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 .
Specification
The use of the terms Vuse (page 12, line 16), Blue (page 12, line 16), Mistic Menthol (page 12, line 17), and Vype (page 12, line 18), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 39-40 and 43-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US 2015/0059780, hereafter referred to as Davis ‘780).
Regarding claim 39, Davis ‘780 discloses a smoking article having a cartridge ([0117], figure 21, reference numeral 600). The cartridge contains a porous carbon heater (figure 13, reference numeral 10) that is in contact with a carbonized aerosol precursor transport element ([0100], figure 13, reference numeral 100), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a substrate. The aerosol transport element provides fluid communication between a reservoir and the heater [0088] that transfers liquid aerosol precursor solution [0091] that forms an aerosol upon being heated [0079] by the heater [0040].
Regarding claim 40, Davis ‘780 discloses that the cartridge is detachably connected to a control body (figure 21, reference numeral 700) to form a smoking article ([0117], figure 21, reference numeral 1000). The cartridge has openings at an end opposite the end that is connected to the control body so that aerosol can be inhaled by a user ([0122], figure 21, reference numeral 440), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a mouth opening.
Regarding claim 43, Davis ‘780 discloses that the carbon is a foam [0006].
Regarding claim 44, Davis ‘780 discloses that the porous carbon comprises an electrically resistive heater that is connected on two ends to an electrical power source [0016], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a circuit.
Regarding claim 45, Davis ‘780 discloses that the liquid comes from a secondary liquid storage element that forms a liquid reservoir [0088].
Regarding claims 46 and 47, Davis ‘780 discloses that the aerosol precursor transport element is glass [0113].
Regarding claim 48, Davis ‘780 discloses that the aerosol precursor transport element is perpendicular to the lengthwise axis of the device [0088].
Regarding claim 49, Davis ‘780 discloses that the outside of the transport element is in contact with the carbon heater (figure 13).
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 39 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US 9,510,623) in view of Kim (US 8,816,257).
Regarding claims 39 and 42, Tucker discloses an electronic cigarette having a cartridge (figure 1, reference numeral 70) that has a heater that vaporizes liquid (figure 1, reference numeral 14) and surrounds a wick that it is adjacent to (column 4, lines 32-35, figure 1, reference numeral 28). The wick receives the liquid to be vaporized from a reservoir, and the heater may be a heater of any suitable form (column 3, lines 8-30). Tucker does not explicitly disclose a heater comprising graphene.
Kim teaches a flexible heating element using graphene (abstract) that has improved heat generation efficiency (column 1, lines 61-64).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heater of Kim as the heater of Tucker. One would have been motivated to do so since Tucker discloses an electronic cigarette having a heater in any suitable form and Kim teaches a heater that has improved efficiency. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2015/0059780, hereafter referred to as Davis ‘780) in view of Rostami (US 10,010,111).
Regarding claim 41, Davis ‘780 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Davis ‘780 does not explicitly disclose the transport element having pores.
Rostami teaches an e-vaping device having a wick that is in fluid communication with a reservoir and a heater that vaporizes the liquid (abstract) that has pores so that liquid can be transferred from the reservoir to the heater so that liquid can be vaporized regardless of the orientation of the device (column 8, lines 58-67, column 9, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transport element of Davis ‘780 with the pores of Rostami. One would have been motivated to do so since Rostami teaches pore that enable liquid to be transferred regardless of device orientation so that vaporization can continue.
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 39-40, 42, 44 and 48-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,534 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘534).
Regarding claim 39, Sur ‘534 claims an aerosol delivery device comprising a cartridge serially engaged with a control body and including an aerosol precursor source housing an aerosol precursor, a heater device operably engaged with the cartridge, the heater comprising an electrically conductive carbon element disposed adjacent to a substrate, the heater device being configured to receive the aerosol precursor from the aerosol precursor source (claim 1). A capillary, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a substrate, transfers liquid from the source to the heater (claim 15) and is adjacent to the heater (claim 14).
Regarding claim 40, Sur ‘534 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘534 additionally claims the cartridge defining a mouth opening configured to direct aerosol to a user (claim 1). Sur ‘534 does not explicitly claim the mouth opening being at an opposite end of the cartridge from the connection to the control body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the mouth opening at an opposite end of the cartridge from the connection to the control body. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 42, Sur ‘534 claims the electrically conductive carbon element comprising a conductive graphene element (claim 3).
Regarding claim 44, Sur ‘534 claims that the heater is a resistive heater (claim 1) that is part of an electrical circuit (claim 5).
Regarding claim 48, Sur ‘534 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘534 does not explicitly claim an orientation of the capillary.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the capillary in the claimed manner. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 49, Sur ‘534 claims that the capillary dispenses liquid from an outlet end (claim 15) onto the heat conductive substrate (claim 14) so that it can be heated (claim 16), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of engaging.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,534 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘534) in view of Rostami (US 10,010,111).
Regarding claim 41, Sur ‘534 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘534 additionally claims that a capillary is located between the aerosol precursor source and the substrate (claim 14), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a substrate. Sur ‘534 does not explicitly claim the capillary having pores.
Rostami teaches an e-vaping device having a wick that is in fluid communication with a reservoir and a heater that vaporizes the liquid (abstract) that has pores so that liquid can be transferred from the reservoir to the heater so that liquid can be vaporized regardless of the orientation of the device (column 8, lines 58-67, column 9, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the capillary of Sur ‘534 with the pores of Rostami. One would have been motivated to do so since Rostami teaches pore that enable liquid to be transferred regardless of device orientation so that vaporization can continue.
Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,534 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘534) in view of Davis (US 2015/0059780, hereafter referred to as Davis ‘780).
Regarding claim 43, Sur ‘534 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘534 does not explicitly claim the carbon heating element comprising a foam.
Davis ‘780 teaches that the carbon is a foam [0006] that can receive liquid, heat liquid, and release aerosol to function as a heater of a smoking device [0084].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the carbon heater of Sur ‘534 a foam. One would have been motivated to do so since Davis ‘780 teaches a carbon foam that functions as a smoking device heater.
Claims 45-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,534 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘534) in view of Newton (US RE 49,114).
Regarding claim 45, Sur ‘534 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘534 does not explicitly claim a reservoir.
Newton teaches an electronic cigarette having a reservoir within a housing from which a wick transfers liquid to an atomizer (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sur ‘534 with the reservoir of Newton. One would have been motivated to do so since Newton teaches a reservoir that stores liquid for an electronic cigarette.
Regarding claims 46 and 47, Sur ‘534 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘534 does not explicitly claim the capillary made from glass.
Newton teaches an electronic cigarette having a reservoir within a housing from which a wick transfer4s liquid to an atomizer (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sur ‘534 with the glass wick of Newton. One would have been motivated to do so since Newton a suitable material for transferring liquid from a reservoir to a heater. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 39-40 and 43-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,172,387 (hereafter referred to as Davis ‘387) in view of Ampolini (US 2014/0096782).
Regarding claim 39, Davis ‘387 claims an atomizer having electrically resistive heater formed of a porous carbon (claim 1) that receives aerosol precursor material (claim 6) from an aerosol precursor transport element (claim 7), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a substrate. The transport element is embedded within the carbon heater (claim 11), indicating that the two are engaged. The aerosol precursor transport element contains aerosol precursor (claim 6), and is therefore considered to be an aerosol precursor source. Davis ‘387 does not explicitly claim a cartridge.
Ampolini teaches a smoking article made from a cartridge that connects to a control body [0026] and provides a consumable arrangement having an aerosol precursor composition and a heating element (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the atomizer of Davis ‘387 in the cartridge of Ampolini. One would have been motivated to do so since Ampolini teaches a suitable consumable arrangement that contains a heater for a smoking article.
Regarding claim 40, Ampolini teaches that the cartridge has a mouthpiece at the end that is opposite the end where the cartridge connects to the control body [0062].
Regarding claim 43, Davis ‘387 claims the heater being porous and the most of the pores are closed (claim 1), indicating that the porous carbon heater is a foam.
Regarding claim 44, Davis ‘387 claims the carbon heater having first and second ends that electrically connect with a power source (claim 16). The heater is a resistive heater (claim 1).
Claims 39-42, 44, and 48-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,457 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘457).
Regarding claim 39, Sur ‘457 claims an aerosol delivery device comprising a cartridge adapted to serially engage a control body to form a smoking article, the cartridge including an aerosol precursor source configured to receive an aerosol precursor, and a heater operably engaged with the cartridge, the heater comprising an electrically conductive carbon element adjacent to a heat conductive substrate such that aerosol precursor in the substrate is heated using heat generated by an electrically conductive carbon element (claim 1).
Regarding claim 40, Sur ‘457 claims the cartridge defining a mouth opening opposite the engagement to the control body (claim 1).
Regarding claim 41, Sur ‘457 claims at least one pore extending from the inner channel to an outer surface (claim 18) of the substrate (claim 110.
Regarding claim 42, Sur ‘457 claims the carbon element comprising a graphene sheet (claim 4).
Regarding claim 44, Sur ‘457 claims the carbon element being engaged to an electrical circuit and the carbon element being a resistive element (claim 5).
Regarding claim 48, Sur ‘457 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘457 does not explicitly claim an orientation of the substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the substrate in the claimed manner. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 49, Sur ‘534 claims that carbon element is engaged with the outer surface of the hollow cylinder of the heat conductive substrate (claim 11).
Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,457 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘457) in view of Davis (US 2015/0059780, hereafter referred to as Davis ‘780).
Regarding claim 43, Sur ‘457 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘457 does not explicitly claim the carbon heating element comprising a foam.
Davis ‘780 teaches that the carbon is a foam [0006] that can receive liquid, heat liquid, and release aerosol to function as a heater of a smoking device [0084].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the carbon heater of Sur ‘457 a foam. One would have been motivated to do so since Davis ‘780 teaches a carbon foam that functions as a smoking device heater.
Claims 45-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,457 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘457) in view of Newton (US RE 49,114).
Regarding claim 45, Sur ‘457 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘457 does not explicitly claim a reservoir.
Newton teaches an electronic cigarette having a reservoir within a housing from which a wick transfers liquid to an atomizer (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sur ‘534 with the reservoir of Newton. One would have been motivated to do so since Newton teaches a reservoir that stores liquid for an electronic cigarette.
Regarding claims 46 and 47, Sur ‘457 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘457 does not explicitly claim the capillary made from glass.
Newton teaches an electronic cigarette having a reservoir within a housing from which a wick transfers liquid to an atomizer (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sur ‘457 with the glass wick of Newton. One would have been motivated to do so since Newton a suitable material for transferring liquid from a reservoir to a heater. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 39-42, 44, and 48-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,749 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘749).
Regarding claim 39, Sur ‘749 claims an aerosol delivery device comprising a cartridge adapted to serially engage a control body to form a smoking article (claim 2), the cartridge including an aerosol precursor source configured to receive an aerosol precursor, and a heater operably engaged with the cartridge, the heater comprising an electrically conductive carbon element adjacent to a heat conductive substrate such that aerosol precursor in the substrate is heated using heat generated by an electrically conductive carbon element (claim 1).
Regarding claim 40, Sur ‘749 claims the cartridge defining a mouth opening opposite the engagement to the control body (claim 2).
Regarding claim 41, Sur ‘749 claims at least one pore extending from the inner channel to an outer surface (claim 19) of the substrate (claim 12).
Regarding claim 42, Sur ‘749 claims the carbon element comprising a graphene element (claim 4).
Regarding claim 44, Sur ‘749 claims the carbon element being engaged to an electrical circuit and the carbon element being a resistive element (claim 6).
Regarding claim 48, Sur ‘749 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘749 does not explicitly claim an orientation of the substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the substrate in the claimed manner. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 49, Sur ‘749 claims that carbon element is engaged with the outer surface of the hollow cylinder of the heat conductive substrate (claim 12).
Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,749 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘749) in view of Davis (US 2015/0059780, hereafter referred to as Davis ‘780).
Regarding claim 43, Sur ‘749 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘749 does not explicitly claim the carbon heating element comprising a foam.
Davis ‘780 teaches that the carbon is a foam [0006] that can receive liquid, heat liquid, and release aerosol to function as a heater of a smoking device [0084].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the carbon heater of Sur ‘749 a foam. One would have been motivated to do so since Davis ‘780 teaches a carbon foam that functions as a smoking device heater.
Claims 45-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,749 (hereafter referred to as Sur ‘749) in view of Newton (US RE 49,114).
Regarding claim 45, Sur ‘749 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘749 does not explicitly claim a reservoir.
Newton teaches an electronic cigarette having a reservoir within a housing from which a wick transfers liquid to an atomizer (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sur ‘749 with the reservoir of Newton. One would have been motivated to do so since Newton teaches a reservoir that stores liquid for an electronic cigarette.
Regarding claims 46 and 47, Sur ‘749 claims all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur ‘749 does not explicitly claim the capillary made from glass.
Newton teaches an electronic cigarette having a reservoir within a housing from which a wick transfers liquid to an atomizer (abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sur ‘749 with the glass wick of Newton. One would have been motivated to do so since Newton a suitable material for transferring liquid from a reservoir to a heater. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights