Examiner disagrees.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the application of Peleg to Liu would expand the measurements of the wick to further include temperature. This would reasonably be expected to improve monitoring and control of the device, thus providing motivation for the modification. The Examiner notes that the different purposes of Liu and Peleg would make this combination beneficial, rather than discourage the modification.
The Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to modify Liu to determine both "the wick containing less than a predetermined amount of aerosolizable material" and "the wick exceeding a predetermined temperature".
The Examiner disagrees and maintains that both may be true in the modified prior art.
The prior art teaches measuring a resistance parameter and determining from that a status of the wick. Liu teaches that resistance may be used to determine a status of the wick containing less than a predetermined amount of aerosolizable material ([0025], [0028-0029]). Peleg teaches that resistance may be used to determine a status of the wick exceeding a predetermined temperature ([0017]). When combined, it would be expected that the device may use resistance to determine both of these statuses in order to better monitor the wick and improve operation of the device.
The Applicant further argues that the application of Peleg to Liu requires hindsight reasoning.
The Examiner disagrees and notes that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As taught by Liu and Peleg, it was known in the art to determine both "the wick containing less than a predetermined amount of aerosolizable material" and "the wick exceeding a predetermined temperature". The rejection provides appropriate motivation to combine these teachings with reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the rejection is not considered to rely on improper hindsight reasoning.
Lastly, the Applicant argues that a relationship between dryness and temperature being measured by resistance does not teach the claimed limitations.
The Examiner maintains that maintains that the wetness of the wick and the temperature being interrelated is an indicator that the combination would have reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as a wick dries, its temperature will increase above a predetermined threshold (see also Liu [0024]). Furthermore, both are measurable by resistance. Thus, it would be reasonably expected that a status indicating the wetness of the wick would also reflect on the status of the wick temperature, and it would not be unreasonable to expect this function from the combination of Liu and Peleg.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
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.
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, 4 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160157523 A1) in view of Peleg et al. (US 20140014126 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an aerosol provision system (flavoured vapour generator 100; [0016]) comprising a reservoir (hollow compartment or reservoir 136; [0016]) for aerosolizable material; a wick (retention wicks 155, 255; [0016]) configured to receive the aerosolizable material from the reservoir, and a vaporizer (electric heater 150; [0016]) configured to vaporize the aerosolizable material received in the wick, wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to measure at least one parameter of the wick to determine a status of the wick ([0025]; [0026]; [0032]), wherein the status is the wick containing less than a predetermined amount of aerosolizable material ([0025]).
Liu teaches that the status is measured by the resistance of the wick exceeding a predetermined value ([0025], [0028-0029]).
Liu does not explicitly teach that the status is the wick exceeding a predetermined temperature.
Peleg, directed to an aerosol provision system (electronic cigarette; [0023]) comprising a reservoir (e-liquid 110; see Fig. 1, Fig. 2a; [0023]), a wick (wick 201; [0030]), and a vaporizer (atomizer 112; [0023]) wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to measure at least one parameter of the wick ([0017]), teaches that temperature of the wick may be measured via the resistance ([0017]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by making the status also include the wick exceeding a predetermined temperature as taught by Peleg because both Liu and Peleg are directed to aerosol provision systems configured to measure a parameter of the wick, Peleg teaches that temperature may be derived from a resistance measurement, and this involves applying a known technique to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Thus, the system would be configured to determine a status comprising both the temperature of the wick and the amount of aerosolizable material in the wick.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches that the aerosol provision system comprises control circuitry (control circuit 14; [0032]) and at least one sensor (sensor 156; [0016]) for detecting the at least one parameter; wherein each sensor is configured to output a sensor signal containing data related to the at least one parameter; and wherein the control circuitry is configured to process the data from the sensor signal of each sensor to determine the status of the wick ([0032]).
Regarding claim 30, Liu teaches that the aerosol provision system comprises a cartridge (flavored vapor generator 100; [0016]) and a control unit (elongate body 12 comprising control circuit 14; [0032]), wherein the reservoir 126 is located in the cartridge ([0016]; Fig. 1), wherein the control unit comprises a cartridge receiving section that includes an interface arranged to cooperatively engage with the cartridge so as to releasably couple the cartridge to the control unit ([0032]; Fig. 4), wherein the control unit further comprises a power supply (battery 16; [0032]) for delivering power to the vaporizer.
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Peleg as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Alsayar et al. (US 20220104545 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches that the at least one parameter comprises the moisture content of the wick ([0025]), wherein the sensor is configured to output a sensor signal containing mass data related to the mass of the wick ([0042]). Liu further teaches that the control circuitry is configured to process the data from the sensor signal to determine a value for the wick ([0032]); compare the value for the wick against a predetermined value ([0029], [0032]); and output a control signal in the event the value is less than the predetermined value ([0032]).
Liu does not teach that the at least one sensor comprises at least one load cell on which the wick is supported.
Alsayar, directed to an aerosol provision system (vaporization device 100) comprising a reservoir (reservoir 210; [0084]), a wick ([0091]), a vaporizer (atomizers 204; [0091]), control circuitry ([0009]), and at least one sensor ([0088]), teaches that load cell sensors may be used for measuring the remaining quantity of aerosolizable material in a structure ([0088]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by making the sensor a load cell sensor on which the wick is supported to determine the status of the wick as taught by Alsayar because both Liu and Alsayar are directed to aerosol provision systems configured to measure a parameter of the wick, Alsayar teaches an alternative method for producing this measurement, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Alsayar does not explicitly teach that the at least one load cell comprises a first load cell which supports a first end of the wick, and a second load cell which supports a second end of the wick.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by using two load cells such that one supports a first end of the wick and another supports a second end of the wick because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would allow the load cells to properly measure the wick while also allowing for the suspension of the wick through the vaporizer/heating coil with only two ends being supported (as depicted in Liu), and this involves using a known technique to yield predictable results. Furthermore, duplication of parts such as to make two load cells is prima facie obvious when a new and unexpected result is not produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches that the control signal comprises a command to disable the operation of the aerosol provision system ([0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Liu teaches that the control signal comprises a command to disable the operation of the vaporizer ([0032]).
Claims 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Peleg as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Cameron (US 20160331027 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Liu does not teach that the sensor comprises an optical sensor or that the at least one parameter comprises an optical parameter.
Cameron, directed to an aerosol provision system (vapor device 100; [0045]) comprising a reservoir (container 202; [0078]), a wick (wick 204; [0078]), a vaporizer (heating element 214; [0081]) and an associated monitoring assembly comprising control circuitry (computing components 1418; [0123]), and at least one sensor (supply sensor 1415; [0123]), teaches that an optical sensor configured to output a sensor signal containing data related to an optical parameter which may be used to determine a status of the wick ([0125]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by using the optical sensor to measure an optical parameter such that the at least one parameter comprises an optical parameter as taught by Cameron because both Liu and Cameron are directed to aerosol provision systems with sensors for monitoring, Cameron teaches that it is known in the art to use an optical sensor to measure aerosolizable material containers, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches that the control circuitry is configured to process the data from the sensor signal to determine a value for the wick ([0032]); compare the value for the wick against a predetermined value ([0029], [0032]); and output a control signal in the event the value is less than the predetermined value ([0032]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by configuring the control circuitry to perform in this same manner upon the addition of the optical sensor for measuring an optical parameter taught by Cameron. In this way, the control circuitry would be configured to: process the data from the sensor signal of each optical sensor to determine an optical value for the wick; compare the optical value for the wick against a predetermined optical value; and output a control signal in the event the optical value is greater than, and/or less than, a predetermined optical value.
Regarding claim 14, Cameron teaches that the optical parameter is the color of an external surface of the wick ([0125]).
Regarding claim 16, Liu teaches that the wick is configured to receive the aerosolizable material from the reservoir at a first end and a second end of the wick (depicted in Fig. 2), wherein the external surface of the wick (surface surrounded by electric wire 152; Figs. 1-s) is located between the first end and the second end (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Liu teaches that the external surface is located at the midpoint along a length of the wick, wherein the length extends from the first end and the second end (see Figs. 1-2).
Claims 22-23 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Peleg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flick (US 20130306084 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Liu does not teach that the aerosol provision system comprises at least one doping agent which is configured to color the wick a first color at a first predetermined condition, and which is configured to color the wick a second color, which is different from the first color, at a second predetermined condition which is different from the first predetermined condition.
Flick, directed to directed to an aerosol provision system (smoking system 100; [0053]) comprising a reservoir (liquid storage portion), a wick (wick 117), and a vaporizer (heater 117) wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to measure at least one parameter of the wick to determine a status of the wick ([0014-0017]), teaches a doping agent (thermochromic ink) which is configured to color a liquid storage portion a first color at a first predetermined condition, and which is configured to color the liquid storage portion a second color, which is different from the first color, at a second predetermined condition which is different from the first predetermined condition ([0012]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by using a doping agent which is configured to color the wick a first color at a first predetermined condition, and which is configured to color the wick a second color, which is different from the first color, at a second predetermined condition which is different from the first predetermined condition to determine a status of the wick as taught by Flick because both Liu and Flick are directed to aerosol provision systems configured to measure parameters of liquid storing portions, Flick teaches that a liquid storage portion may be monitored via the use of a doping agent, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Flick teaches that the wick comprises the doping agent ([0012]).
Regarding claim 27, Flick teaches that the doping agent comprises a thermochromic material ([0012]).
Regarding claim 28, Flick teaches that the first predetermined condition comprises a first predetermined temperature of the wick, and the second predetermined condition comprises a second predetermined temperature which is higher than the first predetermined temperature of the wick ([0012]).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Peleg and Flick as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Harding (US 20160168438 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Liu teaches that the aerosolizable material is in the reservoir ([0016]).
Liu does not teach that the aerosolizable material comprises the doping agent.
Harding, directed to aerosolizable material formulations for aerosol provision systems (inhalation device 1; [0089], [0019]), teaches that a doping agent may be added to the aerosolizable material to provide a desired color ([0079-0082]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by adding doping agent to the aerosolizable material as taught by Harding because Liu is directed to an aerosol provision system and Harding is directed to an aerosolizable material for an aerosol provision system, Harding teaches that doping agents may be added to aerosolizable materials to provide a desired color, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
It would be expected that this doping agent would act to color the wick a first color at a first predetermined condition, and to color the wick a second color, which is different from the first color, at a second predetermined condition which is different from the first predetermined condition. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this color would indicate a status of the wick when the doping agent is absorbed.
Regarding claim 26, Liu does not teach that the first predetermined condition comprises a first moisture content of the wick, and the second predetermined condition comprises a second moisture content of the wick which is less than the first moisture content.
Harding, directed to aerosolizable material formulations for aerosol provision systems (inhalation device 1; [0089], [0019]), teaches that a doping agent may be added to the aerosolizable material to provide a desired color ([0079-0082]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by making the doping agent colored as taught by Harding because Liu is directed to an aerosol provision system and Harding is directed to an aerosolizable material for an aerosol provision system, Harding teaches that doping agents may be added to aerosolizable materials to provide a desired color, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
It would be expected that this doping agent would act to color the wick a first color at a first predetermined condition (e.g., when no moisture and thus no doping agent is present), and to color the wick a second color, which is different from the first color, at a second predetermined condition (e.g., when moisture and thus doping agent is present) which is different from the first predetermined condition.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Peleg and Flick as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Bilat et al. (US 20170340010 A1)
Regarding claim 25, Liu does not teach that the doping agent comprises a hydrochromic material.
Bilat, directed to an aerosol provision system (aerosol generating device 100; [0096]) comprising a reservoir (liquid storage portion 14; [0095]), a wick (porous substrate material; [0095]), and a vaporizer (aerosol generating element 122; [0100]), wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to measure at least one parameter of the wick to determine a status of the wick ([0108]), teaches that a doping agent in a liquid storage portion may comprise a hydrochromic material ([0005], [0020]). Bilat further teaches that this is a simple and cost-effective indication of wick status ([0007]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by making the doping agent comprise a hydrochromic material as taught by Bilat because both Liu and Bilat are directed to aerosol provision systems, Bilat teaches that a hydrochromic doping agent may provide a simple and cost-effective indication of wick status, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Peleg and Flick as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Murray et al. (US 20220022537 A1).
Regarding claim 91, Liu does not explicitly teach at least one transparent or translucent portion through which a portion of the wick is visible to a user for detecting the color of the wick.
Murray, directed to an aerosol provision system (e-cigarette system 101; [1222]) comprising a reservoir (tank 105; [1225]), a wick (porous wick 110; [1227]) and a vaporizer (heating filament 111; [1227]), wherein the aerosol provision system comprises at least one doping agent which is configured to color the reservoir ([0031], [0038], [1235]), teaches at least one transparent or translucent portion through which a portion of the reservoir is visible to a user for detecting the color of the liquid within the reservoir to detect a status of the liquid ([0070]; [1505], [1790]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol provision system of Liu by adding a transparent portion as taught by Murray to view the color-changing wick of Liu because both Liu and Murray are directed to a-cigarette devices that rely on checking the status of a color change, Murray teaches that it is known in the art to provide a transparent portion to visually check a liquid color status, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C> 112(b) 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:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art alone or in combination with references does not disclose the aerosol provision system as recited in claim 7. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a dimension sensor for detecting the at least one physical dimension of the wick.
The closest prior art is considered to be Liu (US 20160157523 A1). Liu teaches an aerosol provision system (flavoured vapour generator 100; [0016]) comprising a reservoir (hollow compartment or reservoir 136; [0016]) for aerosolizable material; a wick (retention wicks 155, 255; [0016]) configured to receive the aerosolizable material from the reservoir, and a vaporizer (electric heater 150; [0016]) configured to vaporize the aerosolizable material received in the wick, wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to measure at least one parameter of the wick to determine a status of the wick ([0025]). Liu further teaches that the aerosol provision system comprises control circuitry (control circuit 14; [0032]) and at least one sensor (sensor 156; [0016]) for detecting the at least one parameter; wherein each sensor is configured to output a sensor signal containing data related to the at least one parameter; and wherein the control circuitry is configured to process the data from the sensor signal of each sensor to determine the status of the wick ([0032]). Liu further teaches that the control circuitry is configured to process the data from the sensor signal to determine a value for the wick ([0032]); compare the value for the wick against a predetermined value ([0029], [0032]); and output a control signal in the event the value is less than the predetermined value ([0032]).
Liu teaches that the status is measured by the resistance of the wick exceeding a predetermined value ([0025], [0028-0029]). Liu further teaches that resistance and temperature are related ([0017]).
Liu does not explicitly teach that the status is the wick exceeding a predetermined temperature or that the at least one sensor comprises a dimension sensor for detecting the at least one physical dimension of the wick.
Peleg et al. (US 20140014126 A1) teaches an aerosol provision system (electronic cigarette; [0023]) comprising a reservoir (e-liquid 110; see Fig. 1, Fig. 2a; [0023]), a wick (wick 201; [0030]), and a vaporizer (atomizer 112; [0023]) wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to measure at least one parameter of the wick ([0017]). Peleg further teaches that temperature status of the wick may be measured via the resistance ([0017]).
Kilger et al. (US 20230160845 A1) teaches an aerosol provision system (inhaler 20; [0402]) comprising a wick (fluid container 10; [0270]) and a vaporizer (heating element 130; [0270]) wherein the aerosol provision system is configured to measure at least one parameter of the wick to determine a status of the wick ([0018]). Kilger further teaches that the aerosol provision system comprises control circuitry (processing unit 40; [0205]) and at least one sensor (measuring device 50; [0041]) for detecting the at least one parameter; wherein each sensor is configured to output a sensor signal containing data related to the at least one parameter; and wherein the control circuitry is configured to process the data from the sensor signal of the sensor to determine a value for the wick; compare the dimension value for the wick against a predetermined value; and output a control signal in the event the value is less than predetermined dimension value ([0018], [0045], [0126], [0135]; [0174]). Kilger further teaches that the sensor may be a laser to detect a measurement of a liquid held in a reservoir ([0103]).
Kilger does not teach that the at least one parameter comprises at least one physical dimension of the wick or that the sensor is a dimension sensor for detecting the at least one physical dimension. The Examiner notes that while the sensor of Kilger may be adapted for measuring a physical dimension, this is hindsight reasoning, as no clear motivation is provided by the prior art to configure the device as such.
Reevell (US 20170245552 A1), directed to an aerosol provision system (aerosol-generating system 100; [0112]) comprising a reservoir (liquid storage portion 210; [0112]), a wick (capillary wick 250; [0113]), and a vaporizer (aerosol generator 220; [0112]), teaches that control circuitry may be configured to calculate liquid depletion (e.g., a status of the wick) based on dimensions and properties of a wick ([0043]). However, Reevell does not teach that the device is configured to measure this dimensional parameter, merely that it is used. Reevell similarly does not teach dimension sensor.
To conclude, within the art, there is limited reference to the aerosol provision system as claimed. Specifically, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a dimension sensor for detecting at least one physical dimension of the wick such that the aerosol provision system is configured to use the measured dimension of the wick to determine a wick status. As such, claim 7 is indicated as being allowable.
Claims 8-9 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights