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 .
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.
Priority
The clean version of Applicant’s claims filed on May 5, 2023 (“Claims”) was compared to the original claims filed on May 5, 2023 (“Original Claims”), the clean specification filed on May 5, 2023 (“Clean Specification”), the claims in the 371 of WO 2022096860 filed October 29, 2021 (“PCT Claims”), the claims in Foreign Priority GB2017532.9 filed November 5, 2020 (“Foreign Priority Claims”) and the specification in Foreign Priority GB2017532.9 filed November 5, 2020 (“Foreign Priority Specification”), the claims in Foreign Priority GB2114586.7 filed October 12, 2021 (“Foreign Priority Claims”) and the specification in Foreign Priority GB2114586.7 filed October 12, 2021 (“Foreign Priority Specification”). The results of the comparison are summarized as follows:
Claims 1–17 and 27 have priority back to November 5, 2020 because they are fully supported by either the Foreign Priority Claims or the Foreign Priority Specification of GB2017532.9.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, and 9-12 are amended. Claim 26 is cancelled. Claims 18-25 were previously withdrawn. Claim 27 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants remarks and amendments filed April 30, 2026 with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicants remarks and amendments filed April 30, 2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said claim rejections have been withdrawn. However, due to amendment, a 112(d) rejection of claim 9 is now required and entered below.
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed April 30, 2026 with respect to the § 103 rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are to preferred embodiments of Jarriault. Preferred embodiments do not limit the teachings of Jarriault and the reference cannot teach away from its own teaches. In other words, Jarriault teaches the resulting slurry mixture can have a water content of 10 to 90 % prior to casting the sheet, therefore, Jarriault teaches amounts of water for the slurry mixture that overlap the claimed invention.
Applicant’s remarks to ¶[0044] are not persuasive as these remarks are to speculative benefits to the water content range. As the prior art directs one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed process with overlapping water amounts, burden shifts to Applicant to demonstrate the speculative benefits are unexpectedly better than what would have been expected from one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jarriault in the lower part of the slurry water content range (i.e. less than 55 % of the preferred embodiments but more than 10 % as taught by Jarriault). Applicant’s examples do not address differences in water content or any processing differences at all to provide a demonstration of the allegedly unexpected benefit of the recited water content range.
Finally, Applicant’s remarks to the water content of the final sheet are not persuasive as the claimed invention makes no mention of drying power and also the larger disclose of Jarriault suggests the slurry can have as little as 10 wt% water content as above. Therefore, when practicing Jarriault one of ordinary skill in the art would expect less drying time / energy use to get to the targeted water content in the final sheet as there is less water to evaporate to get this final water content when starting at the lower end of the 10 wt% water in the slurry range taught by Jarriault.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 requires “wherein the first and optional second binders are the same or different”. The claim is in improper dependent form because the binder can only be “the same or different” from itself or the optional binder as there is no other option. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 8-14, 17, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarriault et al. (WO 2019/129493, cited on May 5, 2023 IDS) in view of Deforel et al. (US 2021/0329964).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Jarriault discloses a process for preparing an aerosol generating material (Abstract, Fig. 1, pg. 19, l. 11-13 ; a method for producing a sheet or a homogenized material containing alkaloids; reading over the preamble limitation of claim 1) comprising:
forming a first composition comprising a binder and an aerosol former (Fig. 1, pg. 22, l. 6-8; the method may include a suspension preparation step 104, where an aerosol-former 7 and a binder 8 are premixed; reading over a first composition of claim 1);
forming a second composition comprising a filler (Fig. 1, pg. 22, l. 4-6; a pulp preparation step 103 where cellulose fibers 5 and water are pulped to uniformly disperse and refine the fibers in water;, the cellulose fibers read over the second composition filler limitation of claim 1);
forming a third composition comprising a tobacco material (Fig. 1, pg. 19, l. 14-16; In a first step 100, a mixture of a material containing alkaloids, a reducing sugar and a first additive is formed. The material containing alkaloids is a tobacco material containing the alkaloid nicotine; the mixture includes 64-82% tobacco powder (percent in weight of the total mixture), reading over the tobacco material limitation of the second composition of claim 1).
Jarriault does not explicitly disclose combining the first composition and the second composition to form a mixture of the first composition and the second composition. However, Jarriault discloses combining the first, the second, and the third compositions in the slurry preparation step 102. The slurry preparation step 102 comprises transferring the premix solution of the aerosol-former and binder to a slurry mixing tank and transferring the pulp (i.e., the filler) to the slurry mixing tank and further dosing the extruded tobacco powder exiting the extruder (see step 101 sub-step 301; pg. 20, l. 14-22) into the slurry mixing tank with the pulp, and the guar – glycerol suspension (i.e., the binder – aerosol-former). Additional tobacco powder may be added as well. More preferably, this step also includes processing the slurry with a high shear mixer to ensure uniformity and homogeneity of the slurry (pg. 22, l. 11-15). Jarriault further discloses preferably, the slurry comprises from about 1 percent to about 10 percent in dry weight basis of the binder (pg. 15, l. 1-4); the amount of cellulose fibers added to the material containing alkaloids is comprised of between about 1 percent and about 7 percent in dry weight basis of the total weight of the slurry (pg. 16, l. 19-22). Therefore, the combined binder plus cellulose fibers in the slurry is from about 2 percent to about 17 percent in dry weight basis of the total weight of the slurry. The slurry formed in the preparation step 102 reads over a mixture comprising the first binder, and the second binder and the filler of claim 1.
The above combined binder plus cellulose fibers from about 2 percent to about 17 percentage in dry weight basis reads over a total amount of between about 5 % and 15% by weight of the first binder, the second binder and the filler of claim 1 since in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding “the second binder” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 1, the second binder is first recited as “optionally” in lines 3-4 of the claim, therefore Jarriault still properly reads over the second binder of claim 1.
Jarriault further discloses processing the mixture of the first composition and second composition to form the aerosol generating material (Fig. 1, pg. 23, l. 5-7; In order to form the sheet including the homogenized tobacco material, preferably the slurry formed according to step 102 is cast in a casting step 105; reading over processing the mixture of the first composition and the second composition for form the aerosol generating material of claim 1.)
Regarding the claimed mixture is formed by combining two compositions as compared to the prior art combines three compositions to form the mixture, Applicant does not supply any evidence demonstrating the forming of the mixture from two compositions serves a unique or critical function or purpose, or achieves results that would have been unexpected.
Regarding the claimed mixture having a water content of about 5% to about 40% by weight of the mixture of the first composition and the second composition (claim 1) and adding water to the mixture of the first composition and the second composition to provide the water content of about 5% to about 40% by weight of the mixture (claim 27), Jarriault discloses preferably, the slurry has a water content of between about 10 percent and about 90 percent per weight before the step of forming the sheet (pg. 15, l. 11-16), which reads over the claimed mixture water content of about 5% to about 40% by weight since in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Jarriault further discloses the slurry preparation step 102 also includes a step of water of water addition, where water is added to the slurry to obtain the desired viscosity and water content (pg. 22, l. 19-21), which suggests the water content and the viscosity can be adjusted as desired by a person having ordinary skill in the art. This reads over the water content limitation of claim 1 and reads over claim 27.
Deforel teaches an aerosol-generating article is provided, including an aerosol-generating substrate including homogenised plant material formed of particulate plant material, the particulate plant material including between 10 percent and 40 percent by weight clove particles and between 60 percent and 90 percent by weight tobacco particles, based on dry weight of the particulate plant material, and the homogenised plant material further including an aerosol former and a binder (Abstract). Deforel teaches a method of making a homogenized plant material for use as an aerosol-generating substrate in a heated aerosol-generating article. To form homogenized plant material, a mixture comprising particulate plant material, water and an aerosol former is formed. A sheet is formed from the mixture, and the sheet is then dried ([0099]). The mixture may be a slurry which may preferably have a dry weight of between 5 percent and 95 percent ([0101]). Alternatively, the mixture may be a dough which as used herein, a “dough” is an aqueous mixture with a relatively high dry weight. A dough as used in the method herein may preferably have a dry weight of at least 60 percent (e.g., 40 percent water by weight), more preferably at least 70 percent (e.g., 30 percent water by weight) ([0102]). Further, Deforel teaches if the homogenized mixture is a dough, the dough may be extruded in the form of a sheet, strands, or strips prior to the step of drying the extruded mixture. Preferably, the dough may be extruded in the form of a sheet ([0106]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to practice the invention of Jarriault in the lower part of the slurry water content range (i.e. less than 55 % of the preferred embodiments but more than 10 % as taught by Jarriault).
This reads over claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Jarriault discloses the mixture of the first and the second composition has a volatile content of greater than about 20 wt% (pg. 5, l. 5-6; preferably, the slurry comprises from about 5 percent to about 30 percent in dry weight basis of the aerosol-former (e.g., volatile content) which completely encompasses the claimed amount of greater than about 20 wt% volatile content. This reads over claim 4.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Jarriault discloses the sheet including the homogenized material containing alkaloids has a water content (e.g., volatile content) of between about 7 percent and about 15 percent per weight after drying. Therefore the sheet including the homogenized material containing alkaloids has a lower volatile content than the slurry of Jarriault (see rejection of claim 4); reading over claim 5. The prior art water content of between about 7 percent and about 15 percent per weight after drying is encompassed by the claimed rang of less than about 20 wt% volatile content of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Jarriault discloses in first step 100, a mixture of particles of a material containing alkaloids is a tobacco material containing the alkaloid nicotine (pg. 19, l. 14-17). This reads over the particulate tobacco limitation of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Jarriault does not explicitly disclose the tobacco material particle size distribution (D90) of 160-450 µm.
Deforel teaches some processes such as casting and paper making are more suitable for producing homogenized plant material in sheet form wherein the casting process it based on casting a slurry comprising plant particles (for example clove particles or tobacco particles and clove particles in a mixture) and a binder (for example guar gum) onto a supportive surface, drying the slurry and removing the dried sheet from the supportive surface ([0012]). The tobacco material encompasses ground or powdered tobacco leaf lamina, ground or powdered tobacco leaf stems, tobacco dust, tobacco fines, and other particulate tobacco by-products formed during the treating, handling and shipping of tobacco ([0017]). The particulate clove material and the particulate tobacco material may both have D90 values of from greater than or equal to 20 microns to D90 values of less than or equal to 300 microns ([0019]).
Deforel additionally teaches in some embodiments, tobacco may be purposely ground for form particulate tobacco material having a defined particle size distribution, for use in homogenized plant material. This provides the advantage that the size of the tobacco particles can be controlled to provide a desired particle size distribution. The use of purposely ground tobacco therefore advantageously improves the homogeneity of the particulate tobacco material and the consistency of the homogenized tobacco material, enabling aerosol-generating article having a consistent delivery of aerosol to be provided ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Jarriault to have a tobacco powder particle size distribution D90 value of from greater than or equal to 20 microns to D90 value of less than or equal to 300 microns as taught by Deforel since where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Making such modification to the tobacco powder of Jarriault advantageously improves the homogeneity of the particulate tobacco material (e.g., the tobacco powder) and the consistency of the homogenized tobacco material, enabling aerosol-generating article having a consistent delivery of aerosol to be provided as taught by Deforel. This reads over claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, the second binder was recited as “optionally” in claim 1 therefore, Jarriault still properly reads over claims 9-10 and 12.
Regarding claim 11, Jarriault discloses preferably, the slurry comprises from about 1 percent to about 10 percent in dry weight basis of the binder (pg. 15, l. 1-4) which reads over the claimed binder amount of greater than about 2% by weight since where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I). This reads over claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Jarriault discloses the suspension preparation step 104 where preferably, the aerosol-former 7 includes glycerol (pg. 22, l. 6-8); which reads over the first composition is in a liquid phase due to the presence of glycerol. Jarriault further discloses in step 101 the mixture comprising tobacco powder (e.g., the “third composition of Jarriault) is receiving energy in an extruder 200 in sub-step 301 (Fig. 2 pg. 19, l. 14-17) wherein the extruded mixture slurry contains (percent in weight) 5-8% water and the extruded mixture is used in a subsequent slurry preparation step 102 (pg. 21, l. 16-18, 24 – pg. 22, l. 2). The extruded mixture slurry containing 5-8 wt% water, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably suggested the extruded mixture slurry is a solid mixture. This reads over the second composition is in a solid phase. This reads over claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Jarriault discloses the amount of cellulose fibers added to the material containing alkaloids is comprised of between about 1 percent and about 7 percent in dry weight basis of the total weight of the slurry (pg. 16, l. 19-22) which reads over the claimed filler amount of greater than about 2% by weight since where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I). This reads over claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Jarriault discloses preferably, this step (referring to step 102 pg. 22, l. 11) also, includes processing the slurry with a high shear mixer to ensure uniformity and homogeneity of the slurry (pg. 22, l. 11-15). This reads over the mixture is formed by homogenizing the first and the second composition. This reads over claim 17.
Claims 2-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarriault et al. (WO 2019/129493, cited on May 5, 2023 IDS) as applied to claim 1, in view of Mua (US 2006/0021626).
Jarriault discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Jarriault discloses in order to form the sheet including the homogenized tobacco material, preferably the slurry formed according to step 102 is cast in a casting step 105. Preferably, this casting step 105 includes transporting the slurry to a casting station and casting the slurry into a sheet having a homogenous and uniform thickness on a support (Fig. 1, pg. 23, l. 5-9).
However, Jarriault does not explicitly disclose extruding the mixture to form a sheet of the aerosol generating material.
Mua teaches a method for making a smoking article, such as a cigarette, wherein the sheet is produced via papermaking process containing a cellulose containing material in step 1 wherein in step 4 tobacco solids from an extraction step 3 are added to the cellulose containing material of step 1, and optionally added tobacco solids I step 4 are refined in step 5. After refining in step 5, inert fillers and/or binders are mixed in step 6 with the refined material obtained in step 5 ([0016, 0017]). Mua additionally teaches other embodiments to practice the present invention; the block diagram in Fig. 2 shows the process steps to be taken to produce a tobacco substitute filler having an increased fill value where the sheet is produced via a band cast or extruding process (Fig.2, [0019]) wherein the mixture resulting from step 106 may be formed into a sheet by either an extruder in step 107 or by a bandcast process in step 108 ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of Jarriault to process the slurry of Jarriault formed in step 102 by using an extrusion process as taught by Mua to form the sheet including homogenized tobacco material of Jarriault. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the extrusion process of Mua to form the sheet including homogenized tobacco material since applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). This reads over claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jarriault discloses drying the sheet including the homogenized tobacco material containing alkaloids (Jarriault pg. 16, l. 27 – pg. 17, l. 1). This reads over claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, modified Jarriault does not explicitly disclose shredding the sheet to form strips of the aerosol generating material.
Mua teaches in Fig. 2, step 109 the sheet material is shredded and added to strip blend for cigarette fabrication ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the invention of modified Jarriault and shred the sheet of homogenized tobacco material to add to strip blend for cigarette fabrication as taught by Mua. This reads over claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarriault et al. (WO 2019/129493, cited on May 5, 2023 IDS) in view of Mua (US 2006/0021626) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ibrahim (US 2018/0360099, cited on May 5, 2023 IDS).
Modified Jarriault discloses all the claim limitations as set for forth above. Modified Jarriault further discloses the drying step 106 comprising a uniform and gentle drying of the sheet where preferably, the drying profile is a so called TLC drying profile, but does not explicitly disclose a drying temperature of less than about 100o C (Jarriault pg. 23, l. 14-15, 21).
Ibrahim teaches tobacco compositions wherein the tobacco component contains paper reconstituted tobacco. The tobacco component may also contain leaf tobacco, extruded tobacco, and/or bandcast tobacco ([0028]). The tobacco composition may contain a filler ([0029]); an aerosol generating agent ([0030]). Ibrahim further teaches bandcast tobacco may be made from a slurry, the slurry comprising the components of the aerosol generating material and water. In some embodiments, the slurry is extruded or cast and then dried to form the aerosol generating material. In some embodiments, the method of making the slurry may comprise the steps of (1) mixing the aerosol generating agent and binder, (2) adding water and mixing, (3) adding filler and mixing, (4) adding tobacco extract and mixing to form a smooth slurry. The mixing after addition of tobacco extract will typically be a high shear mixing ([0082]). The slurry may be cast into a sheet on a casting plate or the band of a bandcasting machine. Then, the slurry may be dried using any suitable method of drying ([0084]). Ibrahim teaches slurry cast onto a stainless steel casting plate wherein drying can be effected in an oven at about 45-55o C for 0.5-5 hours (minimum time used to reduce loss of volatiles) ([0090]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a drying temperature at about 45-55o C as taught by Ibrahim which is encompassed by the claimed temperature of less than about 100o C, since where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05 (I). This reads over claim 16.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE KIRBY JORDAN whose telephone number is 571-272-5214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM (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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached on 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.
/RONNIE KIRBY JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights