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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 27 January 2026:
Claims 29-48 are pending
Claims 45-48 are withdrawn
Claims 1-28 are cancelled
Claims 31, 33, 35, 37 and 40 are amended
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 27 January 2026 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claims 31, 33, 35, 37 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn due to amendments of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that the proximal distance range recited in Claim 29 is critical to the Applicant’s invention which makes it a non-obvious modification. Applicant specifically states that the proximal distance constructs a cold zone that the inventors have found to reduce condensation and also avoid heating other components while maintaining the same level of aerosol delivery. In particular, it is noted that this is maintained up to a 3 mm cold zone, wherein the upper limit of 4 mm is observed to have an approximately 20% in delivery and thus, making the range critical.
Examiner notes that while Applicant has made arguments in support of unexpected results that the claimed invention is not obvious over the cited prior art, Applicant fails to provide the necessary evidence and documents to complete Applicant’s argument. Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not disclose the data or any detail regarding the testing that the inventors have performed that supports the claimed 20% delivery drop at the 4mm range; no affidavit has been filed the Applicant or results shown in the specification and drawings.
Furthermore, while Applicant makes claim to a range of 0.1 to 3 mm proximal distance for maintaining aerosol delivery (i.e., the critical range where the cold zone functions properly), the actual range recited in the claims is 0.1 to 4 mm which includes a distance that is undesirable according to the Applicant’s arguments. Therefore, the recited range does not align with Applicant’s arguments for the critical range which should be 0.1 to 3 mm.
On Page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Reevell’ 390 does not disclose a proximal end with a proximal distance specifically for a cooling zone because Reevell’ 390 primarily notes that the effective heating region extends past the expected location of the substrate which would discourage a cold zone region.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Applicant merely recites one potential construction of the heating element in relation to the heating chamber, where further examples of the length and width of the heating element is presented. In fact, Reevell’ 390 specifically states that in various embodiments, the length of the heating element can either extend over the entire length of the side wall, or it could extend only over a part of the length of the side wall of the heating chamber [0112], indicating that said heater length is not fixed to the dimensions as Applicant is claiming and instead, can be adjustable.
As such, it would be reasonable for one ordinarily skilled in the art to adjust the distances at either end of the heating element to arrive at the Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 to 4 mm because other disclosures in the prior art such as Fallon has disclosed ranges that can overlap with the Applicant’s claimed range. Thus, one ordinarily skilled in the art, when applying a specific range for the proximal distance as disclosed in Fallon to a similar construction disclosed in Reevell’ 390, could adjust and routinely optimize to arrive at the range disclosed by the Applicant.
On Pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that one ordinarily skilled in the art would need to make a highly specific and non-obvious modification between Reevell’ 390 and Fallon because Fallon does not disclose a heating element around a heating chamber because the heating element forms the chamber and that there is no disclosure of approximal distance; that Applicant is purely making speculations about the heating element and heating chamber.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because if the heating element wraps to form a heating chamber, then one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably broadly interpret it as the heating element is arranged around the heating chamber since it naturally must do so to form the heating chamber itself.
Additionally, the proximal distances cited from Fallon are not pure speculation because, as stated in the prior Office Action, Fallon shows a first and second length (see Figs. 7-8) which do not overlap with the inserted aerosol-generating material and thus, is equivalent to a proximal distance. Since Fallon discloses the specific lengths of the first and second lengths, they can be correlated to the lengths of a proximal end/distance and therefore, obviousness would be established due to the overlapping ranges disclosed in Fallon in relation to the Applicant’s own disclosed range.
On Pages 10-13 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Examiner failed to establish obviousness of the claimed invention and uses hindsight reasoning. Examiner respectfully disagrees and note that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ 2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Here, the prior office action takes into consideration the knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art of aerosol-generating articles, as evidenced by the prior art, to conclude that one would be motivated to modify an aerosol-generating article with elements of an airflow/perforation component for an aerosol-generating article from another prior art.
Moreover, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. However, so long as any judgment on obviousness takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the prior office action takes into consideration the knowledge which was available to one of ordinary skill in the art of perforation/airflow control mechanisms for aerosol-generating articles, clearly exemplified by the disclosed prior art, at the time of the claimed invention to conclude that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to affect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Accordingly, since the applicants have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claims are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because they are no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions
resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
The following rejections are maintained.
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 29-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (Publication No. US20210307390A1, henceforth referred as Reevell '390) in view of Fallon et al (Publication No. US20220218033A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Reevell ‘390 discloses an aerosol generation device with a heater assembly comprising:
an elongate heating chamber (108) configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate (see Fig. 4; [0070]; heating chamber shown to be elongate in the vertical direction;
and a heating element (Heater 124) arranged around the elongate heating chamber (see Figs. 6-7; [0100, 112]; the heater 124 comprises of the heating element 164 which is disclosed to be disposed on the outer surface around the heating chamber);
wherein the elongate heating chamber has a first length and the heating element has a second length (see annotated Figure 4);
wherein the first length of the elongate heating chamber is greater than the second length of the heating element, such that there is a proximal distance between a proximal end of the elongate heating chamber and a proximal end of the heating element (see annotated Figure 4);
PNG
media_image1.png
973
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reevell ‘390 does not disclose the proximal distance is between 0.1 millimeter and 4 millimeters. However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Reevell ‘390 discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112]. For example, the heater could extend only over a part of the length of the side wall [0012], which would subsequently lead to a proximate distance between the chamber’s length and the heater’s length, or the heater could extend the entire length of the side wall [0012], leading to no proximate distance due as the heater and chamber would have the same length.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take Reevell ‘390’s disclosure regarding the heater’s extension length being a partial or entire length of the heating chamber’s side wall length, to reasonably routinely experiment with the heater length such that the proximal distance between the two lengths is between 0.1 millimeter and 4 millimeters.
Additionally, Fallon, directed to an aerosol-provision device, discloses a heating assembly comprising a heating element (1200) and heating chamber (1010), wherein the heating element’s length is designed such that when an aerosol-generating material is inserted into the heating chamber, a portion of said material does not overlap with the heating element such that it stays unheated, implying that the length of the heating element (i.e., second length) is less than that of the heating chamber (first length) (see Figs. 7-8; [0011-0012, 0135, 0138-0140]; discloses the heating chamber as an article-receiving chamber; discloses that the device can be configured such that the heating element does not overlap with parts of the aerosol-generating material when fully inserted in the chamber).
This distance where there is no overlap with the heating element can occur on either the distal end as a distal distance (First distance 1001) and/or proximal end as a proximal distance (Second distance 1002) ranging from 2-10 mm, which may each act to collect and/or absorb condensation that might build up within the device (see Fig. 7a-b; [0145-0148]). The claimed proximal distance range of 1-4 mm overlap with the range disclosed by Fallon and are therefore considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the proximal distance disclosed by Reevell ‘390 to have an overlapping range of 2-4 mm as disclosed by Fallon, as both are directed to a an aerosol provision device, where Fallon teaches the advantage of having a proximal distance such that there are unheated portions of the aerosol-generating material when said material is inserted in the heating chamber, to collect and/or absorb condensation that might build up within the device [0147].
Regarding Claim 30, Modified Reevell ‘390 discloses a proximal distance (Fallon, 1002) that ranges from 2-10 mm which overlaps with the claimed range (Fallon, [0148]). The claimed proximal distance range of 1-3 mm overlap with the range disclosed by Fallon and are therefore considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 31, Modified Reevell ‘390 discloses a proximal distance (i.e., first distance) of 2 millimeters (Fallon, [0148]; discloses the distance can be equal to 2 mm).
Regarding Claim 32, Modified Reevell ‘390 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an inner diameter of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is between 2 and 4. However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Modified Reevell ‘390 discloses the proximal distance ranges from 2-4 mm (see Claim 29 rejection for overlapping ranges) and also discloses that the inner diameter of the elongate heating chamber (108) is 10 mm or less (Reevell, [0126]). Modified Reevell also discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to take the proximal distance lengths and inner diameter dimension disclosed by Modified Reevell ‘390 to routinely optimize the heating element length and heating chamber diameter such that the ratio of an inner diameter of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is between 2 and 4.
Regarding Claim 33, Modified Reevell ‘390 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an inner diameter of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is 2.68. However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Modified Reevell discloses the proximal distance ranges from 2-4 mm (see Claim 29 rejection for overlapping ranges) and also discloses that the inner diameter of the elongate heating chamber (108) is 10 mm or less (Reevell, [0126]). Modified Reevell also discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to take the proximal distance lengths and inner diameter dimension disclosed by Modified Reevell ‘390 to routinely optimize the heating element length and heating chamber diameter such that the ratio of an inner diameter of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is 2.68.
Regarding Claim 34, Modified Reevell ‘390 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a length of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is between 5.5 and 22. However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Modified Reevell ‘390 discloses the proximal distance ranges from 2-4 mm (see Claim 29 rejection for overlapping ranges) and also discloses that the length of the elongate heating chamber (108) is 30-40 mm (Reevell, [0088]). Modified Reevell ‘390 also discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to take the proximal distance and heating chamber lengths disclosed by Modified Reevell ‘390 to routinely optimize the heating element and heating chamber length such that the ratio of a length of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is between 5.5 and 22.
Regarding Claim 35, Modified Reevell ‘390 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a length of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is 11. However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Modified Reevell ‘390 discloses the proximal distance ranges from 2-4 mm (see Claim 29 rejection for overlapping ranges) and also discloses that the length of the elongate heating chamber (108) is 30-40 mm (Reevell ‘390, [0088]). Modified Reevell ‘390 also discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to take the proximal distance and heating chamber lengths disclosed by Modified Reevell ‘390 to routinely optimize the heating element and heating chamber length such that the ratio of a length of the elongate heating chamber (108) to the proximal distance is 11.
Regarding Claim 36, Modified Reevell ‘390 does not explicitly disclose the proximal distance is between 6 percent and 14 percent of a length of the elongate heating chamber (108). However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Reevell ‘390 discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112]. For example, the heater could extend only over a part of the length of the side wall [0012], which would subsequently lead to a proximate distance between the chamber’s length and the heater’s length, or the heater could extend the entire length of the side wall [0012], leading to no proximate distance due as the heater and chamber would have the same length.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take Reevell ‘390’s disclosure regarding the heater’s extension length being a partial or entire length of the heating chamber’s side wall length, to reasonably routinely experiment with the heater length such that the proximal distance is between 6 percent and 14 percent of a length of the elongate heating chamber.
Regarding Claim 37, Modified Reevell ‘390 does not explicitly disclose the proximal distance is 9 percent of a length of the elongate heating chamber (108). However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Reevell ‘390 discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112]. For example, the heater could extend only over a part of the length of the side wall [0012], which would subsequently lead to a proximate distance between the chamber’s length and the heater’s length, or the heater could extend the entire length of the side wall [0012], leading to no proximate distance due as the heater and chamber would have the same length.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take Reevell ‘390’s disclosure regarding the heater’s extension length being a partial or entire length of the heating chamber’s side wall length, to reasonably routinely experiment with the heater length such that the proximal distance is 9 percent of a length of the elongate heating chamber.
Regarding Claim 38, Reevell ‘390 further discloses a distal distance between a distal end of the elongate heating chamber (108) and a distal end of the heating element (124) (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
1028
885
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 39, Reevell ‘390 does not explicitly disclose the distal distance is between 1 millimeter and 6 millimeters. However, it should be noted that where 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).
In this case, Reevell discloses that the heater/heating element can extend in varying lengths over the length of the side wall (126) which forms the heating chamber [0112]. For example, the heater could extend only over a part of the length of the side wall [0012], which would subsequently lead to a proximate distance between the chamber’s length and the heater’s length, or the heater could extend the entire length of the side wall [0012], leading to no proximate distance due as the heater and chamber would have the same length.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take Reevell’s disclosure regarding the heater’s extension length being a partial or entire length of the heating chamber’s side wall length, to reasonably routinely experiment with the heater length such that the distal distance between the two lengths is between 1 millimeter and 6 millimeters.
Additionally, Fallon, directed to an aerosol-provision device, discloses a heating assembly comprising a heating element (1200) and heating chamber (1010), wherein the heating element’s length is designed such that when an aerosol-generating material is inserted into the heating chamber, a portion of said material does not overlap with the heating element such that it stays unheated, implying that the length of the heating element (i.e., second length) is less than that of the heating chamber (first length) (see Figs. 7-8; [0011-0012, 0135, 0138-0140]; discloses the heating chamber as an article-receiving chamber; discloses that the device can be configured such that the heating element does not overlap with parts of the aerosol-generating material when fully inserted in the chamber).
This distance where there is no overlap with the heating element can occur on either the distal end as a distal distance (First distance 1001) and/or proximal end as a proximal distance (Second distance 1002) ranging from 2-10 mm, which may each act to collect and/or absorb condensation that might build up within the device (see Fig. 7a-b; [0145-0148]). The claimed distal dance range of 1-6 mm overlap with the range disclosed by Fallon and are therefore considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the distal distance disclosed by Reevell ‘390 to have an overlapping range of 2-6 mm as disclosed by Fallon, as both are directed to a an aerosol provision device, where Fallon teaches the advantage of having a distal distance such that there are unheated portions of the aerosol-generating material when said material is inserted in the heating chamber, to collect and/or absorb condensation that might build up within the device [0147].
Regarding Claim 40, Modified Reevell ‘390 further discloses the distal distance (i.e., second distance) is 3 millimeters (Fallon, [0148]; discloses a distal distance of 2-10 mm, which the claimed distal distance falls within).
Regarding Claim 41, Reevell ‘390 further discloses the elongate heating chamber (108) is a hollow tube (see Figs. 10a-b; [0071]; the heating chamber is illustrated as a hollow tube).
Regarding Claim 42, Reevell ‘390 further discloses the elongate heating chamber (108) comprises stainless steel [0067].
Claim 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (Publication No. US20210307390A1, henceforth referred as Reevell '390) in view of Fallon et al (Publication No. US20220218033A1) as applied to Claim 29 above, and further in view of Reevell (Publication No. US20220377853A1, henceforth referred as Reevell '853).
Regarding Claim 43, Reevell ‘390 further discloses the heating element (124) comprises one or more electrically conductive tracks (150) on a substrate (Backing Film 166) formed from polyimide material (see Fig. 7; [0100-0102]). Reevell does not explicitly state that the substrate (166) is electrically insulating.
However, Reevell ‘853, directed to a heater (i.e., heating element), discloses the heater comprise a flexible electrically insulating backing film (i.e., substrate), wherein the film can be a polyimide film [Abstract, 0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the polyimide backing film disclosed by Reevell ‘390 can be considered an electrically insulating backing film (i.e., substrate) as evidenced by Reevell ‘853, as both are directed to a heater with a backing film substrate, where Reevell ‘853 explicitly notes that said backing film substrate of polyimide is an electrically insulating substrate material [0014].
Regarding Claim 44, Reevell ‘390 further discloses the heating element (124) is wrapped around the elongate heating chamber (108) ([0100-0102, 0118]; discloses that the heater 124 is wrapped around the heating chamber). Reevell also discloses that the heating element comprises a polyimide backing film substrate Reevell does not explicitly state that the heating element (124) is flexible.
However, Reevell ‘853, directed to a heater (i.e., heating element), discloses the heater comprise a flexible electrically insulating polyimide backing film which allows improved precision and greater freedom in shape of the heating element ([Abstract, 0014, 0036]; the backing film is a part of the overall heating element which implies that the heating element component is also flexible like its flexible backing film sub-component).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the heating element disclosed by Reevell ‘390 using a flexible electrically insulating backing film (i.e., substrate) to create a flexible heating element as disclosed by Reevell ‘853, as both are directed to a heater with a backing film substrate, where Reevell ‘853 teaches the advantage of using flexible components to construct the heating element to provide improved precision and greater freedom in shape of the heating element [0036].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights