CTFR 18/264,137 CTFR 97508 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 5/11/2026 have been accepted. Claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-17, 19-20 are amended. There are no new or canceled claims. Claims 1-23 are pending, and claims 12-17 and 19-23 are withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings have overcome the objections previously set forth. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-4, 9, 11, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 3 should read “…at least one heater element, the at least one heater element defining” so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 1 line 5 should read “…a system for causing heating of the at least one heater element”, to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 1 line 6 should read “…wherein the at least one heater element is constrictable…”, so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 2 lines 2-3 should read “…wherein the at least one heater element”, so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 3 line 2 should read “…the at least one heater element”, so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 4 line 1 should read “the at least one heater element”, so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 9 line 4 should read “…when the at least one heater element”, so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 11 line 2 should read “…the at least one heater element”, so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced. Claim 18 line 2 should read “…the at least one heater element”, so as to be consistent with how the heater element was introduced . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by ‘802 (CN112293802A, of record) . Regarding claim 1, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generation device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol forming consumable (smoke generating device [title], which is non-combustion based [pg. 2 of machine translation]. The consumable aerosol generating rod “40” is placed into the device for generating the aerosol [see Figs. 2-4, pg. 3 of machine translation]), comprising At least one heater element (left “10” and right “20” heating sheets are arranged, see Figs. 1-2), the heater element defining at least partially a heater chamber for receiving the consumable therein (the heaters “10” and “20” form an arc-shaped channel “30” [Fig. 1, pg. 3 of machine translation]. The heater chamber is considered to be this channel “30”, wherein the consumable is placed into the channel [see Fig. 2]), A system for causing heating of the heater element (power supply may be provided that provides power to the heating sheets “10” and “20” [pg. 4 of machine translation]. Wherein the heating may occur through conduction [pg. 3-4 of machine translation]), Wherein the heater element is constrictable, in use, to reduce a volume of the heater chamber from a first volume to a second volume (“at least one of the left heating sheet 10 and the right heating sheet 20 is moveable to adjust the distance between the left heating sheet and the right heating sheet 20” [pg. 3 of machine translation, Figs. 1-5]. The movement of 10 and/or 20 leads to the ability to clamp the aerosol generating rod “40” leading to improved efficiency [pg. 3 of machine translation]. See also Fig. 3 to Fig. 4, wherein the heater elements are in an out position and then in a “clamp” position around the rod “40”. As such, because the heating sheets “10” and “20” each or both may be adjustable so as to clamp on the aerosol forming consumable, it is considered thus that the heater elements 10/20 are “constrictable” and would necessarily lead to a reduction in volume of the heater chamber when moving from an open position to a ”clamp” position around the consumable). Regarding claim 2, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element encircles the aerosol forming consumable when the consumable is inserted into the heating chamber (see Figs. 2-4, wherein the consumable aerosol forming rod “40” is placed into the channel “30”, such that it is surrounded by the heater elements “10”/”20”). Regarding claim 3, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element comprises an elongate hollow tube (see Fig. 1, wherein the heater element is clearly an elongate hollow tube with the heating chamber/channel “30” located inside of it). Regarding claim 4, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element is configured to restrict to reduce an internal dimension of the elongate hollow tube (see Figs. 3-4, wherein the constriction of the heater element 10/20 is clearly evident, wherein the heater element clamps onto the rod “40”, as the internal diameter of the element/hollow tube sees a decrease in its internal diameter). Regarding claim 5, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube is defined by a tubular wall and wherein the elongate hollow tube comprises a split in the tubular wall of the hollow tube (the tubular wall would be considered to be the outer surface of 10/20, as in Figs. 1-2 for example. A split in the tubular wall is clearly evident in Figs. 1-2, where “10” meets “20” for example). Regarding claim 6, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the split extends longitudinally along the elongate hollow tube (see Figs. 1-2, wherein the split clearly extends along the longitudinal/length of the tube). Regarding claim 7, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube has a C-shaped cross section (the hollow tube would have a c-shaped cross-section at least when “10”/”20” are separated from each other as in Fig. 3). Regarding claim 8, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube has a substantially circular cross section (as in Figs. 1-5, the tube clearly has a substantially circular cross-section). Regarding claim 9, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube has a substantially circular cross-section (as in Figs. 1-5, the tube clearly has a substantially circular cross-section), wherein the tube has tubular wall ends defined by the split and wherein the tubular wall ends move in a circumferential direction of the elongate hollow tube when the heater element constricts in use (as in Figs. 3-4, the tubular wall ends, considered to be “10” and “20” which are on opposite sides of the split, clearly move in a circumferential direction when the heater element constricts, as they constrict inwards around the consumable rod). Regarding claim 11, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element is configured to constrict to reduce a diameter of the elongate hollow tube (as in Figs. 3-4, heater elements “10” and “20” clearly constrict inwards in the direction of the inserted consumable rod “40”, such that on constriction the diameter of the hollow tube is clearly reduced). Regarding claim 18, ‘802 teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein heater element comprises a homogenous or substantially homogenous material (preferably, “10” and “20” is composed of “silicon carbide, molybdenum disilicide, lanthanum chromate, tin dioxide or crystalline silicon of the one or more mixed conductivity of metal or alloy particles are sintered together” [pg. 3 of machine translation]. As ‘802 teaches that a single one of these may be utilized, it is considered that ‘802 clearly teaches that the heater element may be homogenous or substantially homogenous material when the heater element is a single one of these materials as ‘802 teaches) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-9, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hejazi (US2020/0060340A1, of record) . Regarding claim 1, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generation device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol forming consumable (aerosol delivery device “100” as in Figs. 1-2, which utilizes an aerosol source member “104” to generate the aerosol [0034]), comprising At least one heater element (as in Figs. 6-7, there are heating elements “320” which are connected with jaw sections “312” [0088]), the heater element defining at least partially a heater chamber for receiving the consumable therein (the heaters/jaw sections together define a heating chamber located in the middle of the heaters, see Figs. 6-7. The aerosol source member is placed inside of this chamber [0088]), A system for causing heating of the heater element (power supply may be provided to the electrical components of the device for heating [0047]. Resistive/conductive heating may be used to heat the aerosol source member [0053]), Wherein the heater element is constrictable, in use, to reduce a volume of the heater chamber from a first volume to a second volume (each of the heaters “320” and the associated jaw sections “312” is moveable between different positions [0088-0090]. See Fig. 7, wherein it may be arranged in an open position and in a closed position wherein the diameter is reduced and the heater elements move and is “constrictable”, such that the volume of the heater chamber is reduced from a first volume (in the top of Fig. 7) to a second volume (in the bottom of Fig. 7). As such, because the heaters and associated structures are adjustable, it would reasonably be considered that the heater element is constrictable to reduce a volume of the heater chamber). Regarding claim 2, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element encircles the aerosol forming consumable when the consumable is inserted into the heating chamber (see Figs. 6-7, wherein the aerosol forming source is placed inside of the heating elements, such that the tubular shape of the heating elements would clearly encircle the consumable [0088-0090]). Regarding claim 3, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element comprises an elongate hollow tube (as the heater element is considered to comprise both the heating element “320” and the moveable jaw sections “312”, the heater element overall would form an elongate hollow tube as in Figs. 6-7 [0088-0090]. It being noted that the tube is considered “hollow” as the vast majority of the elongate tube does not have solid sections within the tube). Regarding claim 4, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element is configured to restrict to reduce an internal dimension of the elongate hollow tube (as shown in Fig. 7, the heater element clearly constricts from an open to a closed position, which reduces the internal diameter of the hollow tube). Regarding claim 5, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube is defined by a tubular wall and wherein the elongate hollow tube comprises a split in the tubular wall of the hollow tube (the tubular wall would be considered to be the outer surface of the tube in Figs. 6-7. A split in the tubular wall is clearly evident in Figs. 6-7, where each of the different sections “312” joint together). Regarding claim 6, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the split extends longitudinally along the elongate hollow tube (see Figs. 6-7, wherein the split as defined above clearly extends along the longitudinal length of the tube). Regarding claim 7, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube has a C-shaped cross section (the hollow tube would have a c-shaped cross-section at least when the tube is in the open position). Regarding claim 8, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube has a substantially circular cross section (as in Fig. 7, the tube would have a substantially circular cross-section). Regarding claim 9, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the elongate hollow tube has a substantially circular cross-section (as in Figs. 6-7, the tube clearly has a substantially circular cross-section), wherein the tube has tubular wall ends defined by the split and wherein the tubular wall ends move in a circumferential direction of the elongate hollow tube when the heater element constricts in use (as in Figs. 6-7, the tubular wall ends, considered to be circumferential ends of respective different sections of the heater, clearly would move in a circumferential direction when the heater element constricts, as they constrict inwards around the consumable rod, and would have at least partial movement in the circumferential direction thereof). Regarding claim 11, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein the heater element is configured to constrict to reduce a diameter of the elongate hollow tube (as in Figs. 6-7, heater elements “320” clearly constrict inwards in the direction of the inserted consumable, such that on constriction the diameter of the hollow tube is clearly reduced). Regarding claim 18, Hejazi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein heater element comprises a homogenous or substantially homogenous material (Hejazi teaches that the heater may be made of a single material such as steel or metal alloy [0089], such that when the heater is a single one of these materials as Hejazi teaches, the element would clearly therefore be a substantially homogenous material with substantially same material throughout) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘802 (CN112293802A, of record), and further in view of ‘802 (CN112293802A, of record) . Regarding claim 10, ‘802 states that the heating sheets “10” and “20” are preferably symmetrical [pg. 3 of machine translation]. From this wording, it is clear that this a preferred aspect and is not required for the invention. In cases wherein “10” and “20” are not symmetrical and of the same size, the two surfaces would necessarily overlap in the circumferential direction when clamping down along the rod “40” because of this difference in shape/size. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred Merc & Co v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F 2d 804,807 10 USPQ 2nd 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. ). Therefore, from the disclosure of ‘802, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably concluded that different shaped/sized heating sheets “10” and “20” are within the scope of the invention, and when these are utilized, the respective ends thereof would necessarily see an overlap in the circumferential direction of the elongate hollow tube. In the alternate, claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘802 (CN112293802A, of record), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Moloney (WO2020188247A1, of record). In the alternate regarding claims 9-10, Moloney teaches a heater for a vapor system [title], which is clearly in the same field of endeavor as ‘802. The heater “110” may have a variety of structures, including in an elongate hollow tube [see Figs. 18-23]. The tube may have edge portions which are overlapped in the circumferential direction [see Figs. 18A-18B], such that the tube is formed in a closed tubular format. When arranged as such, the edges are “ free to slide over each other so as to reduce or expand the circumference of the tube, and hence the capacity of the volume 112 ” [pg. 16 of machine translation]. Based off Figs. 18A-18B, the constriction of the heater clearly occurs along the circumferential direction thereof, and with substantially circular cross-section. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify ‘802 so as to have the overlapping edges in the circumferential direction and circumferential closing/opening as suggested by Moloney. One would have been motivated so as to allow for a wide variety of sizes to fit and not fall out, and to allow for changes in volume depending on the operation of the device [Moloney, pg. 16 of machine translation]. And this simple substitution to the known element of the clamping direction/method (such that there would be overlap in the circumferential direction thereof) would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill to obtain the predictable results as listed above (of allowing for a wide variety of sizes to fit, to allow for changes in volume, etc.). See MPEP2143 I . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejazi (US2020/0060340A1, of record) , as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Moloney (WO2020188247A1, of record) . Regarding claim 10, Hejazi does not explicitly show the tubular wall ends overlapping in the circumferential direction of the elongate hollow tube. However, this is known within the art of aerosol generation devices, as an alternative constriction method of the heater. Moloney teaches a heater for a vapor system [title], which is clearly in the same field of endeavor as Hejazi. The heater “110” may have a variety of structures, including in an elongate hollow tube [see Figs. 18-23]. The tube may have edge portions which are overlapped in the circumferential direction [see Figs. 18A-18B], such that the tube is formed in a closed tubular format. When arranged as such, the edges are “free to slide over each other so as to reduce or expand the circumference of the tube, and hence the capacity of the volume 112” [pg. 16 of machine translation]. Based off Figs. 18A-18B, the constriction of the heater clearly occurs along the circumferential direction thereof, and with substantially circular cross-section. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hejazi so as to have the overlapping edges in the circumferential direction and circumferential closing/opening as suggested by Moloney. One would have been motivated so as to allow for a wide variety of sizes to fit and not fall out, and to allow for changes in volume depending on the operation of the device [Moloney, pg. 16 of machine translation]. And this simple substitution to the known element of the clamping direction/method (such that there would be overlap in the circumferential direction thereof) would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill to obtain the predictable results as listed above (of allowing for a wide variety of sizes to fit, to allow for changes in volume, etc.). See MPEP2143 I . Response to Arguments 07-37 Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pgs. 9-10 of their filed Remarks 5/11/2026 that reference ‘802 does not teach the claims. Applicant argues that the claim requires for “the heater element” to be constrictable, such that this would be denoted to a single component and not two separate components. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the claim does not specifically require what is being argued. 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). While the claims recite “the heater element is constrictable”, the claims do not require for there to be only a singular heater element. This limitation being argued is not present in the claim. Further, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments appear to go against what the claim suggests as a whole. The claim introduces on claim 3 “at least one heater element”, such that the claim clearly intends for there to be one or multiple heater elements which define the heater chamber and are constrictable. See claim objections above, wherein it is suggested by the Examiner that the claim language of “heater element” be made consistent with how the heater element is first introduced as “ at least one heater element” throughout the claims. This is also consistent with the instant specification paragraph 24, for example, wherein the invention is tied to “at least one heater element” which is constrictable. Additionally, without explicitly barring this with further limitations, it would reasonably be considered that the “heater element” of ‘802 comprises both sheets 10 and 20 as the heater element, as these work together to supply heat to the aerosol forming substance, and may move together as well, and this would be a common and well-known designation of “heater element” to comprise that of sheets 10 and 20 within the art. As noted above, there is no specific requirement for the heater element to comprise of a single material which has no gaps and is formed integral (or some equivalent limitation). Regardless, it is noted that ‘802 explicitly states that “at least one of the left heating sheet 10 and the right heating sheet 20 is moveable to adjust the distance…”. In other words, if the heating element were to refer to only a singular heating element, it may be considered that a single one of “10” or “20” was constrictable to reduce the volume thereof, because only a single sheet may be moveable so as to reduce the volume thereof. As noted above, there is absolutely no claim limitation requiring for there to be a singular heater element (and in fact the claims imply the opposite with the use of “at least one” heater element). Applicant argues on pg. 10 of their Remarks that ‘802 does not disclose a heater element that is “constrictable”. Applicant notes that the specification has multiple embodiments that show a constrictable heater element. Applicant argues that the heating elements do not change their shape, and Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “constrictable” to mean that the element undergoes a change of shape. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that ‘802 does not show a change in shape) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). The claims do not require, either explicitly or implicitly, for there to be a change in shape of the heater element. The specification does not define “constrictable” as meaning “change in shape”, nor does the specification detail the specifics of the term “change in shape” of the heater element. Applicant’s notion that there are numerous embodiments showing certain constrictable heating elements is not convincing, as limitations from the specification (and certainly not limitations from various differing embodiments) would not be read into the claims. The specific limitation of requiring a change in shape is a much narrower term than “constrictable”, and if Applicant wishes to claim this feature it must be added to the claim language. Importantly, the instant specification does not give a special definition to the term “constrictable”. “Constrictable” may have a broader meaning than the more limiting meaning that Applicant is giving it in these arguments. Constrictable may mean being made narrower/smaller/tighter/etc. under the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, such that a shrinking in size would read upon the claims. As ‘802 has a change in the heater element that constricts itself so as to reduce the volume of the heater chamber, it is reasonably considered that ‘802 is “constrictable”. Regardless, as it is not specifically required for there to only be a single heater element, it is noted that the heater element of ‘802 may be considered to have a change in shape, as the heater element may be considered to be the combination of “10” and “20”, such that the element would clearly achieve a change in shape from a first open position (irregular shape) to a second closed position (circular shape). Applicant argues on pg. 10-11 of their Remarks against Hezaji, with similar points as the arguments made in reference to ‘802. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the response to arguments listed above as applied to ‘802 are also relevant to Hezaji. As above, it is noted that the claims do not specifically require for there to only be a singular heater element, nor do the claims require the specific “change in shape” limitations that Applicant argues for. Because these features are not in the claim, limitations cannot be read into the claim from the specification. If Applicant wishes for the limitation of the heater element to have a change in shape when it constricts and for there to be a singular heater element, this limitation must be explicitly added to the claim. Applicant’s arguments are therefore found unconvincing. Also, for Applicant’s information, reference CN110558624A is cited as pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. See Fig. 4 which shows a cross-sectional view of a heater. When heated, the heater moves along the vortex so as to reduce the space of the receiving cavity, thereby clamping the cigarette, and after cooling the heater rebounds so as to allow the cigarette to be smoothly taken out. As in Fig. 4, this is formed as a singular element, has overlapping ends, and clearly constricts in use to clamp on the cigarette and reduce the volume thereof [pg. 4-5 of machine translation]. Applicant argues on pg. 11 that rejection of claim 10 under ‘802 alone is improper, because ‘802 does not disclose a single heater element that is constrictable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted previously, it is not specifically required for there to be only a singular heater element (for example), such that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Barring this, it would be reasonable to considered the heater element to comprise of “10” and “20” since they work together to heat and constrict around the heating chamber. And alternatively, ‘802 specifically states that only one of 10 or 20 need be moveable to adjust the distance, such that it may be considered that a single one of “10” or “20” was constrictable to reduce the volume thereof, because only a single sheet may be moveable so as to reduce the volume thereof. Applicant argues on pgs. 11-12 that Moloney does not supply any teaching of a single constrictable heater element. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, it is not explicitly required for there to be a singular heater element, and in fact, the claim set implies the opposite with the introduction of “at least one heater element”. As such, the claim limitations are suggested for the reasons above. Further, it is noted that Moloney does in fact suggest a single constrictable heater element. See, for example, Figs. 18A-18B, and Figs. 19B and 21-23. The heater “110” is shown with overlapping portions, and the heater is shown to be formed as a singular heater element, and the edges are “free to slide over each other to reduce or expand the circumference of the tube” so as to alter the capacity of the volume, with motivation being to accommodate changes in the volume of the porous material if it absorbs more or less liquid. [pg. 22 of machine translation]. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN110558624A 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 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 2 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 3 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 4 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 5 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 6 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 7 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 8 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 9 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 10 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 11 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 12 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 13 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 14 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 15 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 16 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/264,137 Page 17 Art Unit: 1749
Prosecution Insights