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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 1/25/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 14, 17 are amended. Claims 3 and 20 are canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-19 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 11/03/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims/drawings/spec have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 11-14 and 16 are 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 11 depends upon claim 3 which is a canceled claim, such that claim 11 is unable to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 12-14 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. Claim 11 will be examined as if it depends upon claim 1.
Claim 16 contains the same limitations which were added to amended claim 1, such that claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim of which it depends on.
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
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 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN111657547A, of record) in view of Zhang (WO2020259692A1, of record), and optionally in view of Yi (CN110638102A, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lei teaches a vaporizer (atomizing device “10”, Fig. 1), configured to vaporize a liquid substrate to generate an aerosol (the device is configured with an atomizing assembly so as to generate an aerosol from a liquid substrate [pg. 4 of machine translation]), and comprising an outer housing provided with at least one inhalation opening (as in Figs. 2 and 6, the outer housing is considered to be the outer portions of the body of the atomizing device. The air inlet of the vaporizer is “11” located at the bottom of the figures), the outer housing being internally provided with:
a liquid storage cavity configured to store a liquid substrate (the liquid substrate may be tobacco oil, liquid medicine, etc. [pg. 4 of machine translation]).
Lei does not specifically label the liquid storage cavities nor show the path of travel of the liquid substrate from the cavity to the vaporization assembly. However, as Lei contains liquid substrate to atomize said liquid into aerosol [see pg. 4 of machine translation], it would be obvious for Lei to have a liquid storage cavity so as to hold the liquid which transfers to the atomizing assembly. Zhang, for example, teaches an electronic cigarette atomizer [title], where liquid storage cavities “30” for storing e-liquid are provided inside of the outer housing at locations “30a” and “30b” as in Fig. 9, such that they are provided on both sides of the vapor outlet pipe. As in Fig. 5, the liquid follows the arrows R1 from the liquid storage cavity to the atomization surface to be atomized [pg. 8 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the vaporizer of Lei so as to have the liquid storage cavities and path of travel as suggested by Zhang. One would have been motivated so as to provide ample storage for the liquid substrate taught by Lei and to provide a pathway to the vaporization assembly [pg. 8 of machine translation], such that the vaporizer of Lei may be practically used in real applications.
Modified Lei further suggests a vaporization assembly in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity so as to draw the liquid substrate (as above, Lei in view of Zhang suggests the liquid cavities located at both sides of the vapor outlet pipe as in Figs. 2 and 6, and the liquid would follow a path downwards in these figures towards the atomization assembly “14” so that the liquid may be made to an aerosol),
A holder which at least partially accommodates or holds the vaporization assembly (the surrounding structure as in Fig. 2/6 is considered to form the holder around the atomization assembly “14” and would clearly at least partially accommodate it),
A vapor outlet pipe which provides an airflow path to an inhalation opening and an air inlet end connected to the holder (see Figs. 2 and 6, wherein the air outlet passage “18” extends inwards from the atomization assembly/holder upwards to the outer portion of the device, where this outer portion is the air outlet “12” which is where the aerosol is released),
A protruding structure provided on the holder, wherein a first notch located at the air inlet end is provided in the vapor output pipe and the protruding structure at least partially extends into the first notch and fits it so as to guide condensate generated in the vapor output pipe out of the vapor output pipe through the air inlet end (the walls from the atomizing chamber to the air outlet passage “18” inner wall part is provided with a first capillary liquid absorbing structure “15”, for absorbing condensate along the air outlet passage so as to reuse the condensation on the air outlet passage [Figs. 2, 6, pg. 6 of machine translation]. And as in Fig. 6, this may include both first capillary groove “151” and second capillary groove “152”. And further, as in Figs. 2 and 6, the vaporizer is provided with the second capillary liquid absorbing structure “181” which extends up from the atomizing chamfer to the air outlet passage to guide condensed aerosol substrate towards the atomizing chamber [pg. 6 of machine translation]. Therefore, it is considered that the claimed protruding structure would be any of the capillary structures, which would necessarily be at least partially on the holder, would extend up to the air inlet pipe (such that it would clearly be “close” thereto), and the capillary structures as defined would result in the condensate being guided down away from the pipe “18” and thus down in the direction of the air inlet end “11”. It being noted that the “protruding structure” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, wherein the specification does not explicitly define what is considered to be the protruding structure. And similarly, where “holder” means a portion which at least partially accommodates/holds the vaporization assembly, it would reasonably be considered that these structures as above would be considered as at least partially located on a holder under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof. And additionally/alternatively, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. Whereas Lei clearly suggests the use of these protruding portions that extend into the notch, one would have found it obvious to situate these portions to guide condensate anywhere around the inner surfaces of the device as additional means to guide condensate as this would have been an obvious matter of design choice which would not result in unique modification of the device. Regarding the claimed notches, as in Figs. 2 and 6, the vapor outlet pipe “18” is clearly provided with “notches” in said pipe. See the top portions of Figs. 2 and 6 near “12”, where the pipe clearly has multiple segmented portions around the circumference of the pipe. An annotated Fig. 6 is provided below with arrows identifying the multiple notches in the pipe segments. It being noted that “notch” is treated under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as the specification does not specifically define what is meant by notch and thus the term is given its broadest meaning in light of the specification. Therefore, it may be considered that the vapor output pipe possesses several notches that run from a vapor inlet end upward, and as the protruding structure “15” and/or “181” clearly extends up to the vapor output pipe [see Figs. 2 and 6, and pg. 6 of machine translation detailing this aspect], it would reasonably be considered that the protruding structure would therefore be at least partially extended into the notch and “fit” the notch (taken broadly to mean present in or around the notch) because the protrusions extend into the region of the pipe where the notches are clearly present).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Optionally applied, Yi teaches an atomizer for generating an aerosol, wherein outlets “1221” are provided on the end surface of the first end “1211” of the air outlet channel “121” [Figs. 4, 6]. From Fig. 6 which provides a view of the air inlet, it is clear that this surface is provided with a plurality of notches which extend around the circumference of the opening, and where the notches extend along the longitudinal length of the outlet channel. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to include this structure (including the notches) as suggested by Yi, and one would have been motivated so as to prevent liquid from being sucked into the users mouth [pg. 5 of machine translation]. With such an arrangement, the capillary structures of Lei would be extending at least partially into the plurality of notch portions of Yi (because they extend up into the air outlet pipe).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein there is no contact but a gap between the protruding structure and the vapor output pipe such that the gap delimits and forms a capillary channel (condensation occurs as a result of the aerosolized substrate contacting the inner wall of the outlet air channel “18”, and the condensed aerosol substrate is returned back to the atomizing chamber along the air outlet channel [pg. 6 of machine translation], wherein the section of the inner wall of the atomization chamber 13 is provided with the first capillary structure “15” (including “151” and “152”) and the second capillary structure “181” [pg. 6 of machine translation, Figs. 2 and 6]. Therefore, it is clear that the protrusion structure of the capillary structures would be in non-contact with the output tube with gaps so as to define the capillary channel so as to allow the condensate to flow).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the protruding structure is constructed to extend in a longitudinal direction of the outer housing (as in Figs. 2 and 6, the capillary structures “15” and “181” clearly extend up/down in the figures, which is considered to be the longitudinal direction because this is the longest direction of the outer housing),
the protruding structure has a first portion and second portion which are opposite to each other in an extension direction, where the first portion is at least partially into the first notch and the second portion is outside the first notch (the first portion of the protruding structure may be considered to be either “181” or “151” as in Figs. 2 and 6, wherein each of these structures clearly extends into the vapor outlet pipe “18” and therefore would extend at least partially into the first notch as defined previously [pg. 6 of machine translation]. The extension direction is considered up/down in Figs. 2 and 6. The second notch may be considered to be, for example, “152” which is located further down and would be located outside of the first notch, and would be considered to be on an opposite end of either “151” or “181”. And as defined previously, each of the capillary structures clearly defines a protruding structure [pg. 6 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 5, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the second portion has a width and/or extension length greater than that of the first portion (when the second portion is defined as “152” for example, the length thereof would clearly be greater than the capillary structures “151” that are located further left and further right from the center of the device. As in Figs. 2 and 6, the extending length of “151” decreases moving from a center to the right and left, whereas the extension length of “152” is kept constant, and thus would extend longer than at least the side portions of “151”).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein a flow guide groove is provided in the protruding structure and configured to guide an aerosol condensate in a direction away from the vapor output pipe (it is noted that the term “flow guide groove” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as the term is not specifically defined in the claim nor in the specification. As such, any of the capillary structures “15” and/or “181” may be considered to be the flow guide groove, as these structures clearly guide the aerosol condensate down away from the vapor output pipe [pg. 6 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the holder further comprises a blocking portion which extends in a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the outer housing, and the flow guide groove extends onto the blocking portion so as to guide the aerosol condensate towards the blocking portion (Lei does not explicitly have the claimed blocking portion in the manner described. However, blocking portions which are located as such are common within the art. In Zhang, for example, includes an atomization cover 3’ which is located above the atomization assembly [see Figs. 11-12]. The atomization cover prevents the smoke oil from directly flowing into the collecting cavity [pg. 12 of machine translation], such that the cover of the structure 3’ leads the condensate to flow downwards. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the vaporizer of Lei so as to have the atomization cover as suggested by Zhang. And one would have been motivated so as to prevent the liquid from flowing directly into the collecting cavity and as such to serve as a guide for the liquid condensate. And when Lei is modified to have this portion from Zhang, the vaporizer would necessarily have the first and second capillary structures “15” and “181” located immediately above the atomization cover [see Figs. 2 and 6 of Lei, where these structures are located above the atomization assembly “14”], such that the capillary structures would naturally guide the condensate towards the atomization cover).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein at least a part of a surface of the blocking portion that is close to the vapor output pipe is constructed to be a curved arc (as in Zhang Fig. 12, the atomization cover 3’ clearly has portions which are rounded, such that these rounded portions would reasonably be considered to meet the limitation of portions having “a curved arc”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the vaporization assembly comprises a liquid guide element extending in the longitudinal direction and in fluid communication with the liquid storage cavity to draw the liquid substrate (as in Figs. 2-6, the vaporizer includes the atomization assembly “14” for atomizing the aerosol substrate. The liquid guide element would necessarily be a part of the atomizing assembly so as to draw liquid from the storage cavity (as in view of Zhang) to the atomization assembly so as to move the liquid to the area where vaporization occurs. And as in Figs. 2-5, the assembly would clearly extend at least partially in the direction perpendicular to the outer housing, which is primarily in the left/right direction in Fig. 2)
A heating element which partially surrounds the liquid guide element, and configured to heat at least a part of the liquid substrate to generate the aerosol (as seen primarily in Figs. 3-5, the atomization assembly includes a heating element, such as a heating wire which surrounds a fiber cotton, although any conventional heating elements may be used [pg. 4 of machine translation]. And as is conventional in the art, this heating wire would be surrounding the liquid guide, and the heating is what enables the generation of the aerosol from the atomization assembly),
A projection of the blocking portion in the longitudinal direction of the outer housing covers the heating element (as applied above in view of Zhang, it would be obvious to include the atomization cover 3’ suggested by Zhang. And so as to fulfil its purpose of being a cover, this would clearly be arranged at least partially in the longitudinal direction of the outer housing and thus covering the heating element, as in Fig. 12 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 10 and 18, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the holder at least partially delimits a vaporization cavity which surrounds thereof (as in Figs. 2 and 6, the atomizing cavity “13” is clearly delimited and surrounded by the surrounding holding structure around the cavity “13”. See specifically Fig. 6 which provides the best view oof the surrounding holder around the cavity), and the protruding structure is at least partially located within the vaporization cavity to guide the aerosol condensate towards the vaporization cavity (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the protruding structure may be considered to be the capillary structures “151” and “152”, which as in Fig. 6 clearly extend at least partially in the vaporization cavity and guides condensed aerosol substrate towards the atomizing chamber [pg. 6 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the air inlet end of the vapor output pipe has a width direction and thickness direction where the size of the pipe is greater in the width direction (the vaporizer device is shown in Fig. 1, where the outlet of the vapor outlet pipe is clearly seen in an elliptical shape at the outer top portion of the device. The width direction may be defined as the wider component, extending from the top left to bottom right of the device, while the thickness would be the perpendicular direction which extends from the top right to the bottom left. With the dimensions defined as such, and as the pipe outlet is shown to have an elliptical shape, it is clear that the pipe would have a greater “size” in this width direction than in the thickness direction), and the first notch is located on at least one side of the pipe in the thickness direction (as in the rejection of claim 3 above, as there are clearly “notches” located on the pipe in Figs. 2 and 6 located around the extent of the pipe, within the broadest reasonable interpretation given to the limitation of said notch, it would reasonably be considered that at least a notch would be located on the pipe in the thickness direction. It being noted that any notch would necessarily have a portion located in the “thickness” direction as the notch would have a least a portion of which exists in said direction).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the vapor output pipe has a cross-section that is substantially elliptical (as in Fig. 1 which shows the outer end of the vapor output pipe, the cross-section is clearly in an elliptical shape).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein the air inlet end of the vapor output pipe is further provided with a second notch which is on at least one side of the pipe in the width direction (as identified in the rejection of claim 3 above, there are a number of notches located around the extent of the vapor outlet pipe on the air inlet side [see Figs. 2 and 6]. It being noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, any notch would necessarily have a portion located in the “width” direction as the notch would have at least a portion of which that exists in said direction. So as there are clearly at least 2 notches in Figs. 2 and 6, the notches may be considered to be a first and a second which are in the thickness and width directions).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lei makes obvious a vaporizer wherein a width of the first notch is greater than the width of the second notch (as defined above, the notches would be present on the vapor outlet pipe. Because the vapor output pipe has an elliptical shape [see Fig. 1 outlet for example], the widths would necessarily be different from each other, such that it would be considered that the wider notch would be considered the first notch. And it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV). Applicant has not demonstrated any benefits from having relative widths of the first notch greater than the second notch would yield any improved results or different results from that of the prior art).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lei makes obvious the vaporizer of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), and suggests the electronic vaporization device with a power supply mechanism which powers the vaporization device (Lei clearly suggests the vaporizer which vaporizes the liquid substrate to generate an aerosol, and as Lei is tied to atomizers for electronic cigarettes [pg. 1 of machine translation], a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily consider that the vaporizer/electronic cigarette taught by Lei would be utilized with a power supply mechanism so as to power said electronic cigarette (so as to provide the working electronic vaporization device). Lei does not specifically state that a power supply mechanism is provided in its electronic cigarette to supply power to the device, but this is extremely well known and ubiquitous within the art. Zhang, for example, teaches a vaporizer which includes a power supply device for powering the atomizing device [pg. 4, 6 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a power supply device as suggested by Zhang, and one would have been motivated so as to provide power to the atomizing device allowing for the atomizer to function).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lei makes obvious an electronic vaporization device wherein there is no contact but a gap between the protruding structure and the vapor output pipe such that the gap delimits and forms a capillary channel (condensation occurs as a result of the aerosolized substrate contacting the inner wall of the outlet air channel “18”, and the condensed aerosol substrate in returned back to the atomizing chamber along the air outlet channel [pg. 6 of machine translation], wherein the section of the inner wall of the atomization chamber 13 is provided with the first capillary structure “15” (including “151” and “152”) and the second capillary structure “181” [pg. 6 of machine translation, Figs. 2 and 6]. Therefore, it is clear that the protrusion structure of the capillary structures would be in non-contact with the output tube with gaps so as to define the capillary channel so as to allow the condensate to flow).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 4 of their filed remarks 1/25/2026 that Lei does not disclose a protruding structure on the holder.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “holder”, which is defined so as to mean a portion which at least partially accommodates or holds the vaporization assembly, any surrounding surface of the vaporization assembly would reasonably be considered so as to at least partially accommodate/hold this vaporization assembly. In the case of the capillary structures of Lei (including either the first structures “15” or second “181”), because these are located at least partially around/accommodating/holding the vaporization assembly as in Figs. 2 and 6 (and which Applicant acknowledges in pg. 4 of their Remarks), it would thus be reasonably considered that these capillary structures “15” and/or “181” would satisfy the claimed language under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. And as these protruding structures are not simply located at/around the vaporization cavity but also extend along a longitudinal direction of the device beyond the vaporization section (see Figs. 2 and 6), these structures “15” and “181” would also clearly be on a “holder” which is located around the vaporization assembly. And additionally/alternatively, it is noted that courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. Where Lei clearly suggests the use of these protruding portions that extend into a notch so as to move condensate towards the atomization cavity, one would have found it obvious to situate these portions to guide condensate anywhere around the surfaces of the device as additional means to guide condensate towards the atomization cavity, as this would have been an obvious matter of design choice which would not result in unique modification of the device.
Applicant alleges on pg. 4 of their Remarks that Lei does not suggest a first notch at an air inlet end of the vapor output pipe that fits the protruding structure. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant does not specifically address how Lei is lacking in structure, and thus these arguments are found unconvincing. As explained in the rejections above, the protruding structure at least partially extending into the first notch and fitting the first notch is reasonably suggested by the cited combination, where Lei and optionally Yi suggests protruding structures (15 and/or 181) which extend into the vapor outlet pipe which comprises notches extending along the circumference thereof, the protruding portions would necessarily be extending at least partially into said notches. And regarding “fit” which was an added limitation, it is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof, the protrusion fitting the first notch may be considered to mean that it is appropriate/suitable but also that it is for example ill-fitting (wherein ill-fitting is still a “fit” of the protrusion and the notch, as “fit” does not explicitly require any specific sizing of the notch/protruding structure), such that the protrusion would naturally be considered to “fit” the notch with the structure as suggested by Lei and optionally in view of Yi where the protruding structure extends lengthwise into a plurality of notches that are formed around the vapor output pipe. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless, it is noted as the in the rejections above that Lei and optionally Yi reasonably suggest the amended structure, wherein the protruding portions from Lei extend longitudinally lengthwise into at least partially the notches of Lei or Yi.
Applicant argues on pgs. 4-5 that the application provides a different solution to guide condensate out of the pipe and has technical advantages not seen by the prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749