DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/21/2026.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-11 are amended.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected group.
The objection to claim 4 is withdrawn due to amendments made to the claim.
The 112(b) rejection to claim 1 is withdrawn due to amendments made to the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 7-13, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2 and 4-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, regarding the previous rejection in view of Watkins, have been fully considered and are moot in view of a new rejection.
On pages 11-12, the Applicant further argues that the rejection of claim 1 with Lindars in view of Spencer does not actually teach the claimed beam splitter arrangement because Spencer does not teach a beam splitter configured to provide at least two retained light beams having different propagation directions (I) and Spencer also does not disclose an optical arrangement that redirects both such beams so that they intersect at a spatial point (II).
Regarding (I), the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Spencer discloses the beam deflector can be a beam splitter, which is known in the art to split beams such that they have different propagation directions. It is obvious and inherent within the disclosure of Spencer that a beam splitter would split beams, since that is what a beam splitter does.
However, to advance prosecution an additional reference that explicitly teaches what a beam splitter does in the art has been provided in the rejection.
Regarding (II), the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Spencer teaches a plurality of beams directed on a focal point and makes obvious the beams having different propagation directions when a beam splitter is employed. While Spencer does not explicitly disclose the propagation direction of the beams are directed to the focal point after being split, the entire disclosure of Spencer is directed to controlling the direction of light beams to heat the aerosol generating material. Therefore, when a beam splitter is used it is obvious within the disclosure that the beams are still doing the goal of the invention, which is being directed to a focal point adjacent the aerosol-generating material. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 is indefinite for reciting “wherein the receptacle comprises a chamber” because it is unclear how the receptacle comprises a chamber when the only drawings provided describing a “chamber” (element 18) and a “receptacle” (element 60) are not near each other. Figures 4-6 are being referenced here. For purposes of examination the receptacles chamber is being interpreted as the space that the container is inserted into.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al. (US-20190133187-A1), alone or alternatively further in view of Florack et al. (US-20220318535-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Spencer, directed to an article and apparatus of heating a smokable material, discloses a heat-not-burn apparatus (i.e., aerosol provision system) for generating an aerosol from a smokable material ([0044],[0068]-[0070], Fig. 4), the system comprising:
an optical arrangement comprising at least one irradiative light source configured to generate a plurality of distinct light beams from the at least one irradiative light source ([0071]-[0072]) that emits distinct light beams ([0079]-[0080]) (each irradiative light source emits light); and
a smokable material (i.e., aerosol generating material) contained within the aerosol provision system ([0019],[0068]-[0074]);
wherein the optical arrangement can be configured to direct the plurality of distinct light beams at the same region of the smokable material (i.e., a spatial point located at a target/aerosol-generating material) ([0017]);
and the optical arrangement can comprise a beam director ([0014]) or beam deflector wherein the beam deflector may be a beam splitter ([0070]).
Spencer does not explicitly disclose the beam splitter configured to split a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source and incident on the beam splitter to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of distinct light beams each having different propagation directions. However, Spencer does disclose a beam splitter can be used to direct the light and since it is known in the art that a beam splitter splits a beam of light into a transmitted and a reflected beam, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the light deflector is a beam splitter, as taught by Spencer ([0070]), the irradiative light source incident on the beam splitter and split off into two different light beams with different propagation directions. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a beam splitter positioned between a single irradiative light source 422 and a smokable material 412 would necessarily yield multiple beams with different propagation directions which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material, since Spencer teaches it is desirable to direct the light beams at a specific point in the smokable material ([0061] and [0078]), and is therefore considered a prima facie obvious claim limitation.
Alternatively, Florack, directed to an aerosol-generating article comprising a three-dimensional code, discloses a beam splitter as part of the aerosol-generating device for separating a beam from a radiation source, such as a laser and light beam, into a beam used for reading the three-dimensional code and an additional separate beam that is used for heating the aerosol-forming substrate of the aerosol-generating article ([0053], [0079]-[0080], and [0093]).
Florack teaches a beam splitter 28 for splitting a light beam 23 into two distinct light beams (Figure 1, [0080]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer, by making the optical arrangements beam splitter split the light beam into distinct light beams such that each light beam has different propagation directions, as taught by Florack, because both are directed to aerosol provision systems with light beams and beam deflectors, Florack teaches the beam splitter advantageously allows the light beam to be directed to any desired surface area of the aerosol-forming substrate to heat it ([0053]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of what beam splitter does of a similar device to yield predictable results of directing the light beam to a desired portion of the aerosol-generating substrate.
In regards to claim 2, Spencer discloses the light emitted from the irradiative light source heats the aerosol generating material (i.e., combined intensity of the light beams at the spatial point is sufficient to cause generation of an aerosol from the aerosol-generating material) ([0004],[0045]).
Spencer further discloses that multiple light beams may be emitted at the same time ([0062]), but does not explicitly disclose the intensity of each individual light beam is less than the combined intensity at the spatial point. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the embodiments wherein several beams are focused on a spatial point, the intensity would be greater than an individual light beam.
In regards to claim 4, Spencer discloses a beam splitter that can direct a plurality of light beams ([0070]) which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of distinct light beams arranged to intersect at the spatial point are generated by the at least one beam splitter. However, since Spencer teaches the beam deflector can be a beam splitter for manipulating light ([0071]), the beam deflector can direct a plurality of light beams to one focal point ([0017]), and Florack makes obvious that a beam splitter is known in the art to split a light beam into two distinct light beams ([0080]), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the beam deflector is a beam splitter in Spencer, the plurality of distinct light beams generated from the beam splitter would still be directed to a focal point since that is one of the goals of the disclosure, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 5, Spencer discloses a plurality of irradiative light sources that can each generate a light beam ([0016]-[0022]).
In regards to claim 6, Spencer discloses the beam deflector bends the direction of the light and that the beam deflector is movable ([0071]), as well as a insertable article that accommodates the aerosol-generating material (i.e., receptacle) ([0044]), but does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of irradiative light sources are directed into a receptacle with propagation directions which are non-parallel or anti-parallel with respect to each other.
However, since Spencer discloses the beam deflector displaces the position or angle of the beam, the beam deflector is movable ([0071]), and a plurality of different light sources can impinge on the same location ([0017]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the different light sources cannot be in the exact same spot and thus the light beams would have to be at different (anti-parallel) angles to reach the focal point of the material, and is therefore considered prima facie oblivious.
In regards to claim 7-8, Spencer discloses one or more of beam deflectors (i.e., optical elements) for changing a propagation direction of one or more of the plurality of distinct light beams ([0071]).
In regards to claim 8, Spencer discloses the optical element can be a mirror ([0071]).
In regards to claim 9, Spencer discloses the aerosol generating material may be part of an article such as a cartridge or cassette (i.e., examples of a receptacle for accommodation the aerosol-generating material) which can be inserted into the apparatus (i.e., aerosol provision system) ([0044]).
Spencer further discloses the receptacle receives the light emitted by the optical arrangement ([0048]) and that the light beams are received in the receptacle and intersect at a spatial point within the receptacle ([0048]-[0050], [0071]-[0073]), since the receptacle comprises the aerosol-generating material and the focal point is the aerosol-generating material.
In regards to claim 10, Spencer discloses the irradiative light source impinges on the aerosol generating material 112 which is located on the inner surface 115 of the wall 113 ([0053]). Spencer does not explicitly disclose the plurality of distinct light beams are incident with a wall of the receptacle after passing through the spatial point in the absence of any intermediary material. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that as the light passes through the aerosol generating material, the light would incident on the wall behind the aerosol-generating material and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 11, Spencer discloses “radially” is defined as being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis ([0047]), and further discloses the irradiative light source(s) are configured to emit light radially of the apparatus so as to impinge on the aerosol generating material (i.e., optical arrangement is arranged such that the propagation directions of the plurality of distinct light beams received are in a plane perpendicular to an airflow direction) when the article is engaged with the apparatus ([0047]-[0048]).
In regards to claim 12, Spencer discloses the aerosol generating material may be part of an article such as a cartridge or cassette (i.e., examples of a container comprising the aerosol-generating material) which can be inserted into the aerosol provision system and can be replaced after use and is releasably engageable (i.e., replaceably attached to a control part of the aerosol provision system, since the base of the aerosol provision system comprises the control circuitry) ([0044];[0056];[0058];[0092]-[0093]).
In regards to claim 14, Spencer discloses the container is inserted into the aerosol provision system (i.e., inserted into a chamber) ([0044]).
Spencer further discloses the surface of the article or the aerosol provision system can comprise one or more inlet air flow passages so that the air can pass through or over the aerosol generating material and then towards a mouthpiece (i.e., chamber of the receptacle is fluidly connected to an air inlet) ([0054]).
In regards to claim 15, Spencer discloses the aerosol provision system comprising a moving arrangement that can move the aerosol generating material relative to the light source (i.e., position the aerosol generating material at the spatial point) ([0066]).
Spencer further discloses the moving arrangement can be a linear movement or a rotatable movement ([0066]-[0067]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al. (US-20190133187-A1), alone or in view of Florack et al. (US-20220318535-A1), as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Watkins et al. (US-5934289-A1, the US equivalent of EP-0951219-A1 as cited in the IDS dated 05/05/2023).
In regard to claim 13, Spencer discloses the control circuitry can detect whether the article comprises different types of tobacco ([0063]), and Spencer further discloses that when a user attempts to disengage the container from the aerosol provision system, the control circuitry deactivates the optical arrangement ([0056]). Spencer does not explicitly disclose the control circuitry arranged to detect whether the container is attached to the control part of the aerosol provision system. However, Spencer does teach the optical arrangement is activated when the container is engaged with the apparatus ([0059]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there is some form of detection means for detecting insertion of the container into the aerosol provision system, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Additionally, Watkins directed to an electronic smoking system, discloses an electrical smoking system for generating an aerosol (i.e., aerosol provision system) from an aerosol-generating material, such as tobacco (abstract and column 6, lines 37-48), the system comprising a plurality of photonic assemblies 96 (i.e., an optical arrangement) provided by the aerosol provision system (column 8, lines 32-47) and at least one laser diode (i.e., irradiative light source) (column 8, lines 32-66).
Watkins further discloses a detector display that may be arranged to indicate whether the system is active or inactive (column 9, lines 27-32).
Watkins further discloses a mechanical switch (i.e., control circuitry) provided to detect the presence or absence of the cigarette (container) (i.e., whether the container is attached to the control part of the aerosol provision system or not) and a button can be provided for the circuitry to be reset when a new container is inserted (column 9, lines 33-41).
Watkins further discloses when the control circuitry no longer detects the presence of the container, the indicator is turned off and does not emit a beam of light (column 9, lines 11-26).
Watkins further discloses the smoking routine is not executed unless the cigarette sensor has detected a presence of a cigarette container within the receptacle (i.e., control circuitry is configured to prevent activation of the device, and therefore the light source, when the container is not connected to the control part) (column 10, lines 47-57).
Watkins further discloses the detector 116 is modulated so that it does not constantly emit a beam of light, which would otherwise create an unnecessary drain on the power source (column 9, lines 11-23).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Spencer by making the aerosol provision systems control circuitry further comprises a detector for detecting insertion of the container, as taught by Watkins, because both are directed to aerosol provision systems comprising optical arrangements, Watkins teaches the detector prevents unnecessary drain of the power source by turning off when the container is not detected (column 9, lines 11-23), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a detector of a similar device to yield predictable results of powering off a device when the container is not detected to be present within the device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al. (US-20190133187-A1), alone or in view of Florack et al. (US-20220318535-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lindars et al. (US-20180289909-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/05/2023).
In regards to claim 16, Spencer discloses the aerosol-generating material may be a liquid ([0043]), but does not explicitly disclose a wick for wicking liquid to the spatial point.
Lindars directed to a vaporizer, discloses a vaporizer for generating an aerosol (i.e., aerosol provision system) from a vaporizing substance ([0008]), the system comprising an optical arrangement provided by the system comprising at least one laser 140 (i.e., irradiative light source) ([0058]).
Lindars further discloses the liquid aerosol-generating material can be configured to move to the vaporizer for heating (i.e., spatial point location) via wicking by a feeder that can include a wick ([0063] and [0073]).
Lindars further discloses the vaporizer can include a conduit or a wick for feeing oil from one portion of the vaporizer to another ([0052]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by making the liquid composition comprise a wick for wicking the liquid to the spatial point, as taught by Lindars, because both are directed to aerosol provision systems comprising optical arrangements, Lindars teaches wicks are known in the art to wick liquids for heating ([0063]-[0073]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a wick when the aerosol generating material is a liquid of a similar device to yield predictable results of moving the liquid to the spatial point for heating.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindars et al. (US-20180289909-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/05/2023) and further in view of Spencer et al. (US-20190133187-A1) and alternatively/additionally Florack et al. (US-20220318535-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lindars directed to a vaporizer, discloses a vaporizer for generating an aerosol (i.e., aerosol provision system) from a vaporizing substance ([0008]), the system comprising:
An optical arrangement provided by the system comprising at least one laser 140 (i.e., irradiative light source) ([0058]).
Lindars does not explicitly disclose the optical arrangement configured to generate a plurality of light beams from the at least one irradiative source, however Lindars does disclose more than one laser and multiple lenses can be used to direct the light onto a focal point ([0058]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light directed to the lenses would create a plurality of light beams from the at least one irradiative light source and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
An aerosol-generating material contained within the aerosol provision system ([0058]);
Wherein the optical arrangement is configured to direct the plurality of light beams to intersect at a focal point (i.e., spatial point) within the aerosol provision system ([0058]-[0059])
The spatial point located at or adjacent to the aerosol-generating material and or a target material ([0058]-[0059]).
Spencer, directed to an article and apparatus of heating a smokable material, discloses
an apparatus 420 for heating a smokable material 412 ([0068]-[0070], Fig. 4).
Spencer further discloses a light 424 is emitted by an irradiative light source 422, wherein the light is manipulated, i.e. focused and/or directed, by a beam deflector 428 so that the light 424 impinges upon the smokable material 412. The at least one beam deflector 428 for manipulating light 424 may be a mirror, a beam splitter, or a collimator ([0070]).
Spencer does not explicitly disclose the beam splitter configured to split a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source and incident on the beam splitter to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of distinct light beams each having different propagation directions. However, Spencer does disclose a beam splitter can be used to direct the light and since it is known in the art that a beam splitter splits a beam of light into a transmitted and a reflected beam, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the light deflector is a beam splitter, as taught by Spencer ([0070]), the irradiative light source incident on the beam splitter and split off into two different light beams with different propagation directions. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a beam splitter positioned between a single irradiative light source 422 and a smokable material 412 would necessarily yield multiple beams with different propagation directions which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material, since Spencer teaches it is desirable to direct the light beams at a specific point in the smokable material ([0061] and [0078]), and is therefore considered a prima facie obvious claim limitation.
Furthermore, since Spencer discloses a beam splitter can be used to direct the light it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a beam splitter positioned between a single irradiative light source 422 and a smokable material 412 would necessarily yield multiple beams with different propagation directions which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material, since Spencer teaches it is desirable to direct the light beams at a specific point in the smokable material ([0061] and [0078]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindars by applying a beam splitter to the optical arrangement of Lindars, as taught by Spencer because both are directed to optical arrangements for heating aerosolizable materials, Spencer teaches beam splitters are known optical arrangements and can be used in conjunction or replacement of lenses/mirrors ([0070]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a beam splitter of a similar device to yield predictable results.
Alternatively/additionally, Florack, directed to an aerosol-generating article comprising a three-dimensional code, discloses a beam splitter as part of the aerosol-generating device for separating a beam from a radiation source, such as a laser and light beam, into a beam used for reading the three-dimensional code and an additional separate beam that is used for heating the aerosol-forming substrate of the aerosol-generating article ([0053], [0079]-[0080], and [0093]).
Florack teaches a beam splitter 28 for splitting a light beam 23 into two distinct light beams (Figure 1, [0080]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindars, by making the optical arrangements comprise a beam splitter split the light beam into distinct light beams such that each light beam has different propagation directions, as taught by Florack, because both are directed to aerosol provision systems with light beams and beam deflectors, Florack teaches the beam splitter advantageously allows the light beam to be directed to any desired surface area of the aerosol-forming substrate to heat it ([0053]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of what beam splitter does of a similar device to yield predictable results of directing the light beam to a desired portion of the aerosol-generating substrate.
In regards to claim 4, Modified Lindars discloses a beam splitter that can direct a plurality of light beams from a single irradiative light source (Spencer [0070]) which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material.
Spencer further discloses a beam splitter that can direct a plurality of light beams ([0070]) which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of distinct light beams arranged to intersect at the spatial point are generated by the at least one beam splitter. However, since Spencer teaches the beam deflector can be a beam splitter for manipulating light ([0071]), the beam deflector can directs a plurality of light beams to one focal point ([0017]), and Florack makes obvious that a beam splitter is known in the art to split a light beam into two distinct light beams ([0080]), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the beam deflector is a beam splitter in Spencer, the plurality of distinct light beams generated from the beam splitter would still be directed to a focal point since that is one of the goals of the disclosure, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 7, Lindars discloses the optical arrangement can comprise one or more lenses 118 (i.e., optical elements) wherein the optical elements control the laser light location (i.e., change a propagation direction of the one or more light beams) ([0058]).
In regards to claim 8, Lindars discloses the optical elements are lenses ([0058]-[0059]).
In regards to claim 16, Lindars discloses the liquid aerosol-generating material can be configured to the vaporizer for heating (i.e., spatial point location) via wicking by a feeder that can include a wick ([0063] and [0073]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pan (CN-104522892-A, as cited in the IDS dated 05/05/2023 and hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided) directed to a light heating electronic cigarette, discloses the electronic cigarette comprising an optical reflector, a container for containing aerosol-generating material, and a light source that passes through the optical reflector and is focused and formed for heating the aerosol-generating material (abstract).
Pan further discloses an optical reflector for focusing the light source to form a light point of heating ([0004]).
Pan further discloses the optical reflector comprises a reflecting cup 31 or lens (i.e., beam splitter) which splits a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source 5 and incident on the at least one beam splitter 31 to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of light beams each having different propagation directions (Figure 2 and [0019]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights