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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the dynamic reference value determinator of claims 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claimed dynamic reference value determinator and boundary of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “wherein the determination unit includes a processor programmed to execute instructions from a memory, the processor configured as a dynamic reference value determinator for dynamically determining the reference value from the stroke lengths of a number of preceding strokes” in lines 11-14 and “the determination unit utilizes the dynamic reference to determine an average of the stroke lengths of the two or more preceding strokes or a sliding average as specified over a predetermined time period” in lines 16-18 of the claim. In P. 0068 of the instant specification it states “[s]uch electronic control unit may include a microprocessor and a storage for storing program applications and/or data, wherein such electronic control unit also may control operation of the personal care device 2, including controlling the aforementioned adjustment actuator for making the suspension of the working head 41 stiffer or softer” and in P. 0067 it states “[a] determination unit 42 is provided for determining the stroke length and for differentiating between short strokes and long strokes, wherein such determination unit 42 may include at least one sensor 1 such as an acceleration sensor and an electronic evaluation unit 42a which may be part of and/or connected to an electronic control unit for controlling the personal care device 2”. The processor as disclosed by the instant disclosure is a part of an electronic control unit which may be a part of or connected to an electronic evaluation unit which, in part, comprises the determination unit. However, the instant specification does not disclose the processor as performing the claimed function and instead discloses the processor as “control[ling] operation of the personal care device including controlling the aforementioned adjustment actuator”. As such, it appears the written description does not support the claimed limitation drawn to the processor being configured as a dynamic reference value determinator for determining a reference value and is instead supported being configured to control the device.
Regarding claims 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “wherein the determination unit compares the determined stroke lengths to a reference value forming a threshold boundary between long strokes and short strokes” in lines 15-17 of the claim. The claim includes the phrase “threshold boundary” but it is unclear as to what a threshold boundary is as the phrase is not defined or included in the specification. A boundary is commonly defined as the limit or extent of an area or as the difference between two areas. While a threshold is commonly defined as an end or a boundary. Further, it is unclear from the claim if the claimed threshold boundary is a calculation or a physical structure somehow formed by the device as limitation “forming” could refer to the collection of data points or to the shaping of a physical structure.
The claim also states “the processor configured as a dynamic reference value determinator for dynamically determining the reference value from the stroke lengths of a number of preceding strokes, wherein the determination unit compares the determined stroke lengths to a reference value forming a threshold boundary between long strokes and short strokes” in lines 12-16 of the claim. It is unclear if there is a single “reference value” claimed or if there are several “reference values” as a second reference value appears to be introduced in the claim.
Regarding claims 3-7, 10, 14, 16, 18-19 and 22, the claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 has insufficient antecedent basis for the noted limitations in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the reference value” in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the dynamic reference” in line 15.
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 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuellgrabe et al. (US 11,027,442 B2), hereafter known as Fuellgrabe, in view of Mulder et al. (EP 3,782,509 A1) and Fuellgrabe et al. (US 12,667,988 B2), hereafter known as Fuellgrabe II.
Regarding claim 1, Fuellgrabe teaches a personal care device (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1-7, 1), comprising an elongated handle (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 2) for manually moving the personal care device in a short and/or a long stroke along a body surface (Fuellgrabe, Col. 16, lines 9-10), a working head (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 3) attached to said handle for effecting a personal care treatment to said body surface, and a determination unit (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 80) including at least one sensor for determining a stroke length (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28, Fig. 1, 48) to differentiate between short and long strokes, characterized in that said determination unit is configured to determine velocity of the working head and/or the handle (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1, 43), to determine beginning and end points of strokes when the determined velocity gets zero and/or changes signs (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28 and 29-39), as best understood the device as disclosed by Fuellgrabe would be capable of determining the starting and beginning of a stroke due to the acceleration of the device as the device has all the required structure and is capable of making such a calculation, and to determine stroke length from the distance between pairs of beginning and end points next to each other (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28 and 29-39), as the device of Fuellgrabe is capable of determining the position, acceleration, and speed while also being able to calculate the derivates of these quantities it is the device is capable of performing the stated function, an acceleration sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 43), wherein the determination unit includes a processor () programmed to execute instructions from a memory (Fuellgrabe, Col. 16 line 65 – Col. 17 line 12) the processor configured as a dynamic reference value determinator for dynamically determining the reference value from the stroke lengths of a number of preceding strokes, as best understood the reference value determinator may be anything capable of determining a value as such the acceleration sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 43, Col. 16, lines 15-17) meets the instant limitation, wherein the determination unit compares the determined stroke lengths to a reference value forming a boundary between long strokes and short strokes (Fuellgrabe, Col. 13, lines 33-47), and the determination unit utilizes the dynamic reference to determine an average of the stroke lengths of the two or more preceding strokes or a sliding average as specified over a predetermined time period (Fuellgrabe, Col. 18 line 38 – Col. 19 line 3), while Fuellgrabe does not specifically mention a sliding average for the stroke the prior art shows that it is well known in the art to compare different variables during use of a personal care device and then compare them using a variety of methods.
Fuellgrabe does not teach wherein the determination unit comprises a filter for removing influences of gravity onto the acceleration signal of the acceleration sensor and wherein the dynamic reference value determinator is configured to apply a scaling factor to the stroke length of the preceding strokes to give more weight to stroke lengths of more recent strokes than to stroke lengths of compared to that less recent strokes. It should be noted that Fuellgrabe does teach that it is well known in the art to use a filter to process a signal (Fuellgrabe, Col. 8, lines 26-32). It should also be noted that Fuellgrabe also teaches applying a weight to more recent shaving sessions, but is silent about weighing lengths (Fuellgrabe, Col. 19, lines 4-11).
Mulder teaches a personal care device (Mulder, Fig. 1-9, 10, P. 0010), in particular a hair removal device (Mulder, P. 0035), wherein the determination unit (Mulder, Fig. 1 and 7, 20) comprises a filter (Mulder, P. 0057) for removing influences of gravity onto the acceleration signal of the acceleration sensor (Mulder, Fig. 1 and 7, 19, P. 0057). This allow for the signal to be free of accelerations caused by slow accelerations or movements (Mulder, P. 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the filter of Fuellgrabe such that the filter removes the influences of gravity onto the acceleration signal as taught by Mulder as it allows for the acceleration-n signal to be free of accelerations caused by slow accelerations or movements caused by gravity or the user.
Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device (Fuellgrabe II, Figs. 1-7) comprising a dynamic reference value determinator (Fuellgrabe II, Figs. 1-2, 17) configured to apply a scaling factor (Fuellgrabe II, Col. 18, lines 7-21, “weighting”) to the stroke length of the preceding strokes to give more weight to stroke lengths of more recent strokes than to stroke lengths of compared to that less recent strokes (Fuellgrabe II, Col. 18, lines 7-21 and Col. 18 line 53 – Col. 19 line 15). Such a factor allows for the device to adapt during use (Fuellgrabe II, Col. 18 line 53 – Col. 19 line 15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the dynamic reference value determinator taught by Fuellgrabe such that a scaling factor like that taught by Fuellgrabe II were applied to the most recent stroke lengths as such a factor allows for the device to adapt during use.
Regarding claim 3, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the acceleration sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 43) is configured to determine velocity (Fuellgrabe, Col. 16, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein a sensor of the at least one sensor of the determination unit comprises a rotation sensor (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 3, 44) for detecting rotational movements of the handle (Fuellgrabe, Col. 16, lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 5, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 4, wherein the rotation sensor is configured to provide a correction signal to the determined velocity (Fuellgrabe, Col. 13, lines 1-15), while Fuellgrabe does not specifically teach modifying the velocity value based on a signal from the rotation sensor Fuellgrabe does teach adjusting a setting of the device in response to the velocity. This shows that it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the functioning of the device dependent on data provided by sensor and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II such that the device modifies the determined velocity dependent on a signal from the rotation sensor.
Regarding claim 6, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 5, wherein the evaluation unit (Fuellgrabe, Fig. 1 and 4-6, 80) includes a low pass filter for performing a mathematical integration for determining the velocity based on an acceleration signal, and/or said low pass filter having a cut-off frequency set at a value below expected frequencies of short and long strokes to perform the mathematical integration for frequencies above the cut-off frequency (Fuellgrabe, Col. 18 line 60 – Col. 19 line 3).
Regarding claim 10, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein said filter for removing influences of gravity (Mulder, P. 0057) is a high pass filter (Mulder, P. 0057)
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II, as modified, does not teach the filter having a cut-off frequency ranging from 0.8 Hz to 2.0 Hz. However, Mulder does further teach that it is well known in the art of high-pass filters to vary the frequency range (Mulder, P. 0057). As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II such that the frequency range such that it was any desirable range for any desirable reason in further view of Mulder as it is well known in the art of electric shaving devices to use high pass filters to filter out the influences of gravity.
Regarding claim 14, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1.
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II, as modified, does not teach wherein the determination unit is configured to disregard stroke lengths exceeding a predetermined maximum value.
However, Fuellgrabe does further teach different characteristics for a user’s behavior including detecting speed, acceleration, length, direction, orientation, frequency, pattern, repetitive strokes over the same area, and all derivatives of these quantities, and/or device orientation and/or movement, such as position, acceleration, speed, movement frequencies, movement pattern and derivatives of these quantities (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 17-28) and to limit the device in some way when the device detects exceeding a predetermined maximum value (Fuellgrabe, Col. 7, lines 35-60). The combination of these teachings show that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II such that the determination unit was configured to disregard stroke lengths exceeding a predetermined maximum value.
Regarding claim 16, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the acceleration sensor is configured to measure accelerations along at least one of a first axis extending in a longitudinal handle direction, a second axis extending perpendicular to the first axis and through a front and back side of the handle and /or a third axis perpendicular to the first and second axis (Fuellgrabe, Col. 20, lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 19, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to issue a signal to a user regarding the function of the device (Fuellgrabe, Col. 13 line 53 – Col. 14 line 11). While Fuellgrabe does not specifically teach issuing a stroke pattern change signal indicative of a change from a long stroke pattern to a short stroke pattern and/or from a short stroke pattern to a long stroke pattern when a predefined number of short strokes and/or a predefined number of long strokes has been counted, said predefined number being larger than one and lower than six, the device is capable of counting strokes (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 17-28) and determining a change in pattern (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 17-28). As such, the device as taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder would be capable of the required function.
Regarding claim 22, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit is provided for determining the stroke length during a body treatment operation (Fuellgrabe, Col. 9, lines 20-28 and Col. 20, lines 23-26).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuellgrabe (US 11,027,442 B2) in view of Mulder (EP 3,782,509 A1) and Fuellgrabe II (US 12,667,988 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nijdam (US 2019/0275687 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 6, wherein the cut-off frequency of said low pass filter is 1 Hz (Fuellgrabe, Col. 18 line 60 – Col. 19 line 3).
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II does not teach wherein the cut-off frequency of said low pass filter is within a range of 0.20 Hz to 0.40 Hz
Nijdam teaches two low pass filters (Nijdam, P. 0015 and 0023) with a cut-off frequency in a range of 2 Hz to 20 Hz (Nijdam, P. 0015) and 30 Hz to 50 Hz (Nijdam, P. 0023). While neither range is within or overlaps the claimed range these ranges show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the range of a filter and as discussed by Nijdam would be motivated to do so to filter high frequency noise from the signal being processed (Nijdam, P. 0015).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the low pass filter taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II to be any within any range a worker in the art deemed desirable as such a modification would only require a level of general skill in the art as it is known in the art to adjust the signal of a low pass filter to filter high frequency noise from a signal being processed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuellgrabe (US 11,027,442 B2) in view of Mulder (EP 3,782,509 A1) and Fuellgrabe II (US 12,667,988 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsegenidis et al. (US 11,504,866 B2), hereafter known as Tsegenidis.
Regarding claim 18, Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II teaches a personal care device according to claim 1.
Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II does not teach wherein the determination unit includes a counter for counting the number of the short strokes and/or the long strokes, wherein said counter is configured to be reset to zero whenever a stroke exceeds a maximum accepted length and/or an average value of determined velocity is lower than a predefined threshold.
Tsegenidis teaches a determination unit (Tsegenidis, Fig. , 540, Col. 13, lines 41-64) include a counter (Tsegenidis, Fig. 6, 512) for counting the number of strokes. While Tsegenidis does not specifically teach resetting the counter to zero when the stroke exceeds a maximum accepted length and/or an average value of the determined velocity is lower than a predefined threshold, Tsegenidis does teach counting the number of strokes per session (Tsegenidis, Col. 13, lines 41-64) and is capable of determining if a stroke is too fast or too slow (Tsegenidis, Col. 14, lines 39-52). Thus, the device taught by Tsegenidis would be capable of resetting the stroke count to zero when the session is ended and the device is no longer in use which would be when the average value of the determined velocity is lower than a predefined threshold as the device is no longer moving. This allows for the stroke count to be collected as data across different sessions and for the data to be compared (Tsegenidis, Col. 25, lines 8-14). While the device of Tsegenidis is a razor and not an electric shaver like the instant invention the razor of Tsegenidis seeks to solve a similar problem as the instant invention in how to count the number of strokes taken during a shaving process and how to reset the counter once the device is no longer in use.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify the determination used taught by Fuellgrabe in view of Mulder and Fuellgrabe II as such to include a counter for counting the number of the strokes and capable of resetting when the device was no longer in used as doing so allows for the collection of strokes over several sessions and the comparison of strokes.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the interpretation of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Examiner agrees, the claim now recites structure capable of carrying out the stated function and the interpretation of record is withdrawn.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection of record. The Examiner agrees, as the amendment to the claim overcomes the interpretation of record by supplying sufficient structure for the claimed functional limitation the written description rejection of record is also overcome and thus the rejection of record is withdrawn.
However, the claim now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the written description failing to disclose the processor performing the claimed function. Referring to P. 0068 of the specification it specifically states that an electronic control unit controls the device and may comprise a processor and storage. In P. 0060 and P. 0103 a control unit is mentioned as constantly tracking the average stroke length and velocity that may adapt thresholds without mentioning the structure of the control unit. The instant disclosure does not link these two control units and, specifically, refers to them differently. The control unit lacks a disclosure of structure but is disclosed as being configured to calculate values relating to data collected by the device while the electronic control unit comprises a microprocessor and storage but is for the control of the device and is not disclosed as performing calculations. So while a processor would be capable of performing the claimed function of the dynamic reference value calculator the instant disclosure as a whole lacks disclosure of a processor performing the claimed functions and lacks disclosure of a processor being configured as a dynamic reference value calculator.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 18 and 22 overcome the claim objections of record, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness type rejections of record, and antecedent basis objections of record. The Examiner disagrees. First, the applicant has not replaced the term “boundary” with the term “threshold” as asserted and instead has amended the claim as “threshold boundary” which does not resolve the indefiniteness issue of record. Second, the applicant has not amended the claim such that it overcomes the antecedent basis objections of record for the limitations “reference value” and “dynamic reference” and it now appears that the claim requires two separate reference values (see lines 13 and 15 of the claim). As such, the indefiniteness type rejection of record and objections of record for claim 1 are maintained.
Additionally, the specification objection of record is maintained as the applicant has not amended the instant disclosure to overcome the objection of record or has not provided proof to overcome the objection, the applicant should consider either amending the specification, taking care to not include new matter, or cancel the limitation from the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights