20DETAILED 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 amendment filed 18 August 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and the Specification have overcome every Drawing and Specification objection. The Drawing and Specification objections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the pervious Claim objections. However, the Applicant’s amendments have provided new grounds for additional Claim objections.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome most of the 35 USC 112 rejections. The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claim 3 but was not persuaded. Accordingly, there are still grounds for a 35 USC 112(b) rejection in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 18 August 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 5, 10-11, 13, and 16-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…that is less than the one or more at least partially and/or…”
Similarly, in claim 17, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…that is less than the one or more
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “main body configured for generating an aerosol from an aerosol generation substrate” in claim 1.
The generic placeholder is “body” and the functional limitation is “configured for generating an aerosol from an aerosol generation substrate.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “wicking element,” where “wicking” is determined to be 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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites: “…the light propagation direction illuminates substantially…” The word “substantially” is adverb that modifies the verb “illuminates.” It is unclear what it means to “substantially” illuminate. Although MPEP 2173.05.b permits the use of “substantially” as a synonym for an approximation, the term “substantially” in claim 3 is not used in this manner. For example, it is not clear what is meant in claiming a light propagation direction that approximately illuminates. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “substantially,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US-20220125125-A1, effective filing date of 11 March 2019) in view of Bouchuiguir et al. (WO-2020225099-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sayed teaches an aerosol generation device (aerosol provision device 100, fig. 6) comprising:
a main body (body of the device shown in figs. 8-9; interpreted under 112f as including a wicking element; a wicking element is not explicitly disclosed) with a main housing (outer exterior surface of the device shown in figs. 8-9) that forms the exterior surface of the main body, the main body configured for generating an aerosol from an aerosol generation substrate (generates an aerosol using “induction heating,” para 0112) and comprising a light-emitting indicator (LEDs 214, fig. 9); and
a cover (fig. 11) that is releasably attached or connected to the main housing (releasably connected through a seal 212, figs. 8 and 11) to cover a portion of the exterior surface of the main housing (portion underneath the seal 212, fig. 8) and to form part of the exterior surface of the aerosol generation device (forms the input interface 112, fig. 1), the cover comprising a light-transmissive portion (annotated in figs. 8 and 11 below);
wherein the light-emitting indicator is configured to emit light through the light-transmissive portion (fig. 13B) in a light propagation direction through the light-transmissive portion (the claimed “direction” is construed as the direction that is normal to the outer member 202, figs. 8 and 13B),
wherein the projection of the light-emitting indicator onto a plane (annotated in fig. 9 below; fig. 2B of the Drawings in the Instant Application show a similar arrangement where a plurality of lights 221 are used) which is transversal to the light propagation direction (the construed plane is parallel to the outer member 202, figs. 8-9) has a first shape and size (size and shape of the projection, annotated fig. 9), and the projection of the light-transmissive portion onto this plane has a second shape and size (annotated in fig. 8 below), and
wherein the second size is smaller than the first size and the second shape fully fits into the first shape (the projection annotated in fig. 8 is smaller and fits within the projection annotated in fig. 9).
Sayed, fig. 8 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
220
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sayed, fig. 9 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
182
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sayed, fig. 11 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
804
1516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sayed does not explicitly disclose a main body (interpreted under 112f as including a wicking element; although Sayed teaching heating the aerosol generating material, Sayed does not explicitly disclose a wicking element).
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol generation devices, Bouchuiguir teaches a main body (“wick,” page 9, line 15).
Bouchuiguir, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
848
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sayed, in view of the teachings of Bouchuiguir, by using a wick, as taught by Bouchuiguir, that soaked up a liquid aerosol generating material and that was heated in the susceptor inside the induction coil, as taught by Sayed, in order to use the wick to transport liquid stored in a reservoir to the susceptor so that the liquid can be heated, for the advantage of generating an aerosol that comprises both nicotine and flavorings, where both the nicotine and the flavorings vaporize at the same time for inhalation by a user (Bouchuiguir, page 9, lines 2-17).
Regarding claim 2, Sayed teaches wherein the light-emitting indicator is a light source (LEDs 214, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Sayed teaches wherein the light-emitting indicator (LEDs 214, fig. 9) and the light-transmissive portion (annotated in fig. 8 above) are aligned relative to each other such that light emitted from the light-emitting indicator in the light propagation direction illuminates substantially the entire light-transmissive portion (annotated in fig. 13B below).
Sayed, fig. 13B (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
270
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sayed teaches wherein the light propagation direction (normal to the outer member 202, figs. 8 and 13B) is substantially perpendicular to the exterior surface of the light-transmissive portion (outer member 202, fig. 11; the left surface is construed as the “exterior surface”).
Regarding claim 5, Sayed teaches wherein the light-emitting indicator has an elongated shape with a length (annotated in fig. 9 below) that corresponds to the extension of the light-emitting indicator in an elongation direction (vertical direction, fig. 9), and a width (annotated in fig. 9 below) that corresponds to the extension of the light-emitting indicator in a direction perpendicular to the elongation direction (direction parallel to the “width” annotated in fig. 9 below), and perpendicular to the light propagation direction (annotated in fig. 9 below), and
wherein the light-transmissive portion has a length (annotated in fig. 8 below) which is smaller than a length of the light-emitting indicator (the “length” in fig. 8 smaller than the “length” in fig. 9), and a width (annotated in fig. 8 below) which is smaller than a width of the light-emitting indicator (the “width” in fig. 8 is smaller than the “width” in fig. 9).
Sayed, fig. 9 (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
196
532
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sayed, fig. 8 (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
195
478
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Sayed teaches wherein a portion (region 238, fig. 11) or all of the cover (fig. 11) surrounding or encircling the light-transmissive portion (the construed “light-transmissive portion” on the member 210, annotated in fig. 11 above) is opaque (“opaque,” para 0145; region 238 surrounds the “light-transmissive portion,” annotated fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Sayed teaches wherein the cover (fig. 11) comprises a composite laminar structure (composite is defined as “something made up of distinct parts;” laminar is defined as “arranged in thin layers;” the members 202, 208, 210, and 212 are each construed as being a distinct part and a thin layer) comprising a plurality of layers (members 202, 208, 210, and 212, fig.11), each layer having an outer surface (left surface of members 202, 208, 210, and 212, fig. 11) facing towards an outside of the aerosol generation device (outside of the device, fig. 8), and an inner surface (right surface of members 202, 208, 210, and 212, fig. 11) facing towards the main housing (inside the device, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Sayed teaches wherein the plurality of layers (members 202, 208, 210, and 212, fig.11) comprises a light-transmissive film layer (adhesive layer 208 is transparent, para 0143; member 210 comprises regions 232, which are transparent; a “film layer” is defined as a single layer of material; members 208 and 210 are construed as being “film layers” because each member is a single layer of material).
Sayed does not explicitly disclose a light-transmissive plastic.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol generation devices, Bouchuiguir teaches a light-transmissive plastic (“light diffuser 118 according to the preferred embodiment is a translucent white plastics material,” page 22, lines 16-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sayed, in view of the teachings of Bouchuiguir, by using a translucent white plastics material, as taught by Bouchuiguir, for the adhesive layer 208 and the regions 232, as taught by Sayed, in order to use a material that diffuses or spreads the light, for the advantage of providing a smooth visible light signal without hot spots or cold spots, which is desirable for the aesthetic properties of the status indicator (Bouchuiguir, page 22, lines 16-32).
Regarding claim 9, Sayed teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion (annotated in fig. 11 above) comprises at least a portion of the light-transmissive plastic film layer (the “light transmissive portion” in adhesive layer 208 and region 232 annotated in fig. 11 above).
Regarding claim 10, Sayed teaches wherein the light-transparent plastic film layer (member 208 and regions 232, fig. 11) comprises one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers (regions 238 and 230, fig. 11; construed as being fully opaque, paras 0144-0145) on an inner surface of the light-transparent plastic film layer (the members 208 and 210 are provided to the right of the right surface of member 202, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Sayed teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion (annotated in fig. 11 above) comprises one or more partially opaque layers (the “light transmissive portion” in adhesive layer 208 and region 232 annotated in fig. 11 above; construed as two layers) that is less than the one or more of at least partially and/or fully opaque layers (region 238 is a ring that is construed as being a layer that fits into the gasket 212, fig. 11; opaque regions 230 are construed as being a second layer, fig. 11; the portion of the member 202 that is not the apertures 204 is construed as being a third layer, figs. 10-11) comprised by portions of the cover that are opaque (regions 238 and 230 as well as the non-aperture portion of member 202, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 12, Sayed teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion (annotated in fig. 11 above) does not comprise a partially opaque layer (the construed “light-transmissive portion” does not include regions 238 and 230 as well as the non-aperture portion of member 202, fig. 11, which are construed as being partially opaque layers; light shines through the “light-transmissive portion,” annotated in fig. 13B above).
Regarding claim 13, Sayed teaches wherein the one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers (regions 238 and 230, fig. 11) are interposed between the light-transparent plastic film layer (member 208 and regions 232) and a support layer (member 212, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 16, Sayed teaches wherein the light-transparent plastic film layer (member 208 and regions 232, fig. 11) comprises one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers (regions 238 and 230, fig. 11; construed as being fully opaque, paras 0144-0145) on an inner surface of the light-transparent plastic film layer (the members 208 and 210 are provided to the right of the right surface of member 202, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 17, Sayed teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion (annotated in fig. 11 above) comprises one or more of partially opaque layers (the “light transmissive portion” in adhesive layer 208 and region 232 annotated in fig. 11 above; construed as two layers) that is less than the one or more of at least partially and/or fully opaque layers (region 238 is a ring that is construed as being a layer that fits into the gasket 212, fig. 11; opaque regions 230 are construed as being a second layer, fig. 11; the portion of the member 202 that is not the apertures 204 is construed as being a third layer, figs. 10-11) comprised by portions of the cover that are opaque (regions 238 and 230 as well as the non-aperture portion of member 202, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Sayed teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion (annotated in fig. 11 above) does not comprise a partially opaque layer (the construed “light-transmissive portion” does not include regions 238 and 230 as well as the non-aperture portion of member 202, fig. 11, which are construed as being partially opaque layers; light shines through the “light-transmissive portion,” annotated in fig. 13B above).
Regarding claim 19, Sayed teaches wherein the one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers (regions 238 and 230, fig. 11) are interposed between the light-transparent plastic film layer (member 208 and regions 232) and a support layer (member 212, fig. 11).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US-20220125125-A1, effective filing date of 11 March 2019) in view of Bouchuiguir et al. (WO-2020225099-A1) as applied to claims 1, 7-8, and 10-11 above and further in view of Chapman et al. (US-20150128969-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sayed teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers comprise one or more printed layers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol generation devices, Chapman teaches wherein the one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers comprise one or more printed layers (printing/graphics layer 704b, fig. 7; para 0062).
Chapman, fig. 7
PNG
media_image8.png
336
632
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sayed, in view of the teachings of Chapman, by using a printing layer, as taught by Chapman, for the regions 230, as taught by Sayed, in order to selectively apply a printing or graphics layer to the member 210 using a heat-shrink or adhesive, for the advantage of printing the opaque regions using easily accessible water-based or solvent-based inks (Chapman, paras 0062-0063).
Regarding claim 20, Sayed teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers comprise one or more printed layers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of aerosol generation devices, Chapman teaches wherein the one or more at least partially or fully opaque layers comprise one or more printed layers (printing/graphics layer 704b, fig. 7; para 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sayed, in view of the teachings of Chapman, by using a printing layer, as taught by Chapman, for the regions 230, as taught by Sayed, in order to selectively apply a printing or graphics layer to the member 210 using a heat-shrink or adhesive, for the advantage of easily printing the opaque regions using easily accessible water-based or solvent-based inks (Chapman, paras 0062-0063).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US-20220125125-A1, effective filing date of 11 March 2019) in view of Bouchuiguir et al. (WO-2020225099-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Peng et al. (US-20070172664-A1).
Sayed teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover is film insert molded (FIM).
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of preventing damage to covers or maintaining covers, Peng teaches wherein the cover (cover 10, fig. 1) is film insert molded (FIM) (the film 12 is molded on both sides, figs. 3-6; the double molding of a layer 12 is construed as film insert molded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sayed, in view of the teachings of Peng, by using the method for double injection molding, as taught by Peng, to manufacture the light-shaping member 210, as taught by Sayed, in order to use a method of manufacturing the results in improved adhesion and in a cover with a relatively long operational life (Peng, paras 0021 and 0031).
PHOSITA would have realized that the method of double injection molding, as taught by Peng, can be easily and readily applied to form the light-shaping member 210, as taught by Sayed, in order to achieve the shape and region of the member. Additionally, this claim is a product-by-process claim, and the patentability of a product does not dependent on its method of production. Moreover, the Applicant’s Specification does not indicate that the claimed process would impart distinctive structural characteristics on the final product (MPEP 2113.I).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 18 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 112 Rejections
Page 9 of the arguments states that the word “substantially” actually modifies the “entire light-transmissive portion.” An excerpt from the Specification is cited to explain what “substantially” means with respect to the “entire light-transmissive portion.” This argument was not found to be persuasive because the excerpt does not explain or use the term “substantially.” Moreover, “substantially” is an adverb and not an adjective so it cannot modify the “portion.” If “substantially” modifies instead “entire,” then it is not clear what the combination of words “substantially entire” mean because the word “substantially” has meaning that is opposite to the word “entire.”
35 USC § 103 Rejections
Pages 11-12 state that the examiner made a mistake in above the rejection in reference to Sayed (US-20220125125). Instead of mapping the exterior outer surface of figs. 8-9 to the claimed “housing,” the housing 102 of Sayed should be used (shown in fig. 7). The examiner assumes that the Applicant is defining the claimed “housing” as being an “outer cover” that is located on the exterior of the finished product, as described by Sayed regarding the housing 102.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because the plain meaning of the term “housing” is not limited to an outer cover that is located on the exterior of a finished product. Instead, “housing” has a much broader definition as “something that covers or protects” such as a “case,” “enclosure,” “casing,” or “frame.” In other words, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “housing” is not a “cover for a finished product.” Instead, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “housing” is simply a “cover.”
Moreover, this supposed definition of a “cover for a finished product” would be inconsistent with what is disclosed in the Specification of the Instant Application. Specifically, the Specification and Drawings describe a housing for a main body 200 and a cover 300 that fits over this housing. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP 2111). Notably, the MPEP does not state that the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable consistent with how the prior art references use the claimed terms, which appears to be the underlying assumption behind the Applicant’s argument.
Similar to the previous argument, page 12 of the arguments states that the examiner made another mistake in mapping all of fig. 11 of Sayed to the claimed “cover.” Instead, the claimed “cover” should be limited to only the outer member 202. The argument describes how the outer member 202 is connected through an adhesive layer 208. The inference appears to be that because of the adhesive layer, the outer member 202 is not “releasably attached” as required in the claim.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because claim 1 recites: “the cover comprising a light-transmissive portion.” When “comprising” is used, additional elements may be used (MPEP 2111.03). Recommend amending the claim to recite a “cover consisting of a light-transmissive portion” if the Applicant intends to overcome Sayed in this respect.
Page 13 provides conclusory arguments, and no evidence is cited.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/22/2026
Prosecution Insights