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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-12 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include “a first portion including an aerosol generating element and not including a tobacco material” and “wherein nicotine is not generated in the first portion, and is generated in the third portion by an aerosol that is generated in the first portion, cooled in the second portion, and then heats the tobacco element of the third portion.”
As an initial matter, the cited support for the amendment does not support the full scope of the newly added limitations. Applicant identifies paragraph [0117] of the original specification as support. Paragraph [0117] discloses that heater 230 may heat first portion 110, that the aerosol-generating element of first portion 110 may generate an aerosol, that the aerosol may be cooled in second portion 120, and that the cooled aerosol may thereafter be introduced into third portion 130 to heat a tobacco element and vaporize nicotine. However, paragraph [0117] does not disclose that the first portion does not include a tobacco material, nor does it expressly disclose the negative limitation that nicotine is not generated in the first portion. The fact that paragraph [0117] identifies a tobacco element in the third portion does not, without more, exclude tobacco or nicotine-generating material from the first portion. Accordingly, the cited passage does not provide support for the negative limitations introduced by the amendment.
Applicant argues that Barnes fails to disclose the amended first portion because the embodiment relied upon in the previous Office action describes substrate 22 as containing tobacco material, such as tobacco powder, extract, or dust, and further contends that tobacco material in substrate 22 is an essential feature of Barnes. This argument is not persuasive. Barnes is not limited to the particular tobacco-containing substrate embodiment identified by Applicant. Barnes expressly teaches that the substrate carrying the aerosol-forming material may be formed from a non-woven or sheet-like material such as paper or carbon paper, with tobacco paper merely disclosed as another alternative. Thus, Barnes expressly provides an embodiment in which the aerosol-generating first portion contains aerosol-forming material without requiring tobacco material. The presence of tobacco in other disclosed embodiments does not negate Barnes’s express disclosure of the non-tobacco alternative relied upon in the present rejection.
Applicant further argues that Barnes merely uses tobacco section 34 to add tobacco flavor and does not expressly teach vaporizing nicotine from tobacco section 34 using the cooled aerosol. This argument is also not persuasive. Claim 1 is directed to an aerosol-generating article, rather than a method of generating nicotine. The recited generation, cooling, and heating language describes the operation of the structurally recited portions and does not impart additional structure to the article. Barnes discloses the corresponding structural arrangement comprising a non-tobacco aerosol-generating portion followed longitudinally by void space 30, which functions as a cooling and nucleation region, followed by tobacco section 34 and a filter. Barnes further teaches that aerosol-forming material is volatilized in the upstream portion, cools in void space 30 to form an aerosol, and thereafter passes through the downstream tobacco section. Accordingly, Barnes discloses the claimed structural arrangement and an article structurally capable of the recited operation.
Applicant’s discussion of allegedly improved or more uniform nicotine delivery likewise does not distinguish the claimed article from Barnes. Claim 1 does not recite a particular nicotine-delivery profile, temperature, timing of nicotine release, degree of uniformity, or structural feature producing the asserted result. The asserted technical effect therefore does not establish a structural distinction between the claimed aerosol-generating article and the article disclosed by Barnes.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to recite “a first portion including an aerosol generating element and not including a tobacco material” and “wherein nicotine is not generated in the first portion.” The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of a first portion that affirmatively excludes tobacco material or in which nicotine is affirmatively excluded from being generated.
The specification discloses that the first portion 110 may include an aerosol-generating element and may further contain additives such as a flavor agent, wetting agent, organic acid, flavored liquid, menthol, or moisturizer. ¶ [0046]. The specification further discloses that the third portion 130 may include a tobacco element. ¶ [0057]. Embodiment 1 similarly describes the first portion as including a crimped sheet containing an aerosol-generating material and the third portion as including a tobacco sheet. ¶ [0066]. However, these disclosures identify materials that may be present in the respective portions and do not disclose that tobacco material is excluded from the first portion.
Paragraph [0117], relied upon by Applicant as support for the amendment, discloses that the aerosol-generating element of the first portion 110 may generate an aerosol, that the generated aerosol may be cooled in the second portion 120, and that the aerosol introduced into the third portion 130 may heat the tobacco element and vaporize nicotine. Paragraph [0120] likewise discloses that the tobacco element included in the third portion may be heated by high-temperature aerosol generated in the first portion. Thus, the specification provides support for generating aerosol in the first portion and subsequently vaporizing nicotine from the tobacco element of the third portion. However, neither paragraph [0117] nor paragraph [0120] discloses that the first portion does not include tobacco material or that nicotine is not generated in the first portion.
The absence of an express disclosure of tobacco in the first portion does not, without more, provide written-description support for the subsequently added affirmative exclusion of tobacco material from that portion. Similarly, disclosure that nicotine is vaporized from the tobacco element of the third portion does not itself establish that nicotine cannot also be generated in the first portion.
Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the limitations “not including a tobacco material” and “nicotine is not generated in the first portion,” as presently recited in claim 1.
Claims 2–10 depend from claim 1 and therefore contain the same unsupported subject matter and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnes et al. (US 5,819,751).
Regarding claim 1, Barnes teaches an aerosol generating article comprising:
a first portion including an aerosol generating element and not including a tobacco material (substrate formed from non-tobacco paper or carbon paper carrying aerosol-forming material) (Barnes, col. 6, ll. 62–68; col. 7, ll. 1–10);
a second portion including a cooling element (void space 30 acting as a cooling and nucleation chamber) (Barnes, col. 5, ll. 58–62);
a third portion including a tobacco element (tobacco section 34 including tobacco paper plug 36 and tobacco cut filler 38) (Barnes, col. 5, ll. 63–68; col. 6, ll. 1–6);
a fourth portion including a filter element (filter element 44) (Barnes, col. 6, ll. 16–22);
wherein the first portion, the second portion, the third portion, and the fourth portion are sequentially arranged in a longitudinal direction of the aerosol generating article (substrate section 20, void space 30, tobacco section 34, and filter element 44 sequentially arranged toward the mouth end of cigarette 15) (Barnes, Fig. 1).
With respect to “wherein nicotine is not generated in the first portion, and is generated in the third portion by an aerosol that is generated in the first portion, cooled in the second portion, and then heats the tobacco element of the third portion,” Barnes teaches a first portion comprising a non-tobacco substrate carrying aerosol-forming material, such that the first portion lacks the tobacco material serving as the downstream source of tobacco constituents. Barnes separately provides tobacco material in downstream tobacco section 34. Barnes further teaches that aerosol-forming material is volatilized at the substrate, the volatilized material cools in void space 30 to form an aerosol, and the aerosol thereafter passes through tobacco section 34 (Barnes, col. 5, ll. 58–68; col. 6, ll. 1–14).
The recited nicotine generation, cooling, and heating language describes the operation of the claimed article rather than additional structure. Barnes discloses the corresponding structural arrangement in which aerosol generated in the non-tobacco first portion passes through the cooling portion and subsequently through the downstream tobacco-containing third portion, and the disclosed article is therefore structurally capable of the recited operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 5,819,751) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuber et al. (US 2014/0305448).
Regarding claim 2, Barnes teaches: the aerosol generating article of claim 1,
including a first portion including an aerosol generating element (col. 4, ll. 40–55);
wherein the aerosol generating element comprises a substrate including aerosol forming material (col. 4, ll. 45–55);
wherein the substrate is formed from a sheet material (col. 7, ll. 1–10);
wherein the sheet material is gathered into a plurality of longitudinally extending folds to form a rod (col. 7, ll. 10–20);
wherein the gathered sheet forms the aerosol generating element (col. 7, ll. 10–20);
wherein the aerosol forming material is carried within the gathered sheet substrate (col. 4, ll. 45–55).
Barnes does not teach that the sheet is crimped.
Zuber teaches:
a first portion including an aerosol-forming substrate comprising a crimped sheet (¶ [0063]);
wherein the crimped sheet comprises a plurality of substantially parallel ridges or corrugations (¶ [0065]);
wherein the crimped sheet forms the aerosol-forming substrate (¶ [0066]);
wherein the aerosol-forming substrate comprises aerosol-forming material incorporated within the sheet (¶ [0076]);
wherein aerosol formers are included in the sheet material (¶ [0083]).
The recitation that “the aerosol generating element is impregnated in the crimped sheet” is functional language describing the presence of aerosol-forming material within the sheet and does not impose a structural limitation beyond the inclusion of the material within the sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the gathered sheet of Barnes to be a crimped sheet as taught by Zuber, since Zuber teaches forming a sheet into a crimped configuration having substantially parallel ridges (¶ [0065]), which corresponds to a folded or gathered sheet structure, in order to provide defined ridges or channels to facilitate airflow and aerosol formation within the substrate (¶ [0065]).
Regarding Claim 3, Barnes does not explicitly teach: wherein the second portion has a length of about 3 mm to about 30 mm in the longitudinal direction of the aerosol generating article.
Zuber teaches: an aerosol-generating article including an aerosol-cooling element positioned downstream of an aerosol-forming substrate (¶¶ [0082], [0110]–[0112]);
wherein the aerosol-cooling element has a length between approximately 5 mm and approximately 25 mm (¶ [0135]).
Zuber’s aerosol-cooling element corresponds to the cooling portion (second portion) of Barnes (e.g., void space 30), as both are positioned downstream of the aerosol-generating substrate and function to cool aerosol passing therethrough.
The range taught by Zuber (5 mm to 25 mm) lies entirely within the claimed range of about 3 mm to about 30 mm.
The length of the cooling portion is a result-effective variable affecting aerosol cooling and flow characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cooling portion (void space 30) of Barnes with a length within the range taught by Zuber as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e., the length of the cooling portion). One would be motivated to make the modification in order to achieve a suitable balance between aerosol cooling and device compactness, in view of Zuber’s teaching that the aerosol-cooling element cools an aerosol stream passing therethrough (¶¶ [0124]–[0126]) and provides dimensional ranges suitable for such elements (¶ [0135]).
Regarding claim 4, Barnes further teaches that a downstream portion (e.g., void space 30) is provided for aerosol flow and cooling between adjacent sections (¶¶ [col. 5–6]; Fig. 1).
However, Barnes does not teach that the second portion includes a tubular-shaped structure including a cavity.
Zuber teaches a support element positioned immediately downstream of an aerosol-forming substrate, wherein the support element comprises a hollow tubular element (¶ [0091]).
Zuber further teaches that the hollow tubular element is configured as a tube (e.g., a hollow cellulose acetate tube), which includes an internal cavity for aerosol flow (¶ [0091]).
Zuber teaches that this tubular structure is disposed along the aerosol flow path within an aerosol-generating article (¶¶ [0089]–[0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second portion of Barnes to include a tubular-shaped structure having an internal cavity as taught by Zuber, in order to provide a known structural configuration for defining an internal flow path through the second portion of the aerosol generating article, since both Barnes and Zuber are directed to aerosol-generating articles having longitudinally arranged components through which aerosol flows.
Regarding claim 5, Barnes teaches the aerosol generating article of claim 1, including a first portion, a second portion (e.g., void space 30), a third portion, and a fourth portion arranged sequentially along a longitudinal direction of the article (col. 2–3; Fig. 1). Barnes teaches that the second portion is disposed downstream of the aerosol generating element and provides a region through which aerosol flows (col. 5–6; Fig. 1).
However, Barnes does not teach that the second portion includes polylactic acid.
Zuber teaches an aerosol-generating article including an aerosol-cooling element positioned downstream of an aerosol-forming substrate, wherein the aerosol-cooling element comprises a gathered sheet of polylactic acid (¶¶ [0119]–[0121]). Zuber teaches that polylactic acid is a suitable material for forming the cooling portion of the article (¶ [0121]).
Zuber teaches that polylactic acid is a suitable material for forming a cooling portion in an aerosol-generating article (¶ [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second portion of Barnes using polylactic acid as taught by Zuber, as a matter of selecting a known suitable material for the cooling portion of an aerosol-generating article, since both Barnes and Zuber are directed to aerosol-generating articles having downstream cooling portions through which aerosol flows.
One would be motivated to make the modification for the benefit of using a known suitable polymer material for forming the cooling portion of an aerosol-generating article.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 5,819,751) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2011/0271968).
Regarding claim 6, Barnes does not teach: wherein the fourth portion includes at least one capsule including at least one of a flavor material and an aerosol generating material.
However, Carpenter teaches: a filter element including a cavity containing a plurality of breakable capsules (¶¶ [0006], [0032])
the capsules comprising an outer shell and an internal payload including a flavorant (¶¶ [0010], [0046]–[0048])
the capsules positioned within the filter element at a mouth-end portion of a smoking article (¶¶ [0006], [0030])
the capsules being rupturable to release the flavorant into mainstream smoke to modify sensory characteristics (¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0028])
Thus, Carpenter teaches at least one capsule including a flavor material disposed within a filter portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Barnes to include the capsule as taught by Carpenter in order to enable selective modification of the aerosol sensory characteristics of the aerosol during use, as expressly taught by Carpenter (¶¶ [0005], [0028], [0034]–[0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Barnes does not teach: the wrapper including at least one perforation formed at a location corresponding to the fourth portion.
However, Carpenter teaches a wrapper surrounding at least a portion of the fourth portion (filter element). Carpenter teaches a filter element 26 positioned at the mouth end and surrounded by plug wrap 28 and tipping material 46 (¶¶ [0030]–[0033]).
The wrapper including at least one perforation formed at a location corresponding to the fourth portion (Fig. 1).
Carpenter teaches perforations 30 extending through the tipping material and plug wrap in the region of the filter element 26, i.e., at the mouth-end (fourth portion) (¶ [0030]; Fig. 1).
Carpenter further teaches that such perforations provide air dilution through the filter region (¶ [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapper of Barnes to include the perforations at a location corresponding to the fourth portion as taught by Carpenter, in order to provide controlled air dilution and adjust draw characteristics, as explicitly taught by Carpenter.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 5,819,751) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EICHWALD ET AL (US 3,144,024).
Regarding claim 7, Barnes does not teach that the fibers of the fibrous filter material are impregnated with a flavor material.
However, Eichwald teaches fibers impregnated with a flavor material. Specifically, Eichwald teaches applying a flavor preparation to filter material (col. 1, lines 40–48; FIG. 1, step 2), forming flavor-treated filter material into a rod (col. 1, lines 48–55; FIG. 1, step 3), and impregnating cellulose ester filter fibers with a flavoring solution such that the flavoring substance is incorporated into the filter mass (col. 4, lines 35–45; col. 5, lines 1–10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fibrous filter material of Barnes to include fibers impregnated with a flavor material as taught by Eichwald in order to provide a known and predictable method of delivering flavor to mainstream smoke through the filter material. Both Barnes and Eichwald are directed to cigarette filter technology and improving the sensory characteristics of mainstream smoke, and Eichwald teaches a known technique for incorporating flavor directly into filter fibers.
As modified, Barnes teaches the fibrous filter material having fibers impregnated with a flavor material, as required by claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 5,819,751) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malgat et al. (US 2016/0331031).
Regarding Claim 8, Barnes does not teach a thermally conductive wrapper surrounding at least a portion of the first portion, wherein the thermally conductive wrapper includes a paramagnetic material.
However, Malgat teaches: an aerosol-generating article including a wrapper surrounding an aerosol-forming substrate (¶¶ [0010], [0017]–[0018]);
wherein the wrapper comprises a thermally conductive material such as a metal foil, including aluminum foil (¶¶ [0009], [0018]);
the wrapper being configured to spread heat and mitigate ignition risk (¶¶ [0010], [0021]); and
that such aerosol-generating articles may include a combustible heat source (¶¶ [0042]–[0044]).
With respect to the limitation that the thermally conductive wrapper includes a paramagnetic material, Malgat teaches the wrapper comprises aluminum foil (¶¶ [0009], [0018]). The present As-filed specification identifies aluminum as an example of a paramagnetic material (Spec. ¶ [62]). Accordingly, the claimed paramagnetic material corresponds to the same class of materials (i.e., aluminum metal) already taught by Malgat, and therefore does not impart a structural distinction.
Further, the recitation that the wrapper is “thermally conductive” is functional language describing an inherent property of the metal foil and does not impose an additional structural limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Barnes to include the thermally conductive wrapper as taught by Malgat in order to improve heat distribution and reduce ignition risk, as explicitly taught by Malgat (¶ [0021]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 5,819,751) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malgat et al. (US 2016/0331032) hereinafter Malgat-2.
Regarding claim 9, Barnes does not teach: a wrapper surrounding at least a portion of the second portion (cooling element) and including at least one perforation formed at a location corresponding to the second portion.
However Malgat-2 teaches: an aerosol-generating article comprising a wrapper surrounding the article (¶¶ [0095], [0121]);
the wrapper including perforations/holes for airflow (¶¶ [0010], [0121], [0127]);
wherein the perforations are located downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate (¶ [0010]); and
an aerosol-cooling element located downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate (¶¶ [0075]–[0077], [0121]).
Thus, Malgat teaches that: both the perforations and the aerosol-cooling element are positioned in the downstream portion of the aerosol-generating article, and such that the perforations are formed at a location corresponding to the portion of the article including the aerosol-cooling element (¶¶ [0010], [0075]–[0077], [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barnes to include the wrapper with perforations as taught by Malgat in order to facilitate airflow and regulate resistance to draw through the aerosol-generating article, thereby improving aerosol delivery and user experience (¶ [0010]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights