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 1-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9 should read: “wherein the powder-containing article
A similar amendment needs to be made to claim 1, line 10, to clarify what is crumbling.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 8 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, lines 10-11 are rejected for reciting “is a lump of raw material powder” and then reciting “and that crumbles into powder when an external force is applied” because it is unclear how a raw powder material is crumbling into a powder if it is already a powder. For purposes of examination the crumbling into a powder is being interpreted as when an external force is applied to the lump of raw material powder, the lump crumbles into smaller pieces.
Claim 8, line 3 is rejected for reciting “a central portion located on a center side of the second filter” because it is unclear what a center side of the filter is as there is no definition provided for center side. For purposes of examination, the center side of the filter is being interpreted as the central portion is located in the center of the second filter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al. (US-20230292822-A1), and further in view of Otokawa et al. (WO-2019123645-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 04/30/2024 and hereinafter referring the English Translation provided) and Hepworth (US-20210000169-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Burton directed to a component for a delivery system, discloses the component is part of an e-cigarette (i.e., heating-type stick) )[0161]) and can be used in non-combustible aerosol provision systems ([0047]-[0048]) comprising:
A tobacco rod 2 (i.e., substrate including an aerosol source) ([0064]-[0065]);
And a filter section 3 ([Figure 2 and [0065]),
Wherein the filter section includes a first filter 9, closer to the substrate side ([0067]-[0069]),
A second filter 8, downstream of the first filter side (Figure 2; [0067]-[0069]),
And at least one capsule 11 comprising a powder (Figure 2; [0131]), disposed in a cavity formed between the first and second filters (Figure 2; [0078]),
wherein the at least one powder-containing article can comprise one or more of sorbitol and/or menthol ([0190]-[0191]) (i.e., lump of raw material comprising at least one of a taste and flavor components, respectively, as in accordance with Applicant’s instant specification),
And the lump of raw material crumbles into a powder when an external force is applied ([0131]),
Burton further discloses when in a powder the aerosol-modifying agent is entrained in the gas flowing through the body and delivered to the user, but does not explicitly disclose a powder supply passage for supplying the powder from the cavity to the mouthpiece end is formed in the second filter. However, since Burton discloses the powder is entrained in the gas flowing through the body delivered to the user, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there is a powder supply passage for supplying the powder from the cavity to a mouthpiece end ([0131]-[0133]).
Alternatively, Otokawa directed to a tobacco product comprising a filter, discloses a crushable powder-containing article comprising a powder material that has a particle size allowing it to pass through a powder supply passage ([0029]).
Otokawa further discloses the powder supply passage is formed in the mouthpiece filter section (i.e., second filter) ([0008]) and allows smokers to easily inhale the powder at any time they like ([0036]).
Otokawa further discloses the powder supply passage cross-sectional area can be increased to increase the amount of powder delivered/supplied when the user inhales ([0037]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Burton by making the second filter further comprise a powder supply passage, as taught by Otokawa, because both are directed to smoking articles comprising filters and crushable powder materials, Otokawa teaches the powder supply passage allows smokers to easily inhale the powder at any time they like ([0036]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of incorporating a powder supply passage of a similar smoking article to yield predictable results of efficiently delivering the powder to the smoker.
Modified Burton does not explicitly disclose a cooling section for cooling vapor generated by heating the substrate to thereby generate an aerosol and the first filter disposed on a cooling section side.
Hepworth, directed a heat-not-burn article comprising an aerosol generating medium and a filter, the filter containing one or more crushable capsules, wherein during use the aerosol generating medium is heated without being combusted ([0005]).
Hepworth further discloses the article may further comprise a cooling element which may be arranged between the aerosol generating substrate and the filter which spaces the filter from the hottest parts of the heat-not-burn article and allows the vaporized components of the aerosol generating substrate to condense and form an aerosol within the cooling element ([0076];[0100]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Burton by making the heat-not-burn article further comprise a cooling segment between the substrate and the first filter, as taught by Hepworth, because both are directed to heat-not-burn articles comprising crushable capsules, Hepworth teaches cooling sections may be added to space the hottest parts of the article away from the filter and to allow the aerosol to condense and form ([0076]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of applying a known cooling element in a known location of a similar article to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 2, Modified Burton discloses the cooling section has ventilation apertures to allow cool air to be drawn into the article to cool the aerosol (i.e., perforation that allows air to flow from an outside of the cooling section to an inside of the cooling section) (Hepworth [0077]).
In regards to claim 3, Burton discloses a plurality of capsules (i.e., powder-containing article) each having a particle size in the range of 0.6 to 1.4 mm ([0121]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the particle size being at from 1 mm to 8 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 5, Burton discloses a plurality of capsules (i.e., powder-containing article) has a particle size in the range of 0.6 to 1.4 mm ([0121]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the particle size being at least 1 mm, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Burton further discloses the powder containing article is smaller than an inside diameter of the cavity (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 6, Burton discloses the aerosol-modifying agent capsules have an average burst strength in the range of 3 N to 5 N ([0041]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the fracture strength of the at least one powder-containing article being 5 to 60 N, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 7, Burton discloses the capsules have a diameter in the range of 0.6 mm to 1.4 mm (600 to 1400 micrometers) ([0120]). While Burton does not explicitly disclose a diameter of the particles of the raw powder material having a diameter of 10 to 600 micrometers and the ratio of these particles with the claimed diameter is at least 50% by mass, Burton does teach the entire diameter of the capsule being within the claimed range of the diameter of just a particle within the capsule, and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Burton discloses the particles can be less than 600 micrometers. Furthermore, Burton discloses the diameters of all the capsules on an average so it would be further obvious that the diameter is at least 50% by mass of the particles in the capsule.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the particle diameter since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed particle diameter ratio is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the diameter motivated by the desire to have a small enough diameter which results in a smaller amount of aerosol-modifying agent being introduced into the gas flow when each capsule is ruptured which allows the user to more accurately control the amount of aerosol-modifying agent that is added to the gas flow ([0119]).
In regards to claim 8, Modified Burton discloses the second filter comprising a supply passage and further discloses the supply passage can in a transverse cross section of the second filter a central portion located in the center of the filter and a plurality of peripheral portions extending from the central portion toward an outer circumferential side in mutually different directions (Otokawa Figure 3; [0039]). Otokawa further discloses the arrangement allows the amount of powder delivered during use is increased ([0039]). Refer to Figure 3 provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al. (US-20230292822-A1), and further in view of Otokawa et al. (WO-2019123645-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 04/30/2024 and hereinafter referring the English Translation provided) and Hepworth (US-20210000169-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Guyard et al. (US-20190297937-A1).
In regards to claim 4, Burton discloses the plurality of capsules can comprise a particle size of 0.6 to 1.4 mm ([0121]), but does not explicitly disclose the particle size of just one capsule being at least 3 mm.
Guyard, directed to a smoking article comprising a filter between two filter portions (abstract; Figure 1), discloses the capsule can be a regular capsule or a microcapsule, wherein when it is a regular capsule size the diameter is preferably between 4 and 5 mm ([0037]). The Examiner notes that a spherical diameter is equivalent to the size of a sphere, therefore the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the powder-containing article has a size of 3 mm or more, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Guyard further discloses the capsule may be formed in a variety of physical formations including but not limited to a single-part capsule, a multi-part capsule, a single-walled capsule, a multi-walled capsule, a large capsule, and a small capsule ([0015]).
While Burton does not disclose just one capsule comprising a size of at least 3 mm, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the cavity comprise just one capsule, wherein the one capsule comprises a size of 4 to 5 mm as taught by Guyard because all are directed to smoking articles comprising crushable capsules, Guyard teaches microcapsules and general capsules can be used interchangeably within the same composition ([0037]) and that capsules may have a range of physical formations known in the art ([0015]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a singular larger capsule of a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al. (US-20230292822-A1) and further in view of Hepworth (US-20210000169-A1).
In regards to claim 9, Burton discloses a component part of an e-cigarette (i.e., heating-type stick) )[0161]) and can be used in non-combustible aerosol provision systems ([0047]-[0048]) comprising:
A tobacco rod 2 (i.e., substrate including an aerosol source) ([0064]-[0065]);
And a filter section 3 downstream of the substrate ([Figure 2 and [0065]), the filter including a capsule (i.e., at least one powder-containing article) comprising a powder (i.e., raw material powder) formed into a crushable capsule (i.e., mass) ([0131]), and the at least one powder-containing article can comprise one or more of sorbitol and/or menthol ([0190]-[0191]) (i.e., lump of raw material comprising at least one of a taste and flavor components, respectively, as in accordance with Applicant’s instant specification).
Burton does not explicitly disclose a tube positioned adjacent to the substrate, the tube having a hollow interior for receiving vapor from the substrate, and the tube upstream of the filter.
Hepworth, directed a heat-not-burn article comprising an aerosol generating medium and a filter, the filter containing one or more crushable capsules, wherein during use, the aerosol generating medium is heated without being combusted ([0005]).
Hepworth further discloses the article may further comprise a tube in the form of a cooling element which may be arranged between the aerosol generating substrate and the filter which spaces the filter from the hottest parts of the heat-not-burn article and allows the vaporized components of the aerosol generating substrate to condense and form an aerosol within the cooling element ([0076];[0100]).
Hepworth further discloses the cooling section comprises a hollow interior ([0110]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Burton by making the heat-not-burn article further comprise a cooling segment between the substrate and the first filter, as taught by Hepworth, because both are directed to heat-not-burn articles comprising crushable capsules, Hepworth teaches cooling sections may be added to space the hottest parts of the article away from the filter and to allow the aerosol to condense and form ([0076]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of applying a known cooling element in a known location of a similar article to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 10, Burton disclose the filter section includes a first filter 9, closer to the substrate side ([0067]-[0069]) and a second filter 8, downstream of the first filter side (Figure 2; [0067]-[0069]), and the powder-containing article disposed in a cavity formed between the first and second filters (Figure 2; [0078]).
In regards to claim 12, Modified Burton discloses the cooling segment 107 is manufactured from a spirally wound paper tube which provides a hollow internal chamber yet maintains mechanical rigidity (i.e., the tube comprises a rolled shaping paper forming a cylindrical structure with the hollow interior) (Hepworth [0110]).
In regards to claim 13, Modified Burton discloses the cooling section has ventilation apertures to allow cool air to be drawn into the article to cool the aerosol (i.e., perforation that allows air to flow from an outside of the cooling section to an inside of the cooling section) (Hepworth [0077]).
In regards to claim 14, Burton discloses the aerosol-modifying agent capsules have an average burst strength in the range of 3 N to 5 N ([0041]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the fracture strength of the at least one powder-containing article being 5 to 60 N, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 15, Burton discloses a plurality of spherical capsules (i.e., powder-containing article) each having a particle size in the range of 0.6 to 1.4 mm (Figures 2-8; [0121]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the particle size being at from 1 mm to 8 mm and is prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 16, Burton discloses at least one embodiment wherein the cavity has a cylindrical shape defined by the first and second filter bodies (Figure 8).
In regards to claim 18, Burton discloses the capsules have a diameter in the range of 0.6 mm to 1.4 mm (600 to 1400 micrometers) ([0120]). While Burton does not explicitly disclose a diameter of the particles of the raw powder material having a diameter of 10 to 600 micrometers, Burton does teach the entire diameter of the capsule being within the claimed range of the diameter of just a particle within the capsule, and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Burton discloses the particles can be less than 600 micrometers, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the particle diameter since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed particle diameter ratio is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the diameter motivated by the desire to have a small enough diameter which results in a smaller amount of aerosol-modifying agent being introduced into the gas flow when each capsule is ruptured which allows the user to more accurately control the amount of aerosol-modifying agent that is added to the gas flow ([0119]).
In regards to claim 19, Burton discloses a tipping paper wrapped around at least a portion of the substrate, the modified tube in view of Hepworth, and the filter (Figure 2; [0064]).
Claim(s) 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al. (US-20230292822-A1) in view of Hepworth (US-20210000169-A1) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Otokawa et al. (WO-2019123645-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 04/30/2024 and hereinafter referring the English Translation provided).
In regards to claim 11, Modified Burton does not explicitly disclose the second filter comprising a powder supply passage extending therethrough for delivering powder from the cavity to a mouthpiece end of the stick.
Otokawa directed to a tobacco product comprising a filter, discloses a crushable powder-containing article comprising a powder material that has a particle size allowing it to pass through a powder supply passage ([0029]).
Otokawa further discloses the powder supply passage is formed in the mouthpiece filter section (i.e., second filter) ([0008]) and allows smokers to easily inhale the powder at any time they like ([0036]).
Otokawa further discloses the powder supply passage cross-sectional area can be increased to increase the amount of powder delivered/supplied when the user inhales ([0037]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Burton by making the second filter further comprise a powder supply passage, as taught by Otokawa, because both are directed to smoking articles comprising filters and crushable powder materials, Otokawa teaches the powder supply passage allows smokers to easily inhale the powder at any time they like ([0036]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of incorporating a powder supply passage of a similar smoking article to yield predictable results of efficiently delivering the powder to the smoker.
In regards to claim 17, Modified Burton discloses the powder supply passage has a non-circular cross-sectional shape including as central region and a plurality of radially extending regions (Otokawa Figure 3).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al. (US-20230292822-A1) in view of Uthurry et al. (US-20230404137-A1), Hepworth (US-20210000169-A1), and Otokawa et al. (WO-2019123645-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 04/30/2024 and hereinafter referring the English Translation provided).
In regards to claim 20, The Examiner notes that a dimension in the centerline direction is just a length of the cylinder and is therefore being interpreted as a length from a downstream endpoint to an upstream end point of the component.
Burton discloses a component part of an e-cigarette (i.e., heating-type stick) )[0161]) and can be used in non-combustible aerosol provision systems ([0047]-[0048]) comprising:
A cylindrical tobacco rod 2 (i.e., substrate including tobacco material) circumscribed by a rod wrapper 6 ([0064]-[0065]) and conjoined to the rest of the article by a tipping paper (i.e., wrapping paper) ([0064]);
a filter section 3 downstream of the substrate ([Figure 2 and [0065]), wherein the filter section includes a first cylindrical filter 9, closer to the substrate side ([0067]-[0069]),
A second cylindrical filter 8, downstream of the first filter side (Figure 2; [0067]-[0069]),
And at least one capsule 11 comprising a powder (Figure 2; [0131]), disposed in a cavity formed between the first and second filters (Figure 2; [0078]),
And a tipping paper circumferentially wrapping portions of the substrate and the multi-segment filter ([0128]).
Burton does not explicitly disclose the substrate has a dimension in a centerline direction of 10 mm to 30 mm (I), a hollow cylindrical body disposed adjacent to a downstream end of the substrate, the hollow cylindrical body comprising a shaping paper rolled into a cylindrical configuration defining a hollow interior, the hollow cylindrical body having a dimension in the centerline direction of 15 mm to 25 mm (II), and a powder supply passage formed through the second cylindrical filter plug (III).
In regards to (I), Burton is silent regarding a centerline dimension of the substrate. Uthurry directed to an aerosol-generating article, discloses the article comprising an aerosol generating substrate ([0006]), ventilation for cooling ([0197]), and filters ([0258]).
Uthurry further discloses length refers to the dimension of a component of the aerosol-generating article in the longitudinal direction from the components further upstream point to the components furthest downstream point ([0020]).
Uthurry further discloses the length of the aerosol-generating substrate is anywhere from at least 5mm to at most 80 mm ([0044]-[0049]) and that preferably the substrate may have a length of about 16 mm ([0050]) which is within the claimed range of a centerline dimension of the substrate being from 10 to 30 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Uthurry further discloses this length of about 16 mm reduces variations in temperature along the length of the substrate which may advantageously help deliver a consistent aerosol to a user ([0051]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Burton by making the substrate 16 mm as taught by Uthurry, because both are directed to smoking articles with substrates, Uthurry teaches the length of 16 mm is desirable to deliver a consistent aerosol to a user since it reduces variations in temperature during heating ([0051]), and this merely involves applying a known value of a similar substrate to yield predictable results of applying a known substrate length of a similar article, especially when the prior art is silent to a specific length of the substrate.
In regards to (II), Hepworth, directed a heat-not-burn article comprising an aerosol generating medium and a filter, the filter containing one or more crushable capsules, wherein during use the aerosol generating medium is heated without being combusted ([0005]).
Hepworth further discloses the article may further comprise a tube in the form of a cooling element which may be arranged between the aerosol generating substrate and the filter which spaces the filter from the hottest parts of the heat-not-burn article and allows the vaporized components of the aerosol generating substrate to condense and form an aerosol within the cooling element ([0076];[0100]).
Hepworth further discloses the cylindrical body/cooling segment 107 is manufactured from a spirally wound paper tube which provides a hollow internal chamber yet maintains mechanical rigidity (i.e., the tube comprises a rolled shaping paper forming a cylindrical structure with a hollow interior) ([0110]).
Hepworth further discloses the length of the cooling segment 107 is at least 15 and at most 27 mm ([0109]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range the hollow cylindrical body having a dimension in the centerline direction of 15 to 25 mm, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Burton by making the heat-not-burn article further comprise a cooling segment between the substrate and the first filter which includes the shaping paper and centerline direction, as taught by Hepworth, because both are directed to heat-not-burn articles comprising crushable capsules, Hepworth teaches cooling sections may be added to space the hottest parts of the article away from the filter and to allow the aerosol to condense and form ([0076]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of applying a known cooling element in a known location of a similar article to yield predictable results.
Modified Burton discloses a tipping paper wrapped around at least a portion of the substrate, the modified tube in view of Hepworth, and the filter (Figure 2; [0064]).
In regards to III, Burton further discloses when in a powder the aerosol-modifying agent is entrained in the gas flowing through the body and delivered to the user, but does not explicitly disclose a powder supply passage for supplying the powder from the cavity to the mouthpiece end is formed in the second filter. However, since Burton discloses the powder is entrained in the gas flowing through the body delivered to the user, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there is a powder supply passage for supplying the powder from the cavity to a mouthpiece end ([0131]-[0133]).
Alternatively, Otokawa directed to a tobacco product comprising a filter, discloses a crushable powder-containing article comprising a powder material that has a particle size allowing it to pass through a powder supply passage ([0029]).
Otokawa further discloses the powder supply passage is formed in the mouthpiece filter section (i.e., second filter) ([0008]) and allows smokers to easily inhale the powder at any time they like ([0036]).
Otokawa further discloses the powder supply passage cross-sectional area can be increased to increase the amount of powder delivered/supplied when the user inhales ([0037]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Burton by making the second filter further comprise a powder supply passage, as taught by Otokawa, because both are directed to smoking articles comprising filters and crushable powder materials, Otokawa teaches the powder supply passage allows smokers to easily inhale the powder at any time they like ([0036]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of incorporating a powder supply passage of a similar smoking article to yield predictable results of efficiently delivering the powder to the smoker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights