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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/10/ 2023, 5/6/2025, 8/7/2025, 9/5/2025, 10/1/2025, 10/15/2025, 1/5/2026, and 1/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 5/10/2023, claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 11-12 recite the limitations:
“a control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc” and
“the control unit is further configured to control the condensate regulator to regulate the flow rate of the smoke condensate and/or the pressure regulator to regulate the pressure of the overheated water steam to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles”
being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with functional language(s) “control the conversion of the smoke condensate …and the cabinet temperature, Tc” and “control the condensate regulator to regulate … the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function(s) and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “control unit” , the specification does not discuss or explain what structure is capable of performing the function(s). For examination purposes, a/the control unit is construed as any type of controller that is capable of “control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc” and “control the condensate regulator to regulate the flow rate of the smoke condensate and/or the pressure regulator to regulate the pressure of the overheated water steam to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, “the distance from the nozzle (14) to the smoke outlet (13)” should be “a distance from the nozzle (14) to the smoke outlet (13)”.
Claim 5, “the distance between the nozzle (14) and the wall or walls of the housing (15)” should be “a distance between the nozzle (14) and the wall or walls of the housing (15)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 11 recites the limitation: “a control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc” in lines 3-5, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP § 2161.01- § 2163.07(b). In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). For examination purposes, a/the control unit is construed as any type of controller that is capable of ““control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc”.
Claim 12 is rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claim 11.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the distance from the nozzle to the smoke outlet is at least 100 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 200 mm, or even more preferred at least 400 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “preferably at least 200 mm, or even more preferred at least 400 mm” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “the distance between the nozzle and the wall or walls of the housing surrounding the nozzle and extending between the steam inlet to the smoke outlet is at least 20 mm” and the claim also recites “preferably at least 50 mm, or even more preferred at least 100 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the narrower statement “preferably at least 50 mm, or even more preferred at least 100 mm” is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation: “a control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc” in lines 3-5, as written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim. The specification does not provide any structure or disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007), In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2181. For examination purposes, a/the control unit is construed as any type of controller that is capable of “control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc”.
Additionally, regarding the above limitation “a control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc”, Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential element(s), such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted element is: a temperature sensor or detector which is capable of detecting/ sensing/ obtaining the “cabinet temperature Tc”. The claim requires to obtain the cabinet temperature Tc in order to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to the smoke particles; however, the claimed system does not recite any temperature sensor or detector which is capable of detecting/ sensing/ obtaining the cabinet temperature Tc so that it is unclear how the claimed system can obtain “the cabinet temperature Tc” and how the “control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the cabinet temperature, Tc”. Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitation “a control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc” is construed as “a control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts”.
Claim 12 are rejected as being dependent on, claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fessmann (US5910330A, cited in the 5/10/23 IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Fessmann discloses
A smoke generator (22, see figs.1-2) comprising a housing (56, see fig.2) with a condensate inlet ( 60, see fig.2) for receiving a smoke condensate (see col.5, lines 12-13: “…liquid Smoke inlet duct 60 …provided”) and a steam inlet (58, see fig.2) for receiving overheated water steam (see col.5, lines 12: “Steam inlet duct 58” and abstract: “a superheated steam duct”), wherein the smoke condensate (liquid smoke from the duct 60, see fig.2) is converted to smoke particles (mixture at the nozzle opening 74, see fig.2 and see col.2, lines 51-52: “the mixture of Super heated Steam and liquid Smoke vapor”) when the smoke condensate (liquid smoke from the duct 60, see fig.2) interacts with the overheated water steam (superheated steam from the duct 58, see fig.2 and col.5, lines 28-31: “…the axes of Steam nozzle 68 and liquid Smoke nozzle 70 intersect there”) and the smoke particles (mixture at the nozzle opening 74, see fig.2 and col.2, lines 51-52: “the mixture of Super heated Steam and liquid Smoke vapour”) are accessible at a smoke outlet (74, see fig.2 and col.3, lines 55-57: “A mixture of Superheated Steam and liquid Smoke vapour is consequently Supplied from the mixing nozzles 22”).
Regarding claim 3, Fessmann further discloses a nozzle (64, see fig.2) attached to the condensate inlet (60, see fig.2) configured to distribute the smoke condensate (liquid smoke from the duct 60, see fig.2) within the housing (56, see fig.2 and col.5, lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 6, Fessmann further discloses the smoke generator (22, see figs.1-2) is provided with a smoke condensate regulator (48, see fig.1) regulating a flow rate of the smoke condensate (liquid smoke) through the condensate inlet (duct 60 of the nozzle 22, see figs.1-2) into the housing (56, see fig.2) of the smoke generator (22, see figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Fessmann further discloses a pressure regulator (26, see fig.1) regulating a pressure of the overheated water steam (see col.3, lines 23-27: “The pressure of the Superheated Steam after the pressure reducer 26 is typically about 4 bars”) entering through the steam inlet (60, see fig.2) into the housing (56) of the smoke generator (22).
Regarding claim 10, A system (combo 22, 30, 50, 26 and 48, see figs.1-2 ) for feeding smoke particles to a smoke cabinet (10, see fig.1), the system comprising a smoke generator (22, see figs.1-2) according to claim 1, a steam supply (superheated steam duct 30, see fig.1) and a smoke condensate supply (liquid smoke duct 50, see fig.1), wherein the steam supply (30, see fig.1) provides overheated water steam to the steam inlet (steam inlet duct 58, see fig.2) of the smoke generator (22) via a pressure regulator (pressure reducer 26, see fig.1), the smoke condensate supply (50, see fig.1) provides smoke condensate to the condensate inlet (60, see fig.2) of the smoke generator (22) via a condensate regulator (48, see fig.1), and smoke particles from the smoke outlet (mixture from the nozzle opening 74, see fig.2) of the smoke generator (22) are configured to be provided to an inlet of the smoke cabinet (inlet of 10, see fig.1 and abstract: “A process for combined smoking and cooking of foodstuffs involves feeding a mixture of superheated steam and liquid smoke vapor into a treating medium which is circulated in a treatment chamber”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fessmann in view of Ueda (US 20190024904 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Fessmann discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the overheated water steam has a temperature of 120 degrees Celsius.
Ueda discloses a heating cooker, comprising:
the overheated water steam has a temperature of 120 degrees Celsius (See para.131: “In the steam generator 23, superheated steam with a temperature of 120° C. to 130° C. is generated”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the overheated water steam of Fessmann to have the temperature of 120 degrees Celsius as taught by Ueda. Doing so allows “the food can be cooked quickly” (See para.0071 of Ueda).
Claims 4-5, 7, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fessmann
Regarding claim 4, Fessmann further discloses wherein the nozzle( 64, see fig.2), is located between the steam inlet (58) and the smoke outlet (74, see fig.2), except wherein the distance from the nozzle to the smoke outlet is at least 100 mm, preferably at least 200 mm, or even more preferred at least 400 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the distance from the nozzle to the smoke outlet to be “at least 100 mm, preferably at least 200 mm, or even more preferred at least 400 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Fessmann teaches a certain distance from the nozzle to the smoke outlet and varying “the distance from the nozzle to the smoke outlet is at least 100 mm, preferably at least 200 mm, or even more preferred at least 400 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so optimizes the smoke's quality and ensures efficient mixing.
Regarding claim 5, Fessmann further discloses the distance between the nozzle (64, see fig.2) and the wall or walls of the housing (see wall of the housing in annotated fig.2 below) surrounding the nozzle (64, see fig.2) and extending between the steam inlet (58, see fig.2) to the smoke outlet (74, see fig.2), except is at least 20 mm, preferably at least 50 mm, or even more preferred at least 100 mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the distance between the nozzle and the wall of the housing to be “at least 20 mm, preferably at least 50 mm, or even more preferred at least 100 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Fessmann teaches a certain distance between the nozzle and the wall of the housing and varying the distance between the nozzle and the wall of the housing to be “at least 20 mm, preferably at least 50 mm, or even more preferred at least 100 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so optimizes the smoke's quality and ensures efficient mixing.
Regarding claim 7, Fessmann teaches the claimed limitations as set forth, except the flow rate is in the range of 0.1 to 20 liters/hour.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow rate to be “in the range of 0.1 to 20 liters/hour” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Fessmann teaches a certain flow rate and varying the flow rate to be “in the range of 0.1 to 20 liters/hour” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so optimizes the smoke's quality and ensures efficient mixing.
Regarding claim 9, Fessmann teaches the claimed limitations as set forth, except the pressure is in the range of 0.2 to 1.2 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pressure to be “in the range of 0.2 to 1.2 bar” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Fessmann teaches a certain pressure and varying the pressure to be “in the range of 0.2 to 1.2 bar” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so optimizes the smoke's quality and ensures efficient mixing.
Regarding claim 13, Fessmann teaches the claimed limitations as set forth, except the system is configured to generate a mixed steam and liquid flow rate through the housing in the range of 25-300 kg/hour.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system to be “configured to generate a mixed steam and liquid flow rate through the housing in the range of 25-300 kg/hour” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Fessmann teaches the system is configured to generate a mixed steam and liquid flow rate through the housing (see fig.2) and varying the mixture “in the range of 25-300 kg/hour” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so optimizes the smoke's quality and ensures efficient mixing.
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fessmann in view of Lemke (US5609095A)
Regarding claim 11, Fessmann further teaches the smoke cabinet (10, see fig.1) is configured to be operating at a cabinet temperature, Tc (temperature of the treatment chamber 10, see fig.1).
Fessmann also teaches valves 24,26 and/or 28 regulates the pressure of the over heated water steam to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles (see figs.1-2), except the system has a sensor to measure a steam temperature, Ts, wherein the system further comprises a control unit configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts, and the cabinet temperature, Tc.
Lemke discloses High Performance Cooking Oven With Steam Chamber, comprising:
the system has a sensor to measure a steam temperature, Ts (see col.10, lines 62-64: “said sensing means is a temperature sensor used to monitor the temperature of saturated steam escaping through at least one of said inlet and outlet openings”), wherein the system further comprises a control unit (temperature controller, see col.10, line 66) configured to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts,( see col.10, lines 62-67 and col.11, lines 1-2: “said sensing means is a temperature sensor used to monitor the temperature of saturated steam escaping through at least one of said inlet and outlet openings, said temperature sensor generating said signal which is supplied to said temperature controller which in turn controls said steam flow control valve to regulate the flow of steam into said housing in a predetermined manner. “Thus, by regulating the flow of steam into said housing, the controller in the combination of Fessmann with Lemke is capable of controlling the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles. See 112(a)-(b) rejections above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the sensor to measure a steam temperature and the control unit of Lemke so as the control units controls the valves 24,26 and/or 28 of Fessmann to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles based on the steam temperature, Ts. Doing so allows to maintain the desired steam atmosphere within the smoke generator and/or smoke cabinet which is desirable for certain applications (See abstract of Lemke).
Regarding claim 12, Fessmann in view of Lemke further discloses the control unit (temperature controller, see col.10, line 66) is further configured to the pressure regulator (valves 24,26 and/or 28 of Fessmann) to regulate the pressure of the overheated water steam (see fig.1 and col.3, lines 20-24) to control the conversion of the smoke condensate to smoke particles (see figs.1-2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP0241965A1 (cited in 1/5/26 IDS) discloses a Method for smoking foodstuffs in a smoking room by supplying smoke to the foodstuff, said smoke being developed from a liquid smoke concentrate to which air is supplied and which is sprayed while being heated, whereby a heated liquid smoke concentrate is supplied to the sprayer (10, 6) on the one hand and heated air on the other hand, after which the sprayed mixture is led through a heated room (15) in which the generation of smoke takes place, said smoke being dispersed over the smoking room.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761