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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8-11, and 13-18 remain pending in the application. New claim 19 is also pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: there are multiple instances where “wherein at least portion of” is used, which should instead read “wherein at least a portion of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Dorco Co., Ltd. (EPO No 3,492,227) in view of Bozikis (WIPO No 2007/147420) ,
Anderson (US 5761814 A), and Jian Lin et al. (EP 3446840 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dorco Co., Ltd. teaches a razor cartridge (Fig. 1A, Razor Cartridge
10; [0001], lines 1-2) comprising: at least one razor blade (Fig. 1A, Razor Blade 5; [0010], lines
1-3) comprising an edge portion with a cutting edge (Fig. 2A, Cutting Portion 42), a bent portion
(Fig. 2A, Bent Portion 43), and a base portion (Fig. 2A, Base Portion 44), the base portion
comprising a first end coupled to the bent portion (Fig. 2A, the end of Base Portion 44 which
couples to Bent Portion 43), a second free end (Fig. 2A, the opposite end of Base Portion 44)
opposing the first end, and an intermediate region interposed between the first end and the
second free end (Fig. 2A, the region of Base Portion 44 between its two ends); a blade housing configured to accommodate the at least one razor blade in a longitudinal direction of the at least
one razor blade (Fig. 1A, Blade Housing 60; [0018], lines 3-7), the blade housing comprising a
bottom (Fig. 1D, Bottom Surface 11) and a lateral wall (Fig. 3A, Left Side Portion 63); a lateral
supporter (Fig. 3B, Pressing Protrusions 65a and 65b; examiner interprets the grouping of 65a
and 65b to be the lateral supporter) comprising a plurality of support arms (Fig. 3B, Pressing
Protrusions 65a and 65b), the plurality of support arms extending from portions of the lateral
wall of the blade housing, and configured to support a longitudinal lateral portion of the at least
one razor blade (Fig. 3B, Pressing Protrusions 65a and 65b; [0031], lines 1-6), the portions of the
lateral wall being spaced apart from the bottom of the blade housing (Fig. 3A, Left Side Portion
63 and Right Side Portion 64; the top halves 63 and 64 are considered as the portions of the
lateral wall, which are spaced apart from the bottom of the blade housing, and from which the
support arms extend), the plurality of support arms comprising a first support arm (Fig. 3B,
the Pressing Protrusion 65b closest to the bottom of the image) and a second support arm (Fig. 3B, the Pressing Protrusion 65b second closest to the bottom of the image); and a bottom supporter configured to support the base portion of the at least one razor blade (Fig. 6A, Support Member 70a; [0018], lines 1-4), the bottom supporter comprising a plurality of mounting protrusions that extend from the bottom of the blade housing, the second free end of the base portion of the at least one razor blade comprising a surface facing the bottom of the blade housing (Fig. 2A, bottommost surface of Blade 51 in Fig. 2A), the plurality of mounting protrusions (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71 and 72; [0029], lines 1-4) comprising a first
mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71) and a second mounting protrusion (Fig.
6A, Seating Protrusions 72) configured to support the surface of the second free end (Fig. 2A,
Base Portion 44; the surface of the second free end is held between the first and second mounting
protrusions, and therefore considered to be configured to support the surface) of the base portion (Fig. 2A, Base Portion 44) of the at least one razor blade (Fig. 1A, Razor Blade 5; [0010], lines
1-3) interposed between the first mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71) and the
second mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 72), when viewed in a section taken
perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, each of the first support arm (Fig. 3B, the Pressing Protrusion 65b closest to the bottom of the image) and the second support arm (Fig. 3B, the Pressing Protrusion 65b second closest to the bottom of the image) extending directly from the lateral wall (Fig. 3A, Left Side Portion 63) of the blade housing in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the at least one razor blade (Fig. 7), each of the first support arm (Fig. 3B, the Pressing Protrusion 65b closest to the bottom of the image) and the second support arm (Fig. 3B, the Pressing Protrusion 65b second closest to the bottom of the image) comprising a bottom end surface (Fig. 3B, the end surfaces of the first and second closest Pressing Protrusions 65b that is opposite to the end facing the viewer in Fig. 3B), each of the first mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71) and the second mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 72) comprising a top end (Fig. 3B, the ends of Seating Protrusions 71 and 72 facing the viewer in Fig. 3B), none of the plurality of mounting protrusions extending from the lateral wall of the blade housing (Fig. 3A), wherein each of the first support arm and second support arm comprises: a bottom surface (Fig. 3B, the bottom surfaces of the first and second closest Pressing Protrusions 65b that is opposite to the end facing the viewer in Fig. 3B) facing the bottom of the blade housing, a top surface (Fig. 3B, the top surfaces of Protrusions 65b immediately visible in Fig. 3B) opposing the bottom surface, and a first (Fig. 3A, front rectangular vertical surfaces of Protrusions 65b) and second surface (Fig. 3A, rear rectangular vertical surfaces of Protrusion 65b, opposite to the front surfaces), wherein at least a portion of the second surface of the first support arm is positioned to face the first surface of the second support arm (Fig. 3A, the rear surface of the first support arm faces the front surface of the second support arm), wherein at least a portion of the second surface of the first support arm contacts a portion of the front surface of the bent portion of the at least one blade (Fig. 1A and Fig. 7, contact shown), wherein at least a portion of the first surface of the second support arm contacts a portion of a rear surface of the intermediate portion of the at least one blade (Fig. 1A and Fig. 7, contact shown), wherein the plurality of support arms and the plurality of mounting protrusions have different shapes (Fig. 3A, Pressing Protrusions 65a and 65b are shaped differently than Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71 and 72).
Dorco Co., Ltd. fails to teach that the first and second support arm are together configured to support the bent portion of the at least one razor blade interposed between the first
support arm and the second support arm, as well as the top end of each mounting protrusion
being positioned closer to the bottom of the blade housing than the entirety of the bottom end surface of each support arm. Dorco Co., Ltd. also fails to teach at least one of the first support arm or the second support arm being in direct physical contact with the bent portion of the at least one razor blade, the first support arm and the second support arm passing through at least part of the intermediate region of the base portion of the at least one razor blade, at least one of the first mounting protrusion or the second mounting protrusion being in direct physical contact with the surface of the second free end of the base portion of the at least one razor blade, that none of the plurality of support arms extend from the bottom of the blade housing, the entirety of the bottom end surface being parallel to the longitudinal direction such that a distance between any point on the bottom end surface and the bottom of the blade housing is uniform, and that the top surface and the bottom surface connect the first and second surface.
However, Bozikis teaches that the first (Fig. 3, left side Elastic Fingers 44) and second
(Fig. 19, right side Elastic Fingers 44) support arm are configured to support the bent portion of
the at least one razor blade (Fig. 3, Blade Member 24) interposed between the first support arm
and the second support arm, the first support arm (Fig. 3, Elastic Fingers 44) being in direct
physical contact with the bent portion, and the first support arm and the second support arm
passing through at least part of the intermediate region of the base portion of the at least one
razor blade (Fig. 3, Elastic Fingers 44 are also in contact with the straight intermediate portion of
the base portion of the razor blade), the entirety of the bottom end surface (Fig. 10, rightmost bottom rectangular horizontal surfaces of the left set of Fingers 44) being parallel to the longitudinal direction such that a distance between any point on the bottom end surface and the bottom (Fig. 10, flat, generally rectangular bottom of the housing shown) of the blade housing is uniform, and that the top surface (Fig. 3, topmost surface of Elastic Fingers 44) and the bottom surface (Fig. 10, bottommost surface of Elastic Fingers 44) connect the first (Fig. 3, leftmost surface of Elastic Fingers 44) and second surface (Fig. 3, curved rightmost surface of Elastic Fingers 44).
Bozikis is analogous to the claimed invention as they are both in the same field of razor
blade units. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dorco Co., Ltd. to incorporate the limitations of claim 1 as taught by Bozikis. Doing so provides the benefit of biasing the blade towards rest position (Bozikis, page 11 lines 30-32).
Bozikis additionally teaches that none of the plurality of support arms extend from the
bottom of the blade housing (Fig. 2, Elastic Fingers 44 extend from the Side Members 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dorco Co., Ltd. to incorporate the
teachings of Bozikis and configure the plurality of support arms such that none of them extend
from the bottom of the blade housing, as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the
operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). The operation of the razor assembly would not be
impacted by the altered position of the plurality of support arms.
The Dorco Co., Ltd./Bozikis combination also fails to teach the top end of each mounting
protrusion being closer to the bottom of the blade housing than the bottom end of each support
arm.
However, Anderson teaches the top end of each mounting protrusion (Fig. 1, the top end
of each finger projecting from Frame Portion 12, where each finger is a mounting protrusion)
being closer to the bottom of the blade housing than the bottom end of each support arm (Fig. 1,
the bottom end of Spring Finger 19’).
Anderson is analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of
razor blade units. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the razor cartridge of Dorco Co., Ltd.
and Bozikis such that the top end of each mounting protrusion to be closer to the bottom of the
blade housing than the bottom end of each support arm as taught by Anderson as a matter of
combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP
2143). In this case, the predictable result is the top end of each mounting protrusion to be closer
to the bottom of the blade housing than the bottom end of each support arm as taught by
Anderson.
The combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, and Anderson fails to teach at least one of
the first mounting protrusion or the second mounting protrusion being in direct physical contact
with the surface of the second free end of the base portion of the at least one razor blade.
However, Lin teaches a razor cartridge where a mounting protrusion is in direct physical
contact with the surface of the second free end of the base portion of a razor blade (Fig. 5, the
bottommost surface of Blade Assemblies 2 contacts Outer Stoppers 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dorco Co., Ltd.,
Bozikis, and Anderson such that at least one of the first mounting protrusion or the second
mounting protrusion is in direct physical contact with the surface of the second free end of the
base portion of the at least one razor blade, as it has been held that the position of a feature may
be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the
operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). The operation of the razor assembly would not be
impacted by the altered position of the razor blade(s).
Regarding claim 8, Dorco Co., Ltd. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1,
wherein each mounting protrusion (Fig. 5, Seating Protrusions 71 and 72) comprises two
opposite sides, at least one of which comprises an inclined surface.
Regarding claim 9, Dorco Co., Ltd. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1,
wherein each mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71 and 72) comprises two
opposite sides, at least one of which comprises a vertical surface configured to support a back
surface or a front surface of the at least one razor blade (Fig. 6A, Razor Blades 5a -5e).
Regarding claim 10, Dorco Co., Ltd. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1,
wherein a protrusion height of each mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71 and
72) ranges from 1.5 mm to 3 mm ([0042]).
Dorco Co., Ltd. does not specifically disclose wherein a protrusion height of each
mounting protrusion ranges from 0.5 mm to 2.7 mm. However, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
the height of each mounting protrusion from between 1.5 mm and 3mm to between 0.5 mm and
2.7 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The height of each mounting protrusion is a result effective variable as it
needs to be optimized to reduce the likelihood of injection failure problems ([0042]).
Regarding claim 16, Dorco Co., Ltd. further discloses a vertical height of a supporter as
being in the range of about 1.5 mm to 3 mm (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71 and 72; [0042],
lines 3-10). However, Dorco Co., Ltd. does not expressly disclose that the vertical height from
the bottom of the bottom supporter to a top of the lateral supporter ranges from 2.5 mm to 2.7
mm.
Dorco Co., Ltd. discloses that the vertical height of a supporter similar to the lateral
supporter needs to be optimized for purposes of minimizing injection failure problems that occur
when manufacturing an injection-molded product [0042]. Further, it appears that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the lateral
supporter to have a vertical height from a bottom of the bottom supporter to a top of the lateral
supporter within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a similar
component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Dorco Co., Ltd. by
making the vertical height from a bottom of the bottom supporter to a top of the lateral supporter
be between 2.5 mm and 2.7 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that
“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Dorco Co., Ltd. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1,
wherein the at least one razor blade is a bent blade (Fig. 2A, Integrated Blade 51 and Bent
Portion 43).
Regarding claim 18, Dorco Co., Ltd. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1,
wherein the at least one razor blade is a joined blade (Fig. 2B, Large Steel Blade 52; [0020]).
Regarding claim 19, Dorco Co., Ltd. further teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein each of the first mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 71, the sideview upper shape of the protrusions are generally triangular) and the second mounting protrusion (Fig. 6A, Seating Protrusions 72, the sideview upper shape of the protrusions are generally triangular) has a triangular shape.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorco Co., Ltd.
(EPO No 3,492,227) in view of Bozikis (WIPO No 2007/147420), Anderson (US 5761814
A), and Jian Lin et al. (EP 3446840 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
The Gillette Company LLC (PGPub No 2019/0299457).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, Anderson, and Lin
fails to teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a transverse distance between two adjacent
mounting protrusions among the plurality of mounting protrusions ranges from 0.08 mm to 0.15
mm.
However, The Gillette Company LLC teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a
transverse distance between two adjacent mounting protrusions among the plurality of mounting
protrusions ranges from 0.07 mm to 0.38 mm (Fig. 5, Blade Retention Members 74 and 72,
Distance D3; [0028], lines 7-10). However, The Gillette Company LLC does not explicitly
disclose the transverse distance being between 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm. It would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the distance of The Gillette Company LLC from between 0.07 mm and 0.38 mm to
between 0.08 mm and 0.15 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed
and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside
ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541
F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
The Gillette Company LLC is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of razor blade units. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of The Gillette Company LLC and
assign a transverse distance between two adjacent mounting protrusions among the mounting
protrusion ranging from 0.08 to 0.15 mm. Doing so provides the benefit of improving blade
loading assembly [Gillette paragraph 28].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorco Co., Ltd.
(EPO No 3,492,227) in view of Bozikis (WIPO No 2007/147420), Anderson (US 5761814
A), and Jian Lin et al. (EP 3446840 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Bic Violex S.A. (EPO No 3,871,846).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, Anderson, and Lin
fails to teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a thickness of each support arm in up and
down directions ranges from 0.7 mm to 1.6 mm.
However, Bic Violex S.A. teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein a thickness of
each support arm in the up and down directions ranges from 0.05 mm to 3.50 mm (Fig. 3,
Support 30; Col. 6, lines 26-29).
However, Bic Violex S.A. does not explicitly disclose the thickness being between 0.7
mm to 1.6 mm.
BIC-Violex S.A. is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both
in the same field of razor blade units. This thickness of the support arm in the up and down
directions is optimized to allow movement of the blade and ensure correct blade placement [Bic
paragraph 30]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
of success in modifying the combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, and Anderson in view of BIC-Violex S.A. to have a thickness of the support arm in the up and down directions in the
claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require
adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify each support arm of the combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis,
and Anderson in view of BIC-Violex S.A. by making the thickness in the up and down directions
ranges be between 0.7 mm and 1.6 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held
that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorco Co., Ltd.
(EPO No 3,492,227) in view of Bozikis (WIPO No 2007/147420), Anderson (US 5761814
A), and Jian Lin et al. (EP 3446840 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
BIC-Violex S.A. (EPO No 3,771,532).
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, Anderson, and Lin
fails to teach that a transverse width of each support arm ranges from 0.8mm to 1.4 mm.
However, BIC-Violex S.A. teaches an inter-blade span between 1.6 to 2.2 mm (Fig. 9,
Inter-blade Spans 40-42; [0026], lines 1-2). BIC-Violex S.A. is considered analogous to the
claimed invention because they are both in the same field of razor blade units. As the support
arm in Dorco Co., Ltd. comes in contact with both the front and back of the razor blades on
either side, the transverse width of the support arm is equivalent to the inter- blade span. This
inter-blade span is optimized to do away with the need for providing a skin care element in any
location on the razor head [Bic paragraph 26]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, and Anderson in view of BIC-Violex S.A. to have a transverse width of the support arm
in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to
require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the support arm of the combination in view of BIC-Violex
S.A. by making the transverse width be between 0.8 and 1.4 mm as a matter of routine
optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorco Co., Ltd.
(EPO No 3,492,227) in view of Bozikis (WIPO No 2007/147420), Anderson (US 5761814
A), and Jian Lin et al. (EP 3446840 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Kelly Daniel Bridges (PGPub No 2011/0308089).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, Anderson, and Lin
fails to teach the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the plurality of support arms are arranged at
intervals of 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm.
However, Kelly Daniel Bridges teaches the razor cartridge of claim 1, wherein the
plurality of support arms are arranged at intervals of 0.0762 mm to 0.33 mm. (Fig. 4A, Support
Arms 44 and Slot 42; [0018], lines 21-28).
However, Kelly Daniel Bridges does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of support
arms are arranged at intervals of 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm.
Kelly Daniel Bridges is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are
both in the same field of razor blade units. This distance between each arm in the plurality of
support arms is optimized to hold the blades in place during assembly of the blades and/or during shaving [Bridges paragraph 18]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, and
Anderson in view of Kelly Daniel Bridges to have the plurality of support arms arranged at
intervals in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component
disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify the support arm of the combination of Dorco Co., Ltd., Bozikis, and
Anderson in view of Kelly Daniel Bridges by making the plurality of support arms arranged at
intervals of 0.08 mm to 0.15 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that
“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724