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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 7/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/06/2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is less than 50
words, and should preferably be within 50 to 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each figure is labeled “Figure” instead of the abbreviation “Fig.” as required by MPEP § 608.02.V(u).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15, lines 1-2, recites “packaging according to claim 12, when dependent on claim 3”. The claim is objected to because claim 12 would never depend on claim 3, as claim 12 depends on claim 1. For purposes of examination claim 15 is considered to depend on claim 12.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “packaging for a non-combustible aerosol provision system, the non-combustible aerosol provision system having a heating element for heating an aerosol generating material”. The non-combustible aerosol provision system is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Therefore, so long as the prior art teaches packaging that is capable of being used for a non-combustible aerosol provision system, then the prior art teaches all the limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the non-combustible aerosol provision system comprises an article for use in a device configured to inductively heat the heating element, the packaging comprising a bund of said articles”. The non-combustible aerosol provision system is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Therefore, so long as the prior art teaches packaging that is capable of comprising a bundle of articles of the non-combustible aerosol provision system, even if the prior art is silent to the non-combustible aerosol provision system, articles, or inductively heating of the heating element, then the prior art teaches all the limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation wherein the heating element comprises a threaded portion, the threaded portion being engaged with an aerosol generating material of the article, and wherein said means for extracting the heating element comprises means to unscrew the heating element from the aerosol generating material. However, the non-combustible aerosol provision system is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging.
Therefore, so long as the prior art is capable for use with the heating element as claimed, such as having means to unscrew the heating element, then the prior art teaches all the limitations of the claim.
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.
The limitation(s) “means for extracting the heating element from the non-combustible aerosol provision system for disposal” in claim 1 invokes 35 USC 112(f) by combining the generic place holder “for” with functional language “extracting the heating element from the non-combustible aerosol provision system for disposal” without sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 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 instant specification describes the means for extracting is not limited to any particular form, rather said means is limited only by the function of removing a heating element from a non-combustible aerosol provision system.
The limitation(s) “means to unscrew the heating element from the aerosol generating material” in claim 16 invokes 35 USC 112(f) by combining the generic place holder “for” with functional language “to unscrew the heating element from the aerosol generating material” without sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 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 instant specification describes the means to unscrew the heating element from the aerosol generating material includes a hex key with a hexagonal shaft with a flattened end (page 7, second paragraph). Therefore, a hex key with a hexagonal shaft and a flattened end, or equivalents thereof such as other tool shapes with a shaft that may also operate as a key, will read on the claimed means to unscrew.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitation “means for extracting” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant specification describes the means for extracting the heating element is not limited to any particular form, rather said means is limited only by the function of removing a heating element from a non-combustible aerosol provision system (page 4, third paragraph).Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, the means for extraction is interpreted to be a magnet (see page 4, last paragraph of the instant specification), a hook (see page 5, last paragraph), or any tool that may remove a heating element from an aerosol provision system (page 6, third paragraph). Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected for being dependent on claim 16.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the hook" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims of which claim 15 depends from, claims 1 and 12, do not recite a hook. For purposes of examination claim 15 is considered to exclude “the hook” and instead just recite “wherein the heating element comprises an eyelet for cooperating with the means for extracting the heating element”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shinozaki (EP3369326, cited in IDS dated 12/18/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Shinozaki discloses:
Packaging for a non-combustible aerosol provision system (“packaging 100 that receives rod-shaped tobacco products 1” [0024], fig. 1), the non-combustible aerosol provision system having a heating element for heating an aerosol generating material (not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging).
the packaging comprising means for extracting the heating element from the non-combustible aerosol provision system for disposal (“cinder container 10 that separates a cinder of a carbon heat source 3 of a rod-shaped tobacco product 1” [0041]. Thus when used on articles that contain a heating element within the aerosol generating section, such as is disclosed in the instant specification on page 3, paragraph 5, would separate the aerosol generating section containing the heating element from the article, and thus extract the heating element from the system. The claim is not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure).
Regarding claim 4, Shinozaki discloses wherein the packaging comprises a base portion (body portion 210) and a lid portion (lid 220, [0024], fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Shinozaki discloses wherein the lid portion is hingedly attached to the base portion (“the body portion 210 and the lid 220 are pivotably joined to each other via a hinge 230” [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Shinozaki discloses wherein the packaging comprises a primary compartment (body portion 210 of receiving box 200, fig. 1, [0024]) and a disposal compartment (butt receiving portion 310 of butt container 300, fig. 1, [0029]) and wherein the means for extracting the heating element is provided within the disposal compartment (cinder container 10 inside the butt receiving portion 310 of butt container 300, [0024]), fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Shinozaki discloses wherein the packaging comprises a base portion (receiving box 200, fig. 1, [0024]) and a lid portion (butt container 300 that is joined to receiving box 200 via a hinge, [0024]), wherein the disposal compartment is provided in the lid portion (as butt receiving portion 310 is within butt container 300, fig. 1, [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Shinozaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the non-combustible aerosol provision system comprises an article for use in a device configured to inductively heat the heating element, the packaging comprising a bundle of said articles.
However, the claimed article, device, and bundle is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. As the packaging 100 comprises a receiving box 200 that received rod-shaped tobacco products 1 (fig. 1, [0024]), the claim is therefore not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Regarding claim 13, Shinozaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the heating element comprises a magnetic material. However, the claimed heating element is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. The claim is therefore not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Regarding claim 14, Shinozaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the heating element comprises a loop or aperture. However, the claimed heating element is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. The claim is therefore not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Regarding claim 15, Shinozaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the heating element comprises an eyelet for cooperating with the means for extracting the heating element. However, the claimed heating element is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. The claim is therefore not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (KR20180052211, cited in IDS dated 12/18/2023, citations refer to the English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses:
Packaging for a non-combustible aerosol provision system (“cigarette pack 100 that stores mini cigarettes” [0026], fig. 1), the non-combustible aerosol provision system having a heating element for heating an aerosol generating material (not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging).
the packaging comprising means for extracting the heating element from the non-combustible aerosol provision system for disposal (skewer 200 with the function to remove the cigarette but after smoking, [0018] and [0044]-[0045]). Thus when used on articles that contain a heating element within the aerosol generating section, such as is disclosed in the instant specification on page 3, paragraph 5, would separate the aerosol generating section containing the heating element from the article, and thus extract the heating element from the system. The claim is not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses wherein the means for extracting the heating element is a tool removable from the packaging (as shown in figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 12, Park does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the non-combustible aerosol provision system comprises an article for use in a device configured to inductively heat the heating element, the packaging comprising a bundle of said articles.
However, the claimed article, device, and bundle is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. As the cigarette pack 100 comprises layers for storing mini cigarettes ([0026]), the claim is therefore not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Regarding claim 14, Park does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the heating element comprises a loop or aperture. However, the claimed heating element is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. The claim is therefore not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (EP3369326, cited in IDS dated 12/18/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Shinozaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the means for extracting the heating element is integrated into the packaging.
However, the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice see MPEP § 2144.04.V.B.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the means for extracting the heating element of Shinozaki integrated into the package as this is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besso (US2023/0380478) in view of Bernhard (US2021/0171273)
Regarding claim 1, Besso teaches a non-combustible aerosol provision system (aerosol generating article 10 and aerosol generating device 200, figs. 1-2, [0152]-[0153]), the non-combustible aerosol provision system having a heating element for heating an aerosol generating material (susceptor heating element 25, fig. 1, [0150]), and means for extracting the heating element from the non-combustible aerosol provision system for disposal (heating element removal tool 700, fig. 7, [0161]).
Besso does not appear to explicitly disclose packaging for the non-combustible aerosol provision system and where the packaging comprises the means for extracting the heating element.
However Bernhard, directed to a container for aerosol-generating articles, teaches:
Packaging for a non-combustible aerosol provision system (container 10 for holding aerosol generating articles, fig. 1, [0128]).
The packaging comprises a tool (elongate cleaning tool is provided in the container, [0010]) which enables the tool to not be carried separately to the container of aerosol-generating articles ([0010]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to Besso packaging to contain aerosol generating articles and a tool as taught by Bernard, because both Besso and Bernard are directed to an aerosol generating system with a tool for use on the system, Bernard teaches the packaging enables the tool and aerosol-generating articles to not be carried separately, and this merely involves the use of a known technique (i.e. packaging for holding articles and a tool) to improve similar aerosol generating devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Besso further teaches wherein the means for extracting the heating element comprises a magnet ([0009]: magnet to magnetically attract the susceptor heating element).
Regarding claim 9, modified Besso further teaches wherein the means for extracting the heating element is a tool (heating element removal tool 700, fig. 7, [0161]).
Besso does not appear to explicitly disclose that the tool is removable from the packaging. However, the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 V C. Therefore it would be obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art to make the tool separable from the packaging.
Regarding claim 11, modified Besso further teaches:
Wherein the packaging comprises a base portion (Bernhard, box portion 14) and a lid portion (Bernhard, lid portion 16, fig. 1, [0128]).
Modified Besso does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the tool is releasably attached to an inside of the lid portion.
However, Bernhard further teaches the tool may be positioned loose within the lid portion, or the box portion of the container ([0011]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to try putting the tool of Bernard loose within the lid portion as taught by Bernard as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 12, modified Besso further teaches wherein the non-combustible aerosol provision system comprises an article (Besso, article 10) for use in a device (Besso, device 200) configured to inductively heat the heating element (Besso, inductor 210, [0153]), the packaging comprising a bundle of said articles (Bernhard, container 10 for holding aerosol generating articles, fig. 1, [0128]).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the heating element comprises a threaded portion, the threaded portion being engaged with an aerosol generating material of the article, is not a positively claimed limitation, but an intended use of the claimed packaging. The claim limitation is not structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure.
Besso further teaches the removal tool 700 includes a shaft 720 that extends to the magnetic tip 710 ([0161]). As this tool shaft and tip may also operate as a key to unscrew a heating element, the prior art is not structurally distinguishable from the claimed means to unscrew.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besso (US2023/0380478) in view of Bernhard (US2021/0171273) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Batista (US2021/0307399).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Besso does not appear to disclose wherein the means for extracting the heating element comprises a hook.
However Batista, directed to a device for generating an aerosol, teaches:
A susceptor altering means that comprises a hook to break or deform the susceptor after heating of the article and may be manually operated by a user ([0132]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the means for extracting the heating element of Besso to have a hook as taught by Batista, because both Besso and Batista are directed to aerosol generating article with susceptors and tools to deform the susceptor, and this merely involves simple substitution of one known element for deforming a susceptor for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besso (US2023/0380478) in view of Bernhard (US2021/0171273) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Rojo-Calderon (US2020/0260777).
Regarding claim 10, Besso does not appear to disclose wherein the tool comprises a pair of gripping tongs.
However, Rojo-Calderon, directed to an aerosol-generating component for use in an aerosol-generating article, teaches:
Tweezers are a known tool that assist a user in removing a component from an aerosol-generating article ([0185]). As the Applicant’s specification teaches tweezers are equivalent to a pair of tongs (page 10, lines 1-5), the prior art’s tweezers therefore reads on the claimed pair of gripping tongs.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the means for extracting the heating element of Besso to be tweezers as taught by Rojo-Calderon, because both Besso and Rojo-Calderon are directed to aerosol generating articles with tools to remove components from the article, and this merely involves simple substitution of one known element for removing a component from an article for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights