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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 16, 19, 21-22, and 26-31 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 31 is new.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 03/16/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Feature A (pg. 7-8), Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have selected values from the disclosed ranges to arrive at the claimed distance between the upstream end of the first ventilation zone and upstream end of the article. The Examiner disagrees. Hepworth discloses the length of the aerosol generating substrate (3) is 10-100mm, the length of the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) is 30 to 50 mm, and the upstream end of the first ventilation zone is 18.625mm from the downstream end (2b) of the article which results in a distance between the upstream end and the ventilation zone being 21.375-131.375mm which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 37mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Disclosed ranges that overlap with the claimed ranges are considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)) and a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to select values within the ranges is not required. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article having an upstream end of a first ventilation zone less that is less than 37mm from an upstream end of the smoking article given the ranges of dimensions disclosed by Hepworth.
Regarding Feature B (pg. 8), Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have selected values from the disclosed ranges to arrive at the claimed perforation length and width. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant points to a specific example disclosed by Cunningham having a length of 0.5mm and width of 0.3mm which in part falls outside of the claimed ranges. Cunningham disclosing a specific example or preferred embodiment does not preclude the broader disclosure that the perforations may have a length and width between 0.01-1mm. Hepworth discloses the perforations are rectangular (as shown in Fig. 1) but is silent to the size of the perforations. Cunningham discloses perforations having a longitudinal and traverse dimension (a, b, Fig. 1, i.e. a length and width) where each dimension is 0.01 and 1mm (claim 1, col. 3 lines 30-31). Disclosed ranges that overlap with the claimed ranges are considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)) and a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to select values within the ranges is not required. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article having perforations having a length of 400 microns to 1 mm and width of 50 to 200 microns given the ranges disclosed by Cunningham.
Regarding Feature C (pg. 9), Applicant argues that Hepworth does not disclose a perforation hole having a length greater than its width because the drawings relied up in Hepworth (Fig. 1) are merely schematic illustrations that cannot be relied upon for disclosing a perforation having a length greater than the width. The Examiner disagrees. The perforations (12) in Fig. 1 of Hepworth are illustrated as slits having a length greater than the width. The Examiner did not rely on the drawings for specific dimensions, and patents are relevant for all that they contain (see MPEP 2123(I)).
Regarding Feature D (pg. 9-10), Applicant argues that Hepworth does not disclose the resistance to draw across the downstream section/mouthpiece is less than 10 mmH2O. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant asserts that Hepworth teaches the resistance to draw across the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) is at least 10 mmH2O. However, Hepworth discloses the resistance to draw across the mouthpiece (2) is less than 32 mmH2O, as stated in the previous office actions, and alternatively the resistance to draw of across the mouthpiece (2) can be at least 10 mmH2O ([0070]). Hepworth disclosing an alternative embodiment where the resistance to draw across the mouthpiece (2) is at least 10 mmH2O does not preclude the disclosure of an embodiment where the resistance to draw across the mouthpiece (2) is less than 32 mmH2O. While Hepworth discloses a higher resistance to draw may slow the aerosol to allow sufficient cooling, Hepworth does not require a minimum resistance to draw across the mouthpiece.
Regarding Feature E (pg. 10-11), Applicant argues that Hepworth discloses the resistance to draw across the mouthpiece is 15 to 40 mmH2O and since the substrate is longer than the mouthpiece the total resistance to draw across the mouthpiece cannot be less than 25mm H2O. The Examiner disagrees. Hepworth discloses several ranges for the draw resistance across the mouthpiece/downstream section ([0070]) but is silent to the draw resistance of the substrate or overall article. Hepworth does not require that the length of the substrate is greater than the mouthpiece ([0049], [0087]). In addition, there are numerous factors that impact resistance to draw and the resistance to draw across the substrate or mouthpiece is impacted by more than just the length and the resistance to draw of the substrate is not greater than the mouthpiece simply because it is longer.
Further regarding Feature E (pg. 10-11), Applicant argues that the disclosure of an aerosol generating article having a resistance to draw of less than 10mmWG in Malgat is not relevant to the article disclosed by Hepworth because the article of Hepworth is intended to be used with a different aerosol generating device. The Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to an aerosol generating article and the article disclosed by Hepworth is not limited to use with the device in the same disclosure. Malgat discloses a low resistance to draw to prevent the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate ([0008]) which is beneficial regardless of the device the article is used with.
The rejections below are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 16, 19, 21-22, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1) in view of Cunningham (US 5150725 A).
Regarding claim 16, Hepworth discloses an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), comprising:
An aerosol generating material (3) and a mouthpiece (2) downstream of the aerosol generating material (3, Fig. 1, [0058]). The section of the aerosol generating article (1) extending from the upstream end (2a) to the downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is considered to meet the claim limitation of a downstream section (Fig. 1, [0060]).
The resistance to draw of the mouthpiece is less than 32mmH2O ([0070]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
First and second parallel rows of perforations (12, “a first ventilation zone”) circumscribe the mouthpiece (2) and are positioned 17.925 mm and 18.625 mm respectively from the downstream end (2b) to provide ventilation into the mouthpiece (2, Fig. 1, [0085]). The downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is the same as the downstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
The first row of perorations positioned 17.925 mm from the downstream end (2b) is considered to be a downstream end of the first ventilation zone and the second row of perforations positioned 18.625 mm from the downstream end (2b) is considered to be an upstream end of the first ventilation zone.
The position of the first row (“a downstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) of 17.925 mm from the downstream end (2b) lies within the claimed range of 8-20mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The aerosol forming material (“an aerosol former”) comprises at least 10% by dry weight basis of the aerosol generating substate (3, [0086, 0102]).
Hepworth does not explicitly disclose that the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is less than 37mm from an upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1). However, Hepworth discloses:
A second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is positioned 18.625 mm from the downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2, Fig. 1, [0085]). The downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is the same as the downstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
The aerosol generating material (3) has a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) has a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]). The upstream end of the aerosol generating material (3) is the same as the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, would have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the position of the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations is 21.375-131.375mm from the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1) which overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 37mm and therefore is considered prima facie obvious.
Hepworth discloses the perforations are rectangular (as shown in Fig. 1).
Hepworth is silent to the dimensions of the perforations.
However, Cunningham, directed to a smoking rod/cigarette (abstract, Fig. 5), discloses:
Rectangular perforations (8) circumscribing the filter portion (1) of the smoking rod (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 46-52)
The rectangular perforations are between 0.01 and 1mm in each dimension (claim 1, col. 3 lines 30-31) which reasonably suggests perforations with a range of lengths and widths that overlaps with the claimed length and width ranges and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Dimensions below 0.01mm are inconvenient to make and provide inadequate ventilation whereas dimensions above 1mm are also inconvenient to make and provide excessive ventilation (col. 5 lines 8-13)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hepworth by providing the rectangular perforations with a width and length of 0.01 to 1mm as taught by Cunningham because both Hepworth and Cunningham are directed to smoking articles, Cunningham teaches the dimensions of 0.01 to 1mm are convenient to make and provide appropriate ventilation, and this involves applying a known ventilation hole dimensions to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Hepworth does not explicitly disclose that the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is at least 20mm from an upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1). However, Hepworth discloses:
A second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is positioned 18.625 mm from the downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2, Fig. 1, [0085]). The downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is the same as the downstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
The aerosol generating material (3) has a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2) downstream of the aerosol generating material (3) has a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]). The upstream end of the aerosol generating material (3) is the same as the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, would have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the position of the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations is 21.375-131.375mm from the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1) which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 20mm and therefore is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Hepworth discloses the aerosol generating article has a ventilation level of 50 to 85% ([0085]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 80% is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Hepworth discloses rows of perforations (12) around the cooling segment (8) of the smoking article (1, Fig. 1, [0078, 0085]). Fig. 1 appears to disclose between 5 and 40 perforations in the first row of perforation holes.
Regarding claim 27, Hepworth discloses a cooling segment (8) comprising a hollow tubular segment (“an un obstructed airflow pathway”) provided immediately downstream of the aerosol generating material (3) extending to the upstream end (“a downstream end of the downstream section”) of a body of material (6, Fig. 1, [0078]).
Regarding claim 28, Hepworth discloses a cooling segment (8) comprising a hollow tubular segment (“an unobstructed airflow pathway”) provided immediately downstream of the aerosol generating material (3) extending to an upstream end (“a downstream end of the downstream section”) of a body of material (6, Fig. 1, [0078]).
The inner diameter of the cooling segment (8) is considered to be the diameter of the unobstructed airflow pathway.
Hepworth discloses the internal diameter of a hollow tubular element (4) at the downstream end (2b) of the aerosol generating article (1) is greater than 3mm ([0068]). While Hepworth is silent to the inner diameter of the cooling segment (8), the cooling segment (8) is shown to have a larger inner diameter than the hollow tubular element (4) in Fig. 1 which reasonably suggests the inner diameter of the cooling element (8) is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 3mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 29, Hepworth discloses the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) comprises a hollow tubular element (8, Fig. 1, [0075]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1) in view of Cunningham (US 5150725 A) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of England (US 20190116875 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Hepworth discloses rows of perforations (12) around the cooling segment (8) of the smoking article (1, Fig. 1, [0078, 0085]). Fig. 1 appears to disclose between 5 and 40 perforations in the first row of perforation holes, as stated above.
Alternatively, Hepworth is silent to the specific number of perforations circumscribing the downstream section.
However, England, directed to a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
A smoking article (301) comprising a ventilation region having a rows of ventilation holes (317) arranged circumferentially around a cooling segment (307) of the smoking article (301, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0044]).
Each row of ventilation holes (317) may have between 12 and 36 holes ([0045]). The range of 12 to 36 holes per row taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The number of ventilation holes (317) can be varied to adjust the ventilation provided to the article ([0045]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hepworth, in view of Cunningham, by providing 12 to 36 ventilation holes in each row as taught by England because both Hepworth and England are directed to smoking articles, England teaches varying the number of ventilation holes to adjust the ventilation provided to the article, and this involves applying a known number of ventilation holes to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1) in view of Cunningham (US 5150725 A) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Malgat (US 20160331032 A1, as cited on IDS dated 04/04/2023).
Regarding claim 26, Hepworth discloses the pressure drop across the mouthpiece (2, “a downstream section”) is less than 32 mmH2O ([0070]).
Hepworth is silent to the total draw resistance of the smoking article.
However, Malgat, directed to an aerosol generating article (abstract), discloses:
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article is less than 10mm WG, preferably close to zero ([0109]). The range taught by the prior art lies withing the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article may be close to zero to prevent the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate ([0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hepworth, in view of Cunningham, by modifying the smoking article to have a resistance to draw of less than 10mmH2O as taught by Malgat because both Hepworth and Malgat are directed to smoking article, Malgat teaches the sufficiently low resistance to draw prevents the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate, and this involves applying a known resistance to draw to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1) in view of Cunningham (US 5150725 A) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Hepworth discloses a hollow tubular element (4) having an internal diameter greater than 3mm ([0068]) and a cooling segment (8) illustrated as having a greater internal diameter than the hollow tubular element (4) which reasonably suggests the inner diameter of the cooling segment (8)/diameter of the unobstructed airflow pathway is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 3mm, as explained above.
Alternatively, Hepworth is silent to the specific inner diameter of the cooling segment (8).
However, Seo, directed to a smoking article ([0001]), discloses:
A smoking article (100) comprising a smoking material portion (110), a support structure (120), a cooling structure (130), a mouthpiece portion (140), and a wrapper (150, Fig. 5, [0074])
The inner diameter of the cooling structure (130) may be 1.5 times to 3 times larger than the inner diameter of the support structure (120) to maximize the cooling effect and increase the amount of atomization and the transfer amount of nicotine (Fig. 5, [0092]).
The inner diameter of the cooling structure (130) is 3.75 mm to 7.5 mm ([0092]). The range taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range of at least 3mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hepworth, in view of Cunningham, by modifying the cooling structure to have an inner diameter of 3.75 mm to 7.5 mm as taught by Seo because both Hepworth and Seo are directed to ventilated smoking articles, Seo teaches the inner diameter of the cooling structure maximizes the cooling effect and increases the amount of atomization and the transfer amount of nicotine, and this involves applying a known diameter of a cooling structure to a similar ventilated smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Hepworth discloses an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), comprising:
An aerosol generating material (3) and a mouthpiece (2) downstream of the aerosol generating material (3, Fig. 1, [0058]). The section of the aerosol generating article extending from the upstream end (2a) to the downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is considered to meet the claim limitation of a downstream section (Fig. 1, [0060]).
The resistance to draw of the mouthpiece is less than 32mmH2O ([0070]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
First and second parallel rows of perforations (12, “a first ventilation zone”) circumscribe the mouthpiece (2) and are positioned 17.925 mm and 18.625 mm respectively from the downstream end (2b) to provide ventilation into the mouthpiece (2, Fig. 1, [0085]). The downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is the same as the downstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
The first row of perorations positioned 17.925 mm from the downstream end (2b) is considered to be a downstream end of the first ventilation zone and the second row of perforations positioned 18.625 mm from the downstream end (2b) is considered to be an upstream end of the first ventilation zone.
The position of the first row (“a downstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) of 17.925 mm from the downstream end (2b) lies within the claimed range of 8-20mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The aerosol forming material (“an aerosol former”) comprises at least 10% by dry weight basis of the aerosol generating substate (3, [0086, 0102]).
Hepworth discloses the perforations are rectangular (as illustrated in Fig. 1) and have a length that is greater than the width.
Hepworth does not explicitly disclose that the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is less than 37mm from an upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1). However, Hepworth discloses:
A second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is positioned 18.625 mm from the downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2, Fig. 1, [0085]). The downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is the same as the downstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
The aerosol generating material (3) has a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) has a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]). The upstream end of the aerosol generating material (3) is the same as the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, would have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the position of the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations is 21.375-131.375mm from the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1) which overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 37mm and therefore is considered prima facie obvious.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1) in view of Malgat (US 20160331032 A1, as cited on IDS dated 04/04/2023).
Regarding claim 31, Hepworth discloses an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), comprising:
An aerosol generating material (3) and a mouthpiece (2) downstream of the aerosol generating material (3, Fig. 1, [0058]). The section of the aerosol generating article extending from the upstream end (2a) to the downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is considered to meet the claim limitation of a downstream section (Fig. 1, [0060]).
The resistance to draw of the mouthpiece is less than 32mmH2O ([0070]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
First and second parallel rows of perforations (12, “a first ventilation zone”) circumscribe the mouthpiece (2) and are positioned 17.925 mm and 18.625 mm respectively from the downstream end (2b) to provide ventilation into the mouthpiece (2, Fig. 1, [0085]). The downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is the same as the downstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
The first row of perorations positioned 17.925 mm from the downstream end (2b) is considered to be a downstream end of the first ventilation zone and the second row of perforations positioned 18.625 mm from the downstream end (2b) is considered to be an upstream end of the first ventilation zone.
The position of the first row (“a downstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) of 17.925 mm from the downstream end (2b) lies within the claimed range of 8-20mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The aerosol forming material (“an aerosol former”) comprises at least 10% by dry weight basis of the aerosol generating substate (3, [0086, 0102]).
Hepworth discloses the perforations are rectangular (as illustrated in Fig. 1) and have a length that is greater than the width.
Hepworth does not explicitly disclose that the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is less than 37mm from an upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1). However, Hepworth discloses:
A second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations (12) is positioned 18.625 mm from the downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2, Fig. 1, [0085]). The downstream end (2b) of the mouthpiece (2) is the same as the downstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
The aerosol generating material (3) has a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) has a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]). The upstream end of the aerosol generating material (3) is the same as the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, would have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the position of the second row (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) of perforations is 21.375-131.375mm from the upstream end of the aerosol generating article (1) which overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 37mm and therefore is considered prima facie obvious.
Further regarding claim 31, Hepworth discloses the pressure drop across the mouthpiece (2, “a downstream section”) is less than 32 mmH2O ([0070]).
Hepworth is silent to the total draw resistance of the smoking article.
However, Malgat, directed to an aerosol generating article (abstract), discloses:
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article is less than 10mm WG, preferably close to zero ([0109]). The range taught by the prior art lies withing the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article may be close to zero to prevent the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate ([0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hepworth, by modifying the smoking article to have a resistance to draw of less than 10mmH2O as taught by Malgat because both Hepworth and Malgat are directed to smoking article, Malgat teaches the sufficiently low resistance to draw prevents the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate, and this involves applying a known resistance to draw to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST.
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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights