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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 18, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim does not teach the newly recited limitation of performing the determination by comparing a sum of a first difference and a second difference with a predetermined threshold value, where the first difference is between the first cigarette detection channel and the error detection channel, and the second difference is between the second cigarette detection channel and the error detection channel.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kim does not expressly teach the summed-difference threshold comparison as now recited in amended independent claims 1, 10, and 13. Accordingly, the prior anticipation rejection over Kim alone is not maintained. However, the amendment does not place the claims in condition for allowance because the newly added summed-difference limitation is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Kim and Hansen.
Kim teaches an aerosol generating device including first inductance channels 910/930 and second inductance channel 920, wherein controller 110 distinguishes cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach based on inductance changes detected by the first and second channels. Kim further teaches that the second inductance channel functions as an error/external magnetic substance detection channel and that the controller prevents heater activation when the detected channel responses indicate approach of an external magnetic substance rather than insertion of a cigarette. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed device environment, the plurality of cigarette detection channels, the error detection channel, and the underlying determination between cigarette insertion and external magnetic-body approach.
Applicant further argues that Hansen does not teach determining that a magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device when a summed value is less than a threshold. This argument is not persuasive because Hansen is not relied upon alone to teach the entire claimed aerosol-device determination. Rather, Hansen is relied upon for the known technique of using combined differences from plural magnetic sensors and comparing the combined differences with a threshold amount. Kim supplies the aerosol generating device, the cigarette-detection/error-channel arrangement, and the determination between cigarette insertion and external magnetic-substance approach. Hansen supplies the combined-difference threshold comparison technique.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim’s controller to compare a sum of the first-channel/error-channel and second-channel/error-channel differences with a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Hansen, because doing so would apply a known multi-sensor thresholding technique to Kim’s plural-channel inductance detector to improve discrimination between true cigarette insertion and external magnetic-body effects. The proposed modification uses Kim’s existing channel-response data and predictably applies Hansen’s combined-difference threshold comparison to perform Kim’s already-disclosed determination.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Courbat are also not persuasive. Courbat is relied upon for the shielding material limitations of amended claim 10 and dependent claim 12, namely a shielding material/flux concentrator arranged outside the heater assembly and configured to block or redirect a variable magnetic field. Courbat is not relied upon to teach the summed-difference controller limitation. That limitation is addressed by the combined teachings of Kim and Hansen, as explained above.
Accordingly, although the amended claims overcome the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Kim alone, the claims remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejection has been modified to apply Kim in view of Hansen to amended independent claims 1 and 13 and their dependent claims, and Kim in view of Hansen and Courbat to amended claim 10 and dependent claim 12.
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/246646 A1) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2018/0348393 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an aerosol generating device (externally heated aerosol generating device 10) comprising:
a heater assembly (heater 130) configured to perform induction heating of a cigarette (cigarette 200) accommodated in the aerosol generating device by using a susceptor (susceptor included in cigarette 200 ¶ [0059]);
a cigarette detector comprising a plurality of inductance detection channels comprising a plurality of cigarette detection channels configured to detect insertion of the cigarette and an error detection channel configured to detect an external approach of a magnetic body to the aerosol generating device (first inductance channels 910 and 930 and second inductance channel 920, ¶ [0152]); and
a controller configured to determine whether the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device or the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device, based on a degree of an inductance change detected by the cigarette detection channels relative to an inductance change detected by the error detection channel (controller 110 determining whether cigarette 200 is inserted or an external magnetic substance has approached based on first-channel and second-channel changes ¶ [0137]).
Kim teaches the plurality of cigarette detection channels include a first cigarette detection channel and a second cigarette detection channel (first inductance channels 910 and 930) ¶ [0152]).
Kim does not expressly teach the controller is further configured to perform the determining by comparing a sum of a first difference and a second difference with a predetermined threshold value.
Hansen teaches comparing combined differences from plural magnetic sensors with a threshold amount (combined differences from DNV sensors 510 compared with threshold amount, ¶ [0068]).
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 Kim’s controller 110 to compare the sum of the first and second differences with a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Hansen, because such comparison is a predictable use of a known combined-difference threshold technique in Kim’s plural-channel detector to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Accordingly, modified Kim teaches determining that the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device when the value of the sum is less than the predetermined threshold value.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device, when the sum of the first difference and the second difference is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value (modified controller 110 comparing the summed differences with the predetermined threshold value to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach) (Kim, ¶ [0137]; Hansen, ¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inductance detection channels are arranged in a row outside the susceptor along a length direction of the susceptor (first inductance channel 910, second inductance channel 920, and first inductance channel 930 arranged along the cigarette insertion space/susceptor region) (Kim, ¶ [0149]; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 5, wherein the error detection channel is arranged between the cigarette detection channels and is shorter than a length of the susceptor (second inductance channel 920 arranged between first inductance channels 910 and 930 and shorter than the susceptor/heater region) (Kim, ¶ [0131]; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 6, wherein the error detection channel is blocked from detecting an inductance change inside the susceptor by shielding of the susceptor (second inductance channel 920 is shielded by heater 130 so that frequency/current through second inductance channel 920 does not change when a magnetic substance is inserted into cigarette insertion space 160) (Kim, ¶ [0132]), and detects an inductance change caused by the external approach of the magnetic body (external magnetic substance detected by second inductance channel 920 from outside the device) (Kim, ¶ [0154]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 5, wherein the cigarette detection channels extend further than the susceptor in the length direction, and when the cigarette is inserted, each of the cigarette detection channels detects an inductance change caused by an electromagnetic inductor included in the inserted cigarette (first inductance channels 910 and 930 extending beyond the heater/susceptor region and detecting metal foil of cigarette 200 affecting magnetic flux/current frequency) (Kim, ¶ [0149]; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control the heater assembly to start the induction heating of the cigarette when it is determined that the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device, and prevent the induction heating from starting when it is determined that the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device (controller 110 starts power supply to heater 130 when cigarette 200 is inserted and maintains a state in which power is not supplied to heater 130 when an external magnetic substance causes changes in both the first and second inductance channels) (Kim, ¶ [0137]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a control method of an aerosol generating device (method performed by externally heated aerosol generating device 10), the method comprising:
detecting an inductance change, by a cigarette detector comprising a plurality of inductance detection channels comprising a plurality of cigarette detection channels configured to detect insertion of a cigarette and an error detection channel configured to detect an external approach of a magnetic body to an aerosol generating device (first direction inductance channels 910 and 930 and second direction inductance channel 920 detecting channel changes) (Kim, ¶ [0168]); and
determining whether the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device or the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device, based on a degree of an inductance change detected by the cigarette detection channels relative to an inductance change detected by the error detection channel (controller 110 determines whether cigarette 200 is inserted or an external magnetic substance has approached based on first-direction and second-direction channel changes) (Kim, ¶ [0168]).
Kim teaches the plurality of cigarette detection channels include a first cigarette detection channel and a second cigarette detection channel (first direction inductance channels 910 and 930) (Kim, ¶ [0152]).
Kim does not expressly teach the determining is performed by a controller by comparing a sum of a first difference and a second difference with a predetermined threshold value.
Hansen teaches comparing combined differences from plural magnetic sensors with a threshold amount (combined differences from DNV sensors 510 compared with threshold amount) (Hansen, ¶ [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Kim’s determining step by comparing the sum of the first and second differences with a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Hansen, because such comparison is a predictable use of a known combined-difference threshold technique in Kim’s plural-channel detector to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Accordingly, modified Kim teaches determining that the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device when the value of the sum is less than the predetermined threshold value.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising controlling the heater assembly to start induction heating of the cigarette when it is determined that the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device, wherein the induction heating is not started when it is determined that the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device (controller 110 starts power supply to heater 130 when cigarette 200 is inserted and does not start power supply to heater 130 when an external magnetic substance has approached) (Kim, ¶ [0168]).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/246646 A1) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2018/0348393 A1) and further in view of Courbat et al. (US 2021/0378311 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches an aerosol generating device (externally heated aerosol generating device 10) comprising:
a heater assembly configured to heat a cigarette accommodated in the aerosol generating device (heater 130 configured to heat cigarette 200) (Kim, ¶ [0128]).
Kim does not expressly teach a shielding material arranged outside the heater assembly and configured to block a variable magnetic field as a separate shielding material outside the heater assembly.
Courbat teaches a shielding material arranged outside the heater assembly and configured to block a variable magnetic field (flux concentrator 33 surrounding induction coil 31 and providing a magnetic shielding effect by distorting the alternating magnetic field toward cavity 20) (Courbat, ¶ [0085]).
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 Kim’s induction-heating aerosol generating device to include Courbat’s flux concentrator/shielding material outside the heater assembly, because Kim uses inductance channels to distinguish cigarette insertion from an external magnetic body, and Courbat teaches using a flux concentrator in an inductive aerosol-generating device to shield/direct the alternating magnetic field and reduce undesired magnetic-field effects.
Kim further teaches a cigarette detector comprising a plurality of inductance detection channels comprising a plurality of cigarette detection channels configured to detect insertion of the cigarette and an error detection channel configured to detect an external approach of a magnetic body to the aerosol generating device (first inductance channels 910 and 930 and second inductance channel 920) (Kim, ¶ [0152]); and
a controller configured to determine whether the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device or the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device, based on a degree of an inductance change detected by the cigarette detection channels relative to an inductance change detected by the error detection channel (controller 110 using first inductance channels 910/930 and second inductance channel 920 to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach) (Kim, ¶ [0137]).
Kim teaches the plurality of cigarette detection channels include a first cigarette detection channel and a second cigarette detection channel (first inductance channels 910 and 930) (Kim, ¶ [0152]).
Kim does not expressly teach the controller is further configured to perform the determining by comparing a sum of a first difference and a second difference with a predetermined threshold value.
Hansen teaches comparing combined differences from plural magnetic sensors with a threshold amount (combined differences from DNV sensors 510 compared with threshold amount) (Hansen, ¶ [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kim’s controller 110, in the device as modified by Courbat, to compare the sum of the first and second differences with a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Hansen, because such comparison is a predictable use of a known combined-difference threshold technique in Kim’s plural-channel detector to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Accordingly, modified Kim teaches determining that the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device when the value of the sum is less than the predetermined threshold value.
Regarding claim 12, Kim, Hansen, and Courbat teach the aerosol generating device of claim 10 as set forth above.
Kim teaches the plurality of inductance detection channels are arranged in a row along a length direction of the aerosol generating device (first inductance channel 910, second inductance channel 920, and first inductance channel 930 arranged along cigarette insertion space 160) (Kim, ¶ [0152]).
Kim teaches the shielding material is arranged inside the error detection channel to the extent Kim teaches a shielding region provided by heater 130 positioned inside second inductance channel 920, such that second inductance channel 920 is shielded from cigarette-insertion effects (Kim, ¶ [0132]). However, Kim does not expressly teach this shielding structure as a separate shielding material.
Courbat teaches a separate shielding material configured to provide magnetic shielding in an inductive aerosol-generating device (flux concentrator 33) (Courbat, ¶ [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Courbat’s flux concentrator/shielding material in Kim’s shielded error-channel arrangement so that the shielding material is positioned in the shielding region inside Kim’s second inductance channel 920, because Kim already teaches shielding the error channel from cigarette-insertion effects, and Courbat teaches a known shielding material for controlling the magnetic field in an inductive aerosol-generating device.
Kim further teaches each of the cigarette detection channels are arranged to extend further than the shielding material in the length direction to detect an inductance change caused by an electromagnetic inductor included in the cigarette (first inductance channels 910 and 930 extending beyond the shielded/heater region and detecting metal foil of cigarette 200 affecting magnetic flux/current frequency) (Kim, ¶ [0149]; Fig. 11).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,495,833 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the patented claims recite an aerosol-generating device using first and second inductance channels to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach and to control heater operation accordingly.
Regarding claim 1, patented claim 1 recites an aerosol generating device including a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating a cigarette, a cigarette insertion space, a first inductance channel in which a frequency of current is changeable by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space, a second inductance channel in which a frequency of current is changeable when an external magnetic substance approaches the aerosol generating device, and a controller using information received from the first and second inductance channels. Patented claim 2 further recites that the first inductance channel includes two or more inductors. The first inductance channel having two or more inductors renders obvious the claimed plurality of cigarette detection channels, and the second inductance channel renders obvious the claimed error detection channel configured to detect external approach of a magnetic body. Determining based on a summed difference between the cigarette-detection-channel changes and the error-detection-channel change is an obvious variation of the patented controller logic using first-channel and second-channel frequency-change information.
Regarding claim 4, patented claim 1 recites starting heater power when the first-channel change exceeds a first reference value and the second-channel change is less than a second reference value, and preventing heater power when the second-channel change is equal to or exceeds the second reference value. The claimed determination based on whether the sum of first and second differences is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold is an obvious variation of the patented threshold-based controller logic for distinguishing cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Regarding claim 5, patented claims 7 and 8 render obvious arranging the plurality of inductance detection channels in a row outside the susceptor along a length direction of the susceptor. Patented claim 7 recites the cigarette insertion space is recessed in a cylindrical shape and that the first and second inductance channels are arranged in shapes surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the cigarette insertion space. Patented claim 8 further recites that the heater is a susceptor.
Regarding claim 6, patented claim 4 recites that the inductors of the first inductance channel are spaced apart from each other on the basis of the second inductance channel. This renders obvious arranging the second/error inductance channel between the first-channel cigarette-detection inductors. The relative channel arrangement further renders obvious the error detection channel being shorter than the susceptor.
Regarding claim 7, patented claims 1, 11, and 18 render obvious the claimed error detection channel being blocked from detecting an inside-susceptor inductance change by shielding of the susceptor while detecting an inductance change caused by external approach of the magnetic body. Patented claim 11 recites a second inductance channel shielded by the heater so that the frequency of current flowing through the second inductance channel is not changed by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space. Patented claim 18 further recites that the heater is a susceptor.
Regarding claim 8, patented claims 1, 2, and 8 render obvious the claimed cigarette detection channels extending further than the susceptor in the length direction to detect an inductance change caused by an electromagnetic inductor included in the inserted cigarette. Patented claim 1 recites a first inductance channel changed by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space, patented claim 2 recites the first inductance channel includes two or more inductors, and patented claim 8 recites that the heater is a susceptor.
Regarding claim 9, patented claim 1 renders obvious controlling the heater assembly to start induction heating when the cigarette is inserted and preventing induction heating from starting when an external magnetic substance has approached. Patented claim 1 recites controlling power supply to the heater to be started when the first-channel frequency-change amount exceeds a first reference value and the second-channel frequency-change amount is less than a second reference value, and controlling the power supply to the heater not to be started when the second-channel frequency-change amount is equal to or exceeds the second reference value.
Regarding claim 10, patented claims 11, 12, and 18 render obvious the claimed aerosol generating device including a heater assembly, cigarette detector, cigarette detection channels, error detection channel, and controller. Patented claim 11 recites an aerosol generating device including a heater, a cigarette insertion space, a first inductance channel changed by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space, a second inductance channel shielded by the heater so that the frequency of current flowing through the second inductance channel is not changed by the inserted object, and a controller using information from the first and second inductance channels. Patented claim 12 recites that the first inductance channel includes two or more inductors, and patented claim 18 recites that the heater is a susceptor. These claims render obvious the claimed plurality of cigarette detection channels, error detection channel, shielding arrangement, and controller determination.
Regarding claim 12, patented claims 11, 17, and 18 render obvious the claimed arrangement of the inductance detection channels, shielding material, and cigarette detection channels. Patented claim 17 recites that the cigarette insertion space is recessed in a cylindrical shape and that the first and second inductance channels are arranged in shapes surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the cigarette insertion space. Patented claim 11 recites the second inductance channel shielded by the heater so that it is not changed by the inserted object, and patented claim 18 recites that the heater is a susceptor.
Regarding claim 13, patented claim 1 renders obvious the claimed control method. Patented claim 1 recites a controller using information received from the first and second inductance channels to control heater operation based on the measured channel changes. Performing the determination based on a summed difference between cigarette-detection-channel changes and error-channel change is an obvious variation of the patented controller logic using first-channel and second-channel frequency-change information.
Regarding claim 15, patented claim 1 renders obvious controlling the heater assembly to start induction heating when the cigarette is determined to be inserted and not starting induction heating when an external magnetic substance is determined to have approached, because patented claim 1 recites starting power supply to the heater under cigarette-insertion channel conditions and not starting power supply when the external magnetic-substance channel condition is met.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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