www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`29/845,548
`
`07/08/2022
`
`Damian James Reec Mycroft
`
`10851-034DX2
`
`2515
`
`The Coca-Cola Company
`c/o Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
`999 Peachtree Street NE
`Suite 1300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`ADAMS, ARVA P
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2913
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/21/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @mcciplaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary ARVA P ADAMS
`
`LAKEN ADKINS
`
`Telephonic
`Attorney of Record PO
`
`Application No.
`29/845 548
`Examiner
`ARVA P ADAMS
`
`Applicant(s)
`Mycroft, Damian James Reec
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`Date of Interview: 15 September 2023
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`Other
`
`Regarding the section in the Ex Parte Quayle action stating that the referenceslisted in the foreign
`patent documents and other documents sections of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were not
`considered because there were not copies of the documentsfiled with the IDS, Ms. Adkins informed
`Examiner Adamsthat the copies are available in parent application 29738846, accompanying the
`examiner's PTO-892. A transmittal letter titled "Information Disclosure Statement Transmittal” lists the
`parent application and the parent application is relied on for an earlier effective filing date under 35
`U.S.C. 120. This satisfies the requirement for copies according to 37 CFR 1.98.
`
`Examiner Adamsinformed Ms. Adkins that the examinerwill consider the referenceslisted in the foreign
`patent documents and other documents sections of the IDS in a forthcomingoffice action, when the
`applicant responds to the Ex Parte Quayle action.
`
`In addition, regarding the U.S. patent reference improperly listed in the U.S. patent application
`publications section of the IDS, Examiner Adamsinformed Ms. Adkinsthat she will include that
`reference in a PTO-892 when the applicant responds to the Ex Parte Quayle action, so that the
`reference is cited on the patent, when andif the claim is allowed.
`
`/ARVA P ADAMS/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2913
`
`/JOSEPH KUKELLA/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2913
`
`37 CFR§ 1.2 Businessto be transacted in writing
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substanceof the interview must be made of record in
`the application file. It is the applicants responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview wasinitiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner hasindicated that a written summarywill be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Pleasefurther see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the
`interview. (See MPEP section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a
`non-extendable period of the longer of one monthor thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this
`interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substanceofthe interview.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20230915
`
`

`

`Yes
`
`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`
`Application No.
`29/845 548
`\Paminer
`ARVA P ADAMS
`
`Applicant(s)
`Mycroft, Damian James Reec
`aoe
`to File) Status
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete
`and proper recordation of the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete
`and proper recordation including the identification of the general thrust of each argumentor issue discussed, a general
`indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the general results or outcome of the
`interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issuesraised.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20230915
`
`