DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/2/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 were canceled, claims 16-35 are new. Claims 16-35 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the activator (claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 34 discloses a "drop-shaped" outer side wall. However, this limitation fails to be supported by the original disclosure. In fact, the drawings and specification only support a circular ring-shaped outer side wall.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17, 25, and 34 are 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.
The term “fluidly couple” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fluidly couple” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What does this phrase specifically mean? For example, "at least one air inlet opening into the aroma chamber is fluidly coupled to the air flow path". There is no physical means of coupling these two features. There are no physical structures that couple the air inlet and the air flow path. Fluid coupling could be interpreted as items coupled (fastened) together by fluid pressure. However, this is not the case in the claimed structure. It is unclear the exact bounds and metes of the term "fluidly couple". For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the features associated with the phrase “fluidly couple” are within fluid communication with one another. Claims 17-35 directly or indirectly depend from claim 16 and are also rejected.
The term “fluidly coupled” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fluidly coupled” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Firstly, there is no means of physical attachment. It is unclear the exact bounds and metes of the term "fluidly couple". Secondly, the claim discusses "at least one air outlet" and a singular air inlet of the transport channel. Meaning that there can be multiple air outlets. Can multiple air outlets "fluidly couple" with a singular air inlet of the transport channel? Fluid coupling could be interpreted as items coupled (fastened) together by air pressure. However, this is not the case in the claimed structure. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the features associated with the phrase “fluidly couple” are within fluid communication with one another
The term “activator” in claim 25is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “activator” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is the structure of the activator? Page 3 of the specification states “wherein the aroma container comprises activators to supply the activation liquid to the first section. In other words, prior to use the aroma substance is present e.g. as spray-dried powder that is chemically more stable than a liquid. Only immediately before use, preferably automatically by inserting the aroma container into a drinking container, the activation liquid present in a separately provided, second section is brought into contact with the dry substance, thereby bringing the aroma container into the ready-to-use, activated state. Activation can also take place by pressing or shaking, so that the two components are mixed”. This statement identifies methods of activation. However, it fails to describe the physical structure of an activator. From the specification, it sounds as though the activator is an “automatic” device, but there is no clear automatic device that can be placed in the present invention. For the purposes of examination, an activator shall be broadly interpreted such that additional agitation is included.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the drop-shaped inner side wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the " in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Jager discloses a drinking device comprising: a volume (interior of 12) configured to contain a drinking liquid; a transport channel (18) that fluidly couples the volume to a drinking end of the drinking device; and an aroma container (20) attached at the drinking end of the drinking device, the aroma container comprising: an upper wall, a lower wall, and at least one side wall (figure 33b below) surrounding an aroma chamber that comprises an airflow path for an airflow, at least one air outlet (hole on 20 adjacent to 22) disposed on the at least one side wall, the at least one air outlet operable to selectively couple the airflow path of the aroma chamber with the transport channel (18); and an aroma substance (abstract) disposed within the airflow path of the aroma chamber.
Jager failed to disclose at least one air inlet opening into the aroma chamber that is fluidly coupled to the airflow path. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers for beverage containers, Sprunger teaches of an aroma containers that includes openings (78) on opposite sides as its air outlet (70), this allows for more scent permeation (page 2 [0037]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aroma container of Jager to include holes opposite the air outlet as taught by Sprunger in order to allow for scent permeation through the opposite surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Jager further discloses wherein the transport channel (18) comprises an air inlet (22b) that is fluidly coupled with the at least one air outlet (hole on 20 adjacent to 22) of the aroma container when the aroma container is in an activated position.
With respect to claim 33, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Jager further discloses wherein the at least one side wall of the aroma container comprises a drop-shaped inner side wall. (inner side wall of 20)
Examiner Note: The term “drop-shaped” is not further defined by the specification. It can be broadly interpreted as “drops” come in many different sizes and shapes. Drops or droplets on surfaces have a circular shape.
With respect to claim 34, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Jager further discloses wherein the drinking device comprises a drop-shaped outer wall (outer side wall of 20) corresponding to the drop-shaped inner-side wall (inner side wall of 20) of the aroma container, and wherein the drop-shaped outer wall and the drop-shaped inner wall align the relative angular position of the aroma container with respect to the drinking device.
Examiner Note: The term “drop-shaped” is not further defined by the specification. It can be broadly interpreted as “drops” come in many different sizes and shapes. Drops or droplets on surfaces have a circular shape.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1) and Berrido (US 7548684 B2).
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the aroma substance comprises an aroma concentrate applied to a carrier substance. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Berrido taught of the use of an aroma concentrate (fragrances) on a carrier substance (granules as taught by abstract). This just an alternate configuration of aroma substance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of aroma containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carrier substance with aroma concentrate as taught by Berrido in the aroma container of Jager since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present Jager teaches an aroma container and adding an aroma substance (a carrier substance with aroma concentrate) as taught by Berrido would maintain the same functionality of the combination of Jager and Sprunger, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 19, the references as applied to claim 18, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the carrier substance comprises granules. This is taught by the abstract of Berrido, refer to claim 18 rejection, above, for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 23, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the aroma container comprises a means for heating the aroma container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Berrido taught of an aroma container that uses a heating element (5) to heat the aroma substance in order to release fragrance (col 1 lines 34-42). This teaches of an alternative method of producing aroma, and an accelerated method for aromas with certain compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of aroma containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heating element and aroma as taught by Berrido for the aroma as disclosed by Sprunger since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the addition of a heater would promote scent diffusion. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Examiner Note: Configuration of figure 2 is used in this interpretation. On col 3 lines 42-49, Berrido also teaches of chemically activated heating. Col 3 lines 26-49 teaches of alternative means of heating.
With respect to claim 24, the references as applied to claim 23, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the means for heating comprises an electrically operated heater or a chemically activated heating. (Berrido teaches of both chemical and electrical activated heat on column 3 lines 26-49. See claim 23 rejection, above, for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 25, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the aroma chamber comprises: a first section comprising a dry substance; a second section comprising an activation liquid; and an activator configured to supply the activation liquid to the first section. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Berrido taught of an activation liquid (10), dry substance (granules 1), and an activator (surface above intended for squeezing) allowing for stable transport of the device to its intended environment (col 5 lines 14-21). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aroma of Jager in view of Sprunger to include separate liquid and dry components as taught by Berrido in order to allow for controlled activation of scent at the intended environment.
Examiner Note: Configuration of figure 5 is used in this interpretation.
With respect to claim 26, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the aroma chamber comprises: wherein the aroma chamber comprises a body formed from a carrier substance soaked with the aroma substance; and the body is freely movable during movement of the aroma container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Berrido taught of an activation liquid (10), solid (granules 1), and an activator (surface above intended for squeezing) allowing for stable transport of the device to its intended environment (col 5 lines 14-21). This inherently results in a solid body soaked with carrier substance. The granules are moveable along all axis as they are not constrained or attached to the device. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aroma of Jager in view of Sprunger to include separate liquid and dry components as taught by Berrido in order to allow for controlled activation of scent at the intended environment.
Examiner Note: Configuration of figure 5 is used in this interpretation. “Freely movable” is interpreted as a feature that is not constrained/attached to another object. It is understood that in the assembled condition, the carrier substance movement is constrained by the side walls.
Claim(s) 18, 21, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1) and Griffis (US 10744223 B2).
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the aroma substance comprises an aroma concentrate applied to a carrier substance. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Griffis taught of the use of an aroma concentrate (fragrance oil) on a carrier substance (abstract). This just an alternate configuration of aroma substance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of aroma containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carrier substance with aroma concentrate as taught by Griffis in the aroma container of Jager since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present Jager teaches an aroma container and adding an aroma substance (a carrier substance with aroma concentrate) as taught by Griffis would maintain the same functionality of the combination of Jager and Sprunger, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 21, the references as applied to claim 18, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the carrier substance comprises one or more of an organic material, a fungal mycelium, cellulose, cotton, rice, tea leaves, or starch. (col 5 lines 45-60)
Examiner Note: Organic material can be broadly defined. The materials listed can be supported by the scientific definition. For example, vulcanized rubber.
With respect to claim 35, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for the aroma container comprises an upper shell and a lower shell, the upper shell comprising the upper wall, the lower shell comprising the lower wall, and the upper shell and the lower shell together form at least one air outlet in the at least one side wall. Jager already teaches of separate upper and lower shell, however, the upper shell does not extend downward. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Griffis teaches of an upper shell and lower shell (110 and 111 respectively). Although Griffis does not teach of an opening in the side wall, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to have the upper shell and the lower shell form at least one air outlet in the at least one side wall since there only a finite number of placements for the outlet. Either the outlet is on the lower shell, upper shell, or both. Thus, making the upper shell and the lower shell form at least one air outlet would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of aroma containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an upper shell with sidewalls as taught by Griffis in the upper shell of Jager and Sprunger since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Jager and Sprunger teaches separate upper and lower shells and adding a longer upper wall as taught by Griffis would maintain the same functionality of the combination of Jager and Sprunger, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1) and Santandrea (US 20060251541 A1).
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 18, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for further comprising a carrier substance, wherein the carrier substance is a foamed plastic injected into the aroma chamber of the aroma container, to which an aroma concentrate is applied. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma releasing products, Santandrea taught of a carrier substance that is foamed plastic (page 16 [0256]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of aroma releasing products before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a foamed plastic as taught by Santandrea for the aroma carrier of Jager in view Sprunger since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, both elements allow for aroma to be carried. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1) and Bingham (US 6482225 B1) and Richards (US 6667006 B2).
With respect to claim 22, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the aroma chamber comprises a first section comprising an aroma concentrate and a second section comprising at least one wick that extends from the first section into the second section. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely odorant devices, Bingham taught of an aroma container that utilizes concentrate (34) and wick (40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of aroma containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the concentrate and wick as taught by Bingham for the aroma concentrate as disclosed by Jager in view of Sprunger since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, this is an alternative method to disperse scent. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143). Further, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Richards teaches of an orientation in a vertical extending object in which the wick (14) extends through a first section (12) to a second section (above 12). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentrate and wick of Jager in view of Sprunger and Bingham to be in an orientation in which the wick extends through the first section as taught by Richard in order to allow a method of wick saturation in a vertical orientation.
Claim(s) 27, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1) and Rolland (US 20200171192 A1).
With respect to claim 27, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the aroma substance comprises a solid body comprising incisions disposed in at least one partial section of the aroma chamber. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Rolland teaches of an aroma container that utilizes a solid body (6) with incisions (62) that allows air to flow through the housing (abstract). This is an alternative configuration for the aroma substance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of aroma containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the aroma solid body with incisions as taught by Rolland for the aroma substance as disclosed by Jager since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Rollands configuration can allow air flow. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 29, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for comprising an electronic component for near-field communication mounted on the aroma container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Rolland teaches of an aroma container that utilizes an RFID tag to allow for identification of the device (pages 2-3 [0037]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aroma container of Jager in view of Sprunger to include an RFID tag as taught by Rolland in order to allow for means for identification of each aroma container.
With respect to claim 30, the references as applied to claim 29, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the electronic component comprises an RFID tag. (Refer to claim 29 rejection, above, for combination rationale. RFID is taught by Rolland in the above rejection)
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1) and Kelsen (US 20180369442 A1).
With respect to claim 28, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, except for comprising an optically acting indicator on the aroma container configured to indicate time having passed since activation of the aroma container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Kelsen taught of a container with a visual display (255) said display can be configured to indicate time having passed. The device also is capable of tracking usage (figures 34-35 and pages 7-8 [0091]). The display can indicate when a cartridge needs replacing (page 3 [0060]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aroma container of Jager and Sprunger to include an optically active indicator as taught by Kelsen in order to allow the user to understand when the scent has been depleted.
Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11564516 B2) in view of Sprunger (US 20110155732 A1) and Bingham (US 6482225 B1) and Lorman (US 5853672 A).
With respect to claim 31, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for comprising an air delivery member disposed in the aroma container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely aroma containers, Lorman teaches of an air delivery member in the form of a fan (44) in order to propel the scent of the aroma (col 4 lines 33-35). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aroma container of Jager in view of Sprunger and Bingham to include a fan as taught by Lorman in order to promote better scent circulation.
With respect to claim 32, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the air delivery member comprises a propeller configured to be activated during a drinking process. The air delivery member is fan which is a propeller (taught by Lorman see claim 31 rejection, above, for combination rationale). The fan can be activated during the drinking process if chosen. Note, “configured to” expresses an intended function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20200171192-A1 OR US-20180369442-A1 OR US-20070075081-A1 OR US-20110226236-A1 OR US-20180050859-A1 OR US-20070253761-A1 OR US-20060251541-A1 OR US-20210356147-A1 OR US-20200390927-A1 OR US-20240000219-A1 OR US-20230312197-A1 OR US-20230270270-A1 OR US-20220087456-A1 OR US-20200178712-A1 OR US-20110155732-A1 OR US-6457969-B1 OR US-6112891-A OR US-6076450-A OR US-5635229-A OR US-11097877-B2 OR US-10744223-B2 OR US-7926450-B1 OR US-11471642-B2 OR US-7631814-B2 OR EP-3944792-A1 OR IE-914561-A1 OR US-20020174838-A1 OR US-2473574-A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735