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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 26-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10-28-2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10-28-2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-10, 12-14, and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 recite(s) “control circuitry configured to process the sensor information from the sensor to determine an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir” (emphasis added).
The limitation of determine an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than by reciting “by a processor” (e.g., control circuitry), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir. Similarly, the limitation of determining an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation convers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea of processing the sensor information is also determining an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir which is also a nebulous and abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim continues by comparing this amount of aerosolizable material to a predetermined amount, which further evidences the determine an amount as being an abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada teaches an aerosol provision system (See FIG 3) comprising:
a first part comprising a reservoir (part 3 that includes storage portion 31, see [0068], and annotated FIG 3 below) for storing an aerosolizable material [0068];
a sensor (34) for detecting a level of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir of the first part (remaining quantity sensor 34, [0068]) wherein
the sensor is configured to output sensor information relating to the level of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir (e.g., remaining quantity sensor 34, see [0068], the sensor outputs information related to the level of the aerosolizable material);
a vaporizer, located downstream of the reservoir, for vaporizing the aerosolizable material (load 33 just downstream of the reservoir/storage portion 31, see [0067] and FIG 3);
a second consumable part (4, see [0070], see also [0060]), for holding flavoring material (flavor component [0070]), located downstream of the vaporizer (See FIG 3); and
control circuitry (22, see FIG 4 and [0073]) configured to process the sensor information from the sensor to determine an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir (remaining quantity sensor 34 outputs sensing data for estimating the amount of aerosolizable material in the reservoir (see also [0068]), and
configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a predetermined amount; wherein (see [0090], the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted., and if the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is depleted or empty the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101])
although Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the signal is an indication to replace the second consumable part; Yamada teaches the signal indicates when the aerosol source is depleted and teaches methods for estimating the remaining quantity of the aerosol source can also be used to estimate the remaining quantity of the flavor source [0042]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the indication of the signal of Yamada that signals when the aerosol source is depleted so that this signal is also an indication the flavor is depleted and therefore a person of ordinary skill would recognize the signal that indicates the aerosol source is deplete, further as an indication to replace the second consumable part).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the sensor is located in, or on a wall of, the reservoir (See FIG 3, the sensor 34 is on the downstream wall of the reservoir 31).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the reusable part (2, 3) comprises the sensor (see annotated FIG 3, the reusable part includes the sensor 34).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the first part (3) comprises the sensor (34) (see annotated FIG 3).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the first part is able to be removed from the aerosol provision system independently of the second consumable part (see annotated FIG 3, and [0062] which teaches the first part (3) and second consumable part (4) are coupled together).
Regarding Claim 20, Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches a wall of the reservoir comprises an opening for delivering the aerosolizable material from the reservoir to the vaporizer (e.g., [0066] also see FIG 3, the end wall of the reservoir is adjacent to the vaporizer and delivers the aerosolizable material with a wick), wherein
Although Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the sensor at least partially covers the opening, Yamada teaches the aerosol source holding portion 3 holds the reservoir and the sensor, Yamada teaches the sensor is a remaining quantity sensor and measures the quantity of liquid in the reservoir [0022], Yamada teaches the sensor is connected directly to the vaporizer [0068]. Although Yamada is silent to the exact position of the sensor relative to the vaporizer and reservoir it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the position of the remaining quantity sensor to at least partially cover the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material from the reservoir to the vaporizer in order to make sure the sensor is connected directly to the vaporizer as taught by Yamada [0068] in order to accurately measure the remaining aerosolizable material in the reservoir with a reasonable expectation of success. 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 21, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the first part is a first consumable part, e.g., see [0062], Yamada teaches the first part can be disposable (consumable) if desired.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the vaporizer comprises a heater, e.g., Load 33, see [0067] and FIG 3.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the flavoring material 41 comprises tobacco [0070].
Regarding Claim 24, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the aerosolizable material comprises a fluid (e.g., liquid [0065]).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024].
Claims 2, 4, 11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) in view of Sur (US 20180070632 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 Yamada teaches a sensor 34 as set forth above, Additionally Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024]. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the liquid level remaining quantity sensor 34 comprises an optical sensor.
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0075], [0073].
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024]. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the sensor comprises at least one of a capacitive sensor, resistive sensor, and an inductive sensor.
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0075], [0073].
Sur also teaches the optical sensor includes an inductive-capacitive resonant circuit. [0072] An ordinary artisan would appreciate than an optical sensor with an inductive capacitive resonant circuit is capable of sensing with induction and capacitance and is also an inductive and capacitive sensor. Therefore, Yamada modified by Sur teaches a capacitive and inductive sensor.
Regarding Claim 11, Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined amount corresponds to the reservoir from the first part being at least ½, 1/3, and 1/4 full with aerosolizable material.
However, Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, which is at least 1/3 or ¼ full [0075], [0073].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined amount is a first predetermined amount, and the signal is a first signal; wherein the control circuitry system is further configured to generate a second signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a second predetermined amount, wherein the second predetermined amount is less than the first predetermined amount.
However, Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0075], [0073].
Therefore, Yamada in view of Sur teaches the predetermined amount is a first predetermined amount (e.g., half full, [0073]), and
the signal is a first signal (e.g., it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when the sensor determines the liquid is full that a resulting signal is output by the sensor, e.g., first signal); wherein
the control circuitry system is further configured to generate a second signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a second predetermined amount (e.g., empty [0073], it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when the sensor determines the liquid is half full that a resulting signal is output by the sensor e.g., second signal, it would further be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a signal is produced for each of the predetermined half full amount and also empty [0073] in order for the user to determine a relative volume of aerosol precursor at the heating element [0073] and when e.g., to acquire more aerosol precursor or a refill), wherein
the second predetermined amount is less than the first predetermined amount (e.g., empty is less than ½ full).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the second predetermined amount corresponds to the reservoir being at least one of ½ full or 1/3 full with aerosolizable material.
Additionally, Although Sur fails to explicitly disclose the second predetermined amount corresponds to the reservoir being at least one of 1/2 full or 1/3 full with aerosolizable material.
However, Sur teaches the sensor measures when the aerosolizable material is low and specifically teaches examples of the sensor measuring full, half full and empty [0073] in order to prevent having no aerosol precursor at the heater to prevent damage [0058] and to order new aerosol precursor [0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the predetermined amount of Sur that Sur is configured to measure as Sur is configured to determine if the volume of the aerosol precursor is low. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to set the predetermined amount to be any amount between half full and empty such as about 1/3 full, in order to prevent having no aerosol precursor at the heater to prevent damage [0058] and to order new aerosol precursor [0080]
[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Sur teaches the second signal is a second indication to replace the second consumable part (e.g., Sur teaches the sensor indicates when the liquid level is low and specifically teaches However, Sur teaches the sensor measures when the aerosolizable material is low and specifically teaches examples of full, half full and empty. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the predetermined amount of Sur that Sur is configured to measure as Sur is configured to determine if the volume of the aerosol precursor is low so that a refill can be ordered [0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to set the predetermined amount to be any amount between half full and empty such as about 1/3 full [0073] so that a refill can be ordered [0080].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Additionally, Yamada teaches the second signal comprises a command to disable the operation of the aerosol provision system. E.g., Yamada is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a predetermined amount; wherein (see [0090], the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted., and if the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is at a certain threshold such as low or depleted or empty the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101], which disables the operation of the system, in order to prevent overheating of the heating element and the potential damage thereof [0058])
Regarding Claim 18, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Additionally, Yamada teaches the control circuitry is further configured to generate a third signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a third predetermined amount, wherein the third predetermined amount is less than the second predetermined amount. E.g., Sur teaches the third predetermined amount can be that the reservoir is empty [0073], the signal would be the corresponding information being generated by the sensor detecting the reservoir is empty. If the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is at a certain threshold such as low or depleted or empty (or otherwise in an obvious condition where it might be suitable to disable the heating element) the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101], which disables the operation of the system, in order to prevent overheating of the heating element and the potential damage thereof [0058]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the third signal comprises a command to replace the second consumable part and/or to disable the operation of the vaporizer.
E.g., Yamada is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a predetermined amount; wherein (see [0090], the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted., and if the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is at a certain threshold such as low or depleted or empty the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101], which disables the operation of the system, it would also be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to disable the system at a low level such as empty in order to prevent overheating of the heating element and the potential damage thereof [0058])
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) in view of Brown (US 20150336689 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada teaches a sensor 34 that detects the liquid level as set forth above and Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024]. However Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the sensor 34 comprises an acoustic sensor.
Brown discloses a device that uses acoustic sensors to detect vaporizable liquid levels that is known in the art and discloses acoustic sensors can be used to detect vaping liquid levels and discloses they are preferred when used for sensing vaporizable liquid levels in situations where some sensors such as conductive sensors can be shorted by vaping liquid. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada with the acoustic sensor of Brown in order to avoid the sensor being shorted by vaping liquid.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) in view of Smith (US 20190246695 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the aerosol provision system comprises a reservoir containing part (part 3 includes reservoir 31, see annotated FIG 3) wherein
the first part is connectable to the reservoir containing part (e.g., the reservoir 31 is connected inside the reservoir containing part 3); and wherein
the second consumable part (4) is connectable to the first part (3) [0062], see also FIG 3.
However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the reservoir containing part is reusable.
However, Smith teaches the reservoir should include a refill port and is refillable [0031]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reservoir of Yamada so that it can be refillable via a refill port in the reservoir containing part so that it can be reusable [0031], thus parts 2 and 3 are reusable. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would appreciate that a refillable reservoir containing part (e.g., part 3 coupled to part 2 are together a reusable part, see also annotated FIG 3 above and [0062]).
Claims 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) in view of Dahlman (US 20190269176 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the device detects when the liquid is depleted. (see [0090], the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, thus the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted/empty, and the device ceases operations by cutting power to the heating element [0101].)
However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the signal is at least one of: an optical signal, an acoustic signal.
Dahlman teaches the fluid level sensor can be used to generate a signal regarding the liquid level such as a low liquid level and teaches the signal can be an optical signal or an acoustical signal or both and is used to signal to the user that the fluid level is low in the reservoir [0018]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal of Yamada with the signal of Dahlman to ensure that the user receives the signal that the fluid level is low in the reservoir [0018].
Regarding Claim 12, Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yamada determines the amount of aerosolizable material in the reservoir as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024].
However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose an orientation sensor configured to output orientation sensor information, to the control circuitry, relating to the orientation of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to process the orientation sensor information from the orientation sensor, alongside the sensor information from the sensor, to determine the amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir.
However, Dahlman teaches a sensor that limits the operational alignment range of the device to +/- 45, 35, or 15 degrees in relation to a regular angular position around a longitudinal access. [0015] and that the sensor is adapted to produce a signal if the liquid level falls below a threshold due to operational alignment falling outside of this preset range. Therefore, Dahlman teaches the sensor includes an orientation sensor configured to output orientation sensor information, to the control circuitry, relating to the orientation of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to process the orientation sensor information from the orientation sensor, alongside the sensor information from the sensor, to determine the amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, e.g., as explained in [0015] the orientation information is used to ensure the orientation of the device falls within the thresholds to determine the amount of aerosolizable material in the liquid reservoir and is determined to indicate if the fluid level falls below the threshold.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the sensor 34 of Yamada to include an orientation sensor of Dahlman to use the sensor information from the sensor to determine the amount of aerosolizable material in the reservoir and the make sure the device is within the angular position requirements to determine if the orientation of the device is within suitable angular orientations. [0015]
Regarding Claim 13, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the aerosol provision system comprises a reusable part (see annotated FIG 3 above): wherein
the first part is connectable to the reusable part (see annotated FIG 3, the reusable part is connectable to the first part as illustrated, see also rejection of claim 1); wherein
the second consumable part is connectable to the first part (see annotated FIG 3); and wherein
the reusable part comprises the orientation sensor (Yamada teaches the sensor is in the reusable part as illustrated in annotated FIG 3, additionally Yamada modified by Dahlman teaches an orientation sensor, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada to include the orientation sensor in the same area as the sensor 34 of Yamada which is located in the reusable part of the device as illustrated in FIG 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747