DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 16, and 19, cancellation of claim 2, addition of claim 21, amendment to the drawings, and supporting remarks filed 12/05/2025 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the drawings objection, claim objection, claim rejection under 35 USC 112, claim rejections under 35 USC 103, and claim rejections for double patenting are withdrawn. However, new claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are necessitated by the claim amendments. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections (Amendment p. 8-11) 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 63/438,643, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, claims 1-20 lack support. The provisional application is silent on receiving a user indication, a first/second smoking mode, vaporizing for a predefined period of time in the first mode, and vaporizing while receiving an active input from the user in the second mode (all per claim 1). Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and are therefore not supported. Application No. PCT/IB2023/052521 does support claim 1 (WO 2024/150036 A1 p. 44 l. 20-30) and claims 2-20, and thus claims 1-20 have an effective filing date of 03/15/2023.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites an apparatus “for use with a capsule that contains a smoking material containing one or more active agents”. The “capsule”, “smoking material”, and “active agents” are not positively recited components of the apparatus, and thus the quoted portion of the preamble is considered a mere statement of intended use which does not limit the structure of claims 1-20. See MPEP 2111.02(II); see also Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Furthermore, claim limitations directed to the capsule and components thereof are considered to have patentable weight only to the extent that they dictate the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Claims 12-13 recite “wherein the smoking device is configured to flatten the at least part of the portion of the capsule [to various cross-sectional ratios]”. Any prior art smoking device which is configured to flatten at least a part of a capsule and alter its cross-section is considered to be structurally indistinguishable from claims 12-15, because the claimed cross-sections are achieved by a combination of (1) the smoking device which is configured to flatten but not further limited by specific structural elements in claims 12-13, and (2) the structure of the capsule, which does not form any part of the claimed apparatus.
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 limitations are: (1) “mechanical elements that are configured to flatten at least part of the portion of the capsule” in claim 11 and (2) “a mechanism configured to bring the electrodes into pressurized contact with the capsule” in claim 15.
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. The specification discloses (1) one or more mechanical elements 214 which may include gear wheels 216, motor 218, wheels, plates, cuboid elements, blade like elements, funnel 242, roller wheels 244, material 250 with high magnetic permeability, and/or electrodes 30 which are brought into pressurized contact to flatten the capsule 20 and/or the coil 240 (p. 36-40, Figs. 26-32B). The specification discloses (2) a mechanism 230 that is configured to bring electrodes 30 and/or mechanical elements 214 into pressurized contact with capsule 20 in order to enhance electrical contact between the electrodes and the heating element of the capsule and/or flatten a portion of the capsule flatten a portion of the capsule. The mechanism 230 may include one or more compression springs 232 that are configured to generate a counterforce in response to being compressed, wherein the pressing of the button causes compression of the compression springs, such that upon release of the button, the compression springs bring the electrodes into pressurized contact with the capsule (p. 37-38, Figs. 29A-D).
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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-4, 6-9, 14-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman (WO 2019/005526 A1) in view of Aoun (WO 2020/182772 A1) and Newns (US 2017/0231284 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raichman discloses a vaporizing device 20 which includes a vaporizing unit 21 (“a smoking device” as recited in claim 1) for vaporizing the contents of a capsule 29 ([0043, 0045], Fig. 1). Raichman discloses control circuitry 34 which may include one or more microprocessors (“control component”), among other control elements [0037-38]. Raichman teaches that the control circuitry 34 may lower the capsule temperature if no inhalation is detected after a period of time, and/or in response to a subject input [0147]. Raichman discloses numerous other control circuitry functions such as capsule identification and associated functions, inhalation detection, temperature control responsive to airflow sensing, receipt of programming instructions via user interface, and generation of alerts [0065-0150]. Raichman discloses a user interface 10 which may include buttons for inputting instructions or other signals to the control circuitry 34 [0090, 0178]. However, Raichman fails to explicitly disclose the control circuitry 34 being configured to operate according to the “first mode” and “second mode” based on a user indication as claimed.
Aoun is directed to an aerosol-generating device (Title). The device includes a heating assembly operable in at least a first mode and a second mode, wherein the modes may have different predetermined durations of operation (p. 8 l. 20-p. 9 l. 5). The first and second mode durations are preferably 3-5 minutes and 2.5-3.5 minutes, respectively (p. 9 l. 21-25), both of which read on “between 60 second and 600 seconds” as recited with respect to the claimed “first mode”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both modes are suitable “for users who wish to smoke a full capsule during a relatively short period” as recited with respect to the claimed “first mode”. Operating with a plurality of modes advantageously gives more choice to the consumer (p. 74 l. 21-23). A user may select the first or second mode via a user interface (p. 18 l. 18-29), which reads on “receive an indication from a user indicating whether they wish to smoke the active agents in a first mode or a second mode” as claimed. Aoun fails to explicitly disclose the claimed operation of the “second mode”.
Newns is directed to an electronic vapor provision system (Title). The system includes a manual activation device 256 such as a button, which may be deemed activated for as long as the button is continuously pressed by the user [0052]. The device 256 requires continuous operation from the user and the activation terminates once the user operation terminates [0056], which reads on “repeatedly heat the smoking material to the vaporization temperature whenever the user supplies an active input that they wish for the smoking material to be heated and only while receiving the active input” as claimed with respect to the “second mode”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Newns’ system and device 256 are “suitable for users who wish to repeatedly puff on the capsule occasionally” as claimed. The device 256 advantageously gives the user direct control over how long the vaporizer is activated during an inhalation period [0052, 0056]. Newns also discloses another example where the activation remains effective for a limited predetermined time following the user action [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this example is similar to Aoun’s first and second modes with predetermined times, and thus Aoun’s and Newns’ functionalities could be predictably combined to further increase user control.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman such that the control circuitry 34 and user interface 10 are configured to allow a user to select heating according to Aoun’s first and second modes, and to further configure the control circuitry 34 and user interface 10 to allow selection of a third mode wherein a button must be continuously pressed as disclosed by Newns, because Raichman, Aoun, and Newns are all directed to vaporization devices with control features, Aoun and Newns both disclose that their features provide more consumer control, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Aoun discloses that the user may select the first and second modes by depressing a push button for various durations such as three seconds or five seconds (p. 91 l. 20-27). It would be obvious to similarly configure modified Raichman’s control circuitry 34 and user interface 10 to allow selection between the three modes by depressing a button for various durations, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. Claims 3 and 6 recite opposite configurations – according to claim 3, a shorter press selects the second mode, whereas in claim 6, a shorter press selects the first mode. Either configuration would be obvious in view of Aoun’s disclosure because these are simple design choices.
Regarding claim 4, Raichman’s control circuitry 34 may initially (i.e., when no air flows through the capsule) heat the plant material to a temperature point at the lower end of the vaporization temperature range of the plant material (which reads on “preheat the smoking material to a temperature that is below the vaporization temperature of the one or more active agents, prior to receiving the indication from the user”) [0111-0112].
Regarding claims 7-9, modified Raichman discloses the control circuitry 34 and user interface 10, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 6. However, the references fail to disclose the limitations of claims 7-9.
Aoun discloses multiple operation modes which may be selected by pushing a button for a short or long duration (p. 90 l. 15-p. 91 l. 27). The duration may be 1-10 seconds (which overlaps the range of claim 7) (p. 90 l. 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the button to function similarly “during a smoking session”, and thus claims 8-9 are disclosed by Aoun, or at least obvious in view thereof. Further, specific configurations of button presses to switch between modes (i.e., a long press to switch from first to second mode per claim 8, and a short press to switch from second to first mode per claim 9) are mere design choices which are obvious in view of Aoun, which generally discloses various methods of using a button to select between various modes as set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, Raichman discloses electrodes 36-39 (“electrodes”) which resistively heat the capsule 29 [0078].
Regarding claim 15, Raichman discloses springs 40 (“mechanism”) which push the electrodes toward the capsule 29 to improve electrical coupling [0080].
Regarding claim 16, Raichman discloses the electrodes 36-39 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 14. Fig. 6 shows the vaporizing unit 21 with electrodes 36, 37 disposed on one side of the capsule 29, and electrodes 38, 39 on the other. The vaporizing unit 21 may have a diameter of 5-35 mm [0052], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the distance between electrodes 36, 37 and electrodes 38, 39 to be on the order of about 5-35 mm (which renders obvious “wherein a first one of the electrodes is configured to drive the current toward a second one of the electrodes along a length of more than 5 mm”). However, the capsule 29 in Fig. 6 is shown oriented radially, and thus Raichman fails to disclose “the smoking device is configured to house the capsule such that airflow through the capsule is substantially along a length of the elongate capsule” and fails to disclose the electrode distance being “in an axial direction along a length of the capsule”. But re-orienting the capsule 29 and electrodes 36-39 so that the capsule 29 extends longitudinally (rather than radially as disclosed) would be a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 17, Raichman discloses a metal foil sheet 60, 66 (“metallic foil”) surrounding the capsule 29 that may be resistively heated by the vaporizing unit 21 [0061, 0063].
Regarding claim 21, Raichman discloses that the control circuitry 34 may perform a pre-heating step wherein plant material is heated to a temperature point at the lower end of the vaporization temperature range [0111-0113]. Such preheating may occur when little to no air flows through the capsule in order to reduce or prevent vaporization [0112]. When airflow is detected, the control circuitry 34 will rapidly increase temperature [0112]. Raichman fails to specifically disclose performing such preheating “in between active inputs” as claimed, but it would be obvious to configure the control circuitry 34 to perform preheating between puffs and/or button presses (i.e., before each puff/press) in view of Raichman’s disclosure to preheat before an initial puff detection, particularly because the capsule temperature is adjusted according to the detected airflow rate [0112].
Claims 5, 10-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman (WO 2019/005526 A1) in view of Aoun (WO 2020/182772 A1) and Newns (US 2017/0231284 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Batista (WO 2019/030168 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Raichman discloses the device 20 and capsule 29 as set forth above, but fails to disclose “wherein the smoking device is configured to receive a cylindrically-shaped elongate capsule having a length of between 15 mm and 150 mm”.
Batista is directed to an aerosol-generating device 32 which is configured to receive at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article 42 (Title, Abstract). A system including the device and consumable may have a size comparable to a conventional cigar or cigarette, with a total length of approximately 30-150 mm (p. 8 l. 6-11) (which renders the claimed range obvious). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect Raichman’s device 20 and capsule 29 to be similarly sized.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman’s device 20 to be configured to receive a capsule 29 with length of 30-150 mm as taught by Batista, because Raichman and Batista are both directed to vaporization devices and articles, Batista that this is the size of a conventional cigarette, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 10-11, Raichman discloses the device 20 and capsule 29 as set forth above, but fails to disclose the limitations of claims 10-11.
Batista’s device 32 comprises a heating element 48 (“mechanical elements” per claim 11) with a conical cross-section which flattens the consumable 42 during its insertion (p. 6 l. 32-p. 7 l. 2, p. 10 l. 21-p. 11 l. 8, Figs. 6-7). An induction coil 30 surrounds the heating element 48 and heats the inserted consumable 42 (p. 11 l. 5-8, Abstract, Fig. 7, reproduced below). This arrangement advantageously optimizes the heating by minimizing distance (p. 6 l. 20-p. 7 l. 2, p. 10 l. 30-p. 11 l. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman to include Batista’s heating element 48 and coil 30 to flatten an inserted consumable, because both Raichman and Batista are directed to vaporization devices and articles, Batista teaches that this optimizes heating, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 12-13, Raichman fails to disclose the limitations of claims 12-13.
Batista’s heating element 48 and coil 30 may have an elliptical cross-section (p. 3 l. 10-11, p. 10 l. 21-23), with a long:short side ratio of more than 2:1 as shown immediately below in annotated Fig. 6a, and thus the inserted consumable 42 similarly has a long:short side ratio of more than 2:1, which reads on claim 12. Batista fails to specifically disclose a coil 30/consumable 42 cross-section with long:short side ratios of “more than 4:1” per claim 13. But Batista discloses that the cross-sectional shape of the heating element 48 may change the shape of the consumable 42 upon insertion, and specifically discloses that an elliptical cross-section may flatten the substrate within the consumable 42 in order to optimize heating (p. 6 l. 32-p. 7 l. 2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cross-sectional shape of the heating element 48 and coil 30 is a result-effective variable regarding the heating performance, and would accordingly optimize the cross-sectional shape such that the long:short side ratios are within the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Applicant’s specification p. 4 (explaining that when a capsule is flattened, smoking material is disposed closer to the heating element than in a circular cross-section), which supports the proposition that routine optimization of Batista would lead one of ordinary skill in the art toward the claimed ranges because Batista and Applicant cite similar rationales.
PNG
media_image2.png
323
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman such that the inserted portion of the capsule 29 is flattened to a cross-section with long:short side ratios of more than 4:1 (which reads on both claims 12-13), for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 10-11, and additionally because one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the cross-section to the claimed ratio.
Regarding claims 18-20, Raichman discloses the device 20 and capsule 29 as set forth above, but fails to disclose the limitations of claims 18-20.
Batista’s device 32 comprises a heating element 48 with a conical cross-section which flattens the consumable 42 during its insertion (p. 6 l. 32-p. 7 l. 2, p. 10 l. 21-p. 11 l. 8, Figs. 6-7). An induction coil 30 (“coil” per claim 18) surrounds the heating element 48 and heats the inserted consumable 42 (p. 11 l. 5-8, Abstract, Fig. 7). This arrangement advantageously optimizes the heating by minimizing distance (p. 6 l. 20-p. 7 l. 2, p. 10 l. 30-p. 11 l. 4).
As shown in Fig. 3, Batista’s coil 30 has a conical shape (i.e., partially flattened) (which reads on “wherein the coil is configured to be flattened while at least part of the portion of the capsule that contains the smoking material is disposed within the coil” per claim 19 and “wherein the coil is shaped to define a non-circular cross-sectional shape even before part of the portion of the capsule that contains the smoking material is introduced to within the coil” per claim 20). As shown in Fig. 7, the inserted consumable 42 is flattened while entering the device 32, before reaching the interior of the coil 30 (which reads on “wherein the smoking device is configured to flatten the part of the portion of the capsule that contains the smoking material prior to the part of the portion of the capsule that contains the smoking material being introduced to within the coil” per claim 20).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman to include Batista’s heating element 48 and coil 30 to flatten an inserted consumable, because both Raichman and Batista are directed to vaporization devices and articles, Batista teaches that this optimizes heating, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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 MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747