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 .
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed December 2, 2025. Claims 16-30 are pending. Claims 1-15 have been canceled. No claim has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16 & 19-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsegenidis et al. (WO 2019/001894) in view of Rothschild (US 2014/0137883).
In regards to claim 16, Tsegenidis discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining an indication comprising:
a skin parameter of a user, wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation (i.e., as measured by the temperature sensor) determined by a measurement of temperature data (see at least par 033 & 039 & 042),
PNG
media_image1.png
595
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and,
an interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between skin of the user and a hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
determining a position (i.e., using a GPS) of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 038, 041, 045-046 & 050);
determining a hair removal instruction (i.e., guidance, feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on the indication and the position (see at least par 030, 052-056 & 0080); and
causing a user interface (i.e., for providing auditory, tactile and/or visual feedback, see par 052-054) to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
Tsegenidis discloses a method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data.
However, Rothschild teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data (see at least par 0012, 0021, 0033 & 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Tsegenidis wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data as taught by Tsegenidis) for another (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild) to obtain predictable results such as identifying areas of the skin that are sensitive to shaving such as areas that show signs of skin disease or other skin condition (see at least par 0012 of Rothschild)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 19, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between the user's skin and the hair removal unit 100 is pressure applied between the hair removal unit 100 and the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056).
In regards to claim 20, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising causing an imaging device to acquire the imaging data prior to a user hair removal session, to determine pre-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 044, 048-051 & 059-060).
In regards to claim 21, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 20, further comprising:
causing the imaging device to acquire the imaging data during and/or after the user hair removal session, to determine present and/or post-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 044 & 048-049);
generating the skin parameter data based on the imaging data (see at least par 044-045 & 048-049); and
determining a skin parameter map for the user based on a comparison between the pre-hair removal skin parameter data and the present and/or post-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 032, 044 & 046-048).
In regards to claim 22, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the skin parameter comprises a visible skin irritation indicator and is based on whether or not the comparison identifies any change in the visible skin irritation indicator between the pre-hair removal skin parameter data and the present and/or post-hair removal skin parameter data (see at least par 003, 033, 039, 042, 052-053, 055, 078 & 080).
In regards to claim 23, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, wherein determining the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) comprises:
accessing an optimal hair removal map of the user's skin, wherein a spatial location of the optimal hair removal map is associated with an optimal hair removal technique that is determined based on at least one of:
pre-hair removal skin parameter data;
historical data for the user; and
predetermined knowledge regarding hair removal; and
determining the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the spatial location based on the optimal hair removal map (see at least par 032 & 044-052).
In regards to claim 24, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising at least one of:
determining, in real-time, the position of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 032, 036-037 & 041);
determining, in real-time, the interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between the user's skin and the hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
determining, in real-time, the skin parameter (i.e., skin irritation) (see at least par 003, 033 & 039); and
determining a real-time hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on at least one of:
the position (see at least par 032, 038 & 041);
the interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving);
the skin parameter (i.e., skin irritation) (see at least par 003, 033 & 039);
historical hair removal performance data for the user (see at least par 043, 058 & 0126); and
pre-determined hair removal performance data (see at least par 032 & 044-052).
In regards to claim 25, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising causing the user interface to provide, in real-time, the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
In regards to claim 26, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the historical hair removal performance data for the user comprises at least one of:
user skin type (i.e., normal, dry, or sensitive);
user skin condition (see at least par 003, 033, 039, 042, 055, 058, 078 & 080);
pressure applied between the hair removal unit 100 and the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056);
user hair removal behavior (see at least par 098);
hair removal results;
hair removal unit motion and hair removal unit operational performance, as determined from at least one previous user hair removal session (see at least par 045 & 0124), and wherein the pre-determined hair removal performance data comprises knowledge acquired from other users and/or clinical data regarding at least one of:
skin type (i.e., normal, dry, or sensitive);
skin condition (see at least par 003, 033, 039, 042, 055, 058, 078 & 080);
pressure applied between the hair removal unit 100 and the other user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056);
hair removal behavior (see at least par 098);
hair removal results;
hair removal unit motion and hair removal unit operational performance, from which a recommended hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user can be determined in order to provide improved hair removal experience as compared to a previous user hair removal session (see at least par 043, 058, 078 & 0125-0126).
In regards to claim 27, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) is configured to provide a personalized recommendation for the user regarding at least one of:
pressure to apply between the hair removal unit 100 and the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 042 & 056);
hair removal unit positioning relative to the user's skin (see at least par 032, 038 & 041); and
hair removal unit motion (i.e., speed and/or length of shave stroke) (see at least par 031-032, 036, 041, 056, 065 & 076),
Wherein the method further comprises causing the user interface to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on whether or not the user has deviated from a previously-recommended hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) (see at least par 043, 058, 078 & 0125-0126).
In regards to claim 28, Tsegenidis discloses the method of claim 16,
wherein determining the position of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin comprises acquiring at least one of:
imaging data of the user's skin and the hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 044-045, 048-051 & 059, 062, 074 & 0106); and
motion data from a sensor on-board the hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 006, 032 & 036-037), and
wherein the position of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin comprises at least one of:
a position of a hair removal device 100 of the hair removal unit 100 on the user's skin (see at least par 032, 038, 041, 046 & 050); and
an orientation of the hair removal device relative to the user's skin (see at least par 031-032, 036, 038 & 041).
In regards to claim 29, Tsegenidis discloses an apparatus comprising processing circuitry, the processing circuitry comprising:
an obtaining module configured to obtain an indication comprising:
a skin parameter of a user, wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data (i.e., as measured by the temperature sensor) (see at least par 033 & 039 & 042);
PNG
media_image1.png
595
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
an interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between skin of the user and a hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
a determining module configured to:
determine a position (i.e., using a GPS) of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 038, 041, 045-046 & 050);
a hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on the indication and the position (see at least par 030, 052-056 & 0080); and
a user instruction module (i.e., for providing auditory, tactile and/or visual feedback, see par 052-054) configured to cause a user interface to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
Tsegenidis discloses an apparatus, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach an apparatus wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data.
However, Rothschild teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data (see at least par 0012, 0021, 0033 & 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the apparatus of Tsegenidis wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data as taught by Tsegenidis) for another (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild) to obtain predictable results such as identifying areas of the skin that are sensitive to shaving such as areas that show signs of skin disease or other skin condition (see at least par 0012 of Rothschild)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 30, Tsegenidis discloses a tangible machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
obtain an indication comprising:
a skin parameter of a user, wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature and
an interaction (i.e., sufficiency or adequacy of shaving) between skin of the user and a hair removal unit 100 (see at least par 030, 041-042, 047 & 051-052);
determine a position (i.e., using a GPS) of the hair removal unit 100 relative to the user's skin (see at least par 038, 041, 045-046 & 050);
determine a hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user based on the indication and the position (see at least par 030, 052-056 & 0080); and
data (i.e., as measured by the temperature sensor) (see at least par 033 & 039 & 042);
PNG
media_image1.png
595
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
cause a user interface to provide the hair removal instruction (i.e., feedback and/or suggestions to a user regarding shaving habits, and/or to help guide a user’s shave) for the user (see at last par 030 & 055-057).
Tsegenidis discloses a tangible machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, fails to explicitly teach cause the processor to carry a step wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data.
However, Rothschild teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data (see at least par 0012, 0021, 0033 & 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the tangible machine-readable medium of Tsegenidis storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to carry out a step wherein the indication of the skin parameter comprises an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of temperature data as taught by Tsegenidis) for another (i.e., an indication of skin irritation determined by a measurement of imaging data as taught by Rothschild) to obtain predictable results such as identifying areas of the skin that are sensitive to shaving such as areas that show signs of skin disease or other skin condition (see at least par 0012 of Rothschild)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsegenidis et al. (WO 2019/001894) in view of Rothschild (US 2014/0137883) further in view of Rubinstenn et al. (US 2003/0063801) (“Rubinstenn” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 17, Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild discloses the method of claim 16, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the skin parameter comprises a user skin condition determined, using a machine-learning model trained to identify and/or classify skin parameters, from the imaging data of the user's skin. However, Rubinstenn teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the skin parameter comprises a user skin condition determined (see at least par 0006, 0034 & 0037), using a machine-learning model (i.e., image recognition or artificial intelligence such as fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic programming and decision tree programming, see at least fig. 7 and par 0037, 0041, 0075 & 0090-0093) trained to identify and/or classify skin parameters, from the imaging data of the user's skin (see at least fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild wherein the skin parameter comprises a user skin condition determined, using a machine-learning model trained to identify and/or classify skin parameters, from the imaging data of the user's skin as taught by Rubinstenn since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Rubinsteen) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Tsegenidis) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as training a neural network to identify features in an image so as to determine or more skin conditions through an image processing techniques (see at least par 0037 of Rubinstenn)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 18, Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild discloses the method of claim 17, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the indication further comprises a hair parameter of the user, wherein the hair parameter comprises a user hair condition determined, using the machine-learning model, from the imaging data of the user's skin. However, Rubinstenn teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the indication further comprises a hair parameter of the user, wherein the hair parameter comprises a user hair condition determined (see at least par 0002, 0006, 0010, 0034, 0037 & 0078), using the machine-learning model (i.e., image recognition or artificial intelligence such as fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic programming and decision tree programming, see at least fig. 7 and par 0037, 0041, 0075 & 0090-0093), from the imaging data of the user's skin (see at least fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Tsegenidis as modified by Rothschild wherein the indication further comprises a hair parameter of the user, wherein the hair parameter comprises a user hair condition determined, using the machine-learning model, from the imaging data of the user's skin as taught by Rubinstenn since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Rubinsteen) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Tsegenidis) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as training a neural network to identify features in an image so as to determine or more skin conditions through an image processing techniques (see at least par 0037 of Rubinstenn)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Rothschild fails to disclose using a camera or imaging data to determine an indication of skin irritation. The Office respectfully traverses. First, the Office notes that the primary reference of Tsegenidis teaches a camera (see at least par 048 thereof), which, by its very nature, is capable of indicating areas of skin irritation (whether so intended or not) because an image of irritated skin usually presents with signs of inflammation and/or scabs as those persons skilled in the art would have understood. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Office listed the above-feature as being taught by Rothschild, which Applicant surprisingly denies. The Office further points Applicant to par 0021 of Rothschild, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
[0021] The distance that the blade(s) 115 is moved away from the skin can be determined based on an analysis of the captured image(s) performed by the razor 110. In illustration, if such analysis identifies a skin disease or skin conduction, such as erythema (e.g., redness of the skin) or dryness of the skin, the blade(s) 115 can be moved a small distance away from the skin 125, for example 0.2 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.8 mm, etc. from the plane defined by the protective device 140. If the analysis identifies skin neoplasms (also known as "skin cancer") and/or one or more lacerations of the skin 125, the blade(s) 115 can be moved an intermediate distance away from the skin, for example 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, or the like. If the analysis identifies one or more areas of the skin 125 where the skin is protruded, for example due to acne, inflammation, scabbing or scaring, the blade(s) 115 can be moved an appropriate distance that mitigates a risk of the blade(s) 115 cutting into the skin, scab and/or scar tissue.
In other words, protruding skin as a result of inflammation, scabbing or scaring, which is synonymous with irritation, is among the skin conditions that the image analysis of Rothschild detects. The term “irritation” is defined by Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1994) to mean “a condition of irritability, soreness, roughness, or inflammation of a bodily part.”
Applicant further contends that Rothschild does not teach generating a numeric or qualitative irritation parameter comparable to Tsegenidis’s temperature-derived value and that nothing in either reference suggests that optical redness data is an interchangeable substitute for the temperature vectors on which Tsegenidis "irritation" algorithm is explicitly based. The Office respectfully traverses. First, the Applicant’s argument is not followed as it does not address the Office action, nor does it address the limitation(s) of the claim(s). For example, the only substitution presented in the Office action concerns substituting the claimed “indication of skin irritation” as broadly recited in the rejected claim(s) using an analysis of captured images, which both Tsegenidis and Rothschild already perform. The Office action does not make any further assumption beyond a broadly stated “indication of skin irritation,” which is NOT the same as generating a numeric or qualitative irritation parameter as taught by Tsegenidis, nor is it the same as generating a numeric or qualitative irritation parameter as alleged by Applicant. In fact, the claim(s) NEVER require(s) such a numeric or qualitative irritation parameter contrary to the Applicant’s assertion. According to the claim(s), the parameter IS the indication of skin irritation itself. Moreover, in the combination, the “indication of skin irritation” can be performed using Rothschild, before, during and/or after generating a numeric or qualitative irritation parameter as taught by Tsegenidis. Merely providing “an indication of skin irritation” using imaging data does NOT preclude other functions from being performed and/or other irritation parameters from being measured. Therefore, it is unclear how the Applicant’s argument pertaining to temperature vectors and/or stroke sufficiency is in any way connected to the Office action, let alone to the broadly claimed language of providing an “indication of skin irritation” in the claim(s).
Applicant further contends that the prior art fails to teach the step of “determining a position of the hair removal unit relative to the user’s skin.” The Office respectfully traverses. First, the Office notes that Tsegenidis clearly determines a position of the hair removal unit relative to the user’s skin. For example, cited par 038, 041 & 046 clearly state:
[038] One or more sensors 20 may be located on any suitable region of shaver 100. For example, one or more sensors 20 may be located on handle 10, razor cartridge 200, and/or one or more blades 109. Sensors in these locations may indicate, for example, the location and/or efficiency of a shaving stroke. In some embodiments, sensors 20 may be located on handle 10 and may indicate the orientation of shaver 100, the relative positioning of shaver 100 compared to the body, and/or how the user is holding handle 10 of shaver 100. Including multiple sensors 20 at different locations along the handle may provide more information regarding the orientation of shaver 100. For example, including multiple gyroscope sensors 20 may help to ascertain whether the user is tilting shaver 100 and razor cartridge 200 towards or away from the body and at what angle.
[041] Shaver 100 may also include one or more timers and/or global positioning systems (GPS). For example, a timer may help to determine the speed of a given stroke and/or the amount of time a user has spent shaving a particular region of the body. This may help to indicate the sufficiency of shaving in that area. The speed of each stroke and/or time spent may also indicate the thickness of body hair and/or the type of hair being shaved, information that may be useful to determining the adequacy of a shave and/or suitability of a particular cartridge 200 and/or blades 109 for a particular user. A timer may also be used to determine a user's total time spent shaving. A GPS may help to determine the location of shaver 100 relative to a user's body, its orientation, and/or it's path of travel along the user's body. Again, this data may provide information to help determine whether a particular area of the body needs more shaving or not. For convenience, timer and GPS will each be referred to herein as a type of sensor 20.
[046] During shaving, data generated by sensors 20 of shaver 100 may be correlated to stored photographic data for the user's body region. Thus, information regarding the location of shaver 100 relative to the body region and/or the number of shaving strokes applied may be correlated to the 3D map of the user's body region. In this way, the application may be able to track how much different portions of the user's body region have been shaved and thus how much additional shaving, if any, should be performed by the user before an adequate shave has been achieved in that body region.
Applicant asserts that the GPS in Tsegenidis relies on “global coordinates.” However, Applicant fails to recognize that the term “global” is a relative term of degree. As such, Applicant’s reliance on said one such word to infer that the GPS in Tsegenidis necessarily provides “Earth-referenced coordinates and heading” that allegedly “provides no resolution within centimeters, let alone millimeters, needed to correlate to facial region” is clearly erroneous as it ignores the multiple portions of the teachings of Tsegenidis that explicitly teach that the GPS sensor in Tsegenidis “determine[s] the location of the shaver relative to a user’s body” and allow Tsegenidis to correlate said position/location relative to the body region to a 3D map of the user's body region. Moreover, every Applicant is his/her own lexicographer and Tsegenidis does NOT teach that its GPS furnishes Earth-referenced coordinates and heading as advanced by the Applicant. As such, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, Tsegenidis clearly teaches determining the position of the hair removal unit relative to the user’s skin or body.
Regarding the rest of Applicant’s arguments, they rely on a mischaracterization of the Office action such as the allegation that the feature including autonomously changing of the blade exposure of Rothschild is being implemented in Tsegenidis (the Office NEVER proposed such modification to the device of Tsegenidis).
In view of the foregoing, the rejections over at least Tsegenidis and Rothschild are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791