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 September 9th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 11-18, 21-25, and 28-30 remain pending in the application. Newly added claims 31-33 are also pending in the application. Claims 19, 20, 26, and 27 have been cancelled.
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 11-12, 21-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermis Ortega (US 7114257 B1 – hereinafter Ortega) in view of Will Perez (See attached YouTube video – hereinafter Perez) and Steve Chininis et al. (US 20150136163 A1 – hereinafter Chininis).
Regarding claim 11, Ortega teaches a method for styling hair fibers, including the steps
of: utilizing a tool (Fig. 1, Instant Invention 10) having at least one mode of operation (Fig. 4d,
mode of operation being operation of the Instant Invention when Removeable Head Assembly
490 is in use) for displacing the hair fibers placed during said placing step (Col 4, lines 65-67
and Col 5, lines 1-4); and said utilizing step including moving the tool adjacent to areas of a
scalp of a user to have hair fibers removed (Col 3, lines 21-23; the tool would inherently need to
be adjacent to the scalp while cutting and removing hair fibers).
Ortega fails to teach the step of placing hair fibers in an area of a scalp of an individual to
be styled, and wherein said tool includes a shaper head with a stationary plate and a moving plate, the moving plate having posts which impact and displace the hair fibers encountered thereby, without cutting; and wherein the shaper head includes the posts extending to tips aligned with tips of posts of the stationary plate.
However, Perez teaches the step of placing hair fibers in an area of a scalp of an
individual to be styled (1:30 to 2:20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the method of Ortega to include the step of placing hair fibers in
an area of a scalp of an individual to be styled as taught by Perez. Doing so is beneficial as it
allows a thinner hairline to look full and dark (Perez, 2:02 to 2:08).
Additionally, Chininis teaches a hair care tool (Fig. 1, Comb 10) with a shaper head (Fig. 1, Head Portion 30) that has a stationary plate (Fig. 2, First Attachment Section 32) and a moving
plate (Fig. 2, Second Attachment Section 34), the moving plate having posts (Fig. 2, Second Ends 44) which impact and displace the hair fibers encountered thereby, without cutting ([0038]), and wherein the shaper head includes the posts extending to tips (Fig. 2, the half of Apex Portion 46 associated with Second Ends 44) aligned with tips (Fig. 2, the half of the Apex portion 46 associated with First Ends 42) of posts (Fig. 2, First Ends 42) of the stationary plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaper head of the combination of Ortega and Perez to the features of claim 1 above as taught by Chininis. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the device to gently break apart tangles (Chininis, [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 11 wherein said
utilizing step includes moving a distal end of the tool adjacent to a hairline to be established (Fig.
1, Guard 28; Col 3, lines 21-23; Guard 28, in this case the distal end of the tool, would inherently
need to be adjacent to the scalp, which includes the hairline, while cutting and removing hair
fibers).
Regarding claim 21, Ortega teaches a method for enhancing a hairline on a head of an
individual, with hair on a first side of the hairline and skin on a second side of the hairline
opposite the first side (any user is inherently expected to have a hairline which defines a split
between a side with hair and a side without hair if they are participating in a method for enhancing a hairline), the method including the steps of: and using a non-cutting tool (Fig. 4d,
Instant Invention 10 with Removeable Head Assembly 490) to remove some of the fibers of said
placing step (Col 4, lines 65-67 and Col 5, lines 1-4; the tool is capable of removing some
fibers).
Ortega fails to teach that the non-cutting tool is reciprocating, that the method
includes the step of placing hair fibers along the hairline, wherein said using step includes the non-cutting reciprocating tool having a stationary blade with a plurality of teeth and a reciprocating blade having a plurality of posts, said posts having edges which are not sharpened and with a reciprocating motor within a handle, with the stationary blade fixed to the handle and the reciprocating blade coupled to the reciprocating motor; and wherein said using step includes moving the non-cutting reciprocating tool stationary blade along the second side of the hairline to remove hair fibers on the second side of the hairline.
However, Chininis teaches a non-cutting reciprocating tool (Fig. 1, Comb 10) having a stationary blade (Fig. 2, First Attachment Section 32) with a plurality of teeth (Fig. 2, First Ends 42) and a reciprocating blade (Fig. 2, Second Attachment Section 34) having a plurality of posts (Fig. 2, Second Ends 44), said posts having edges which are not sharpened (Fig. 2) and with a reciprocating motor (Fig. 5, Motor 50) within a handle (Fig. 5, Handle Section 20), with the stationary blade fixed to the handle and the reciprocating blade coupled to the reciprocating motor ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-cutting tool of Ortega to include the features of claim 21
taught by Chininis. Doing so is beneficial as it moves the shaper head in a way that can assist in
detangling hair (Chininis, [0005] and [0006]).
The combination of Ortega and Chininis fails to teach that the method includes the step
of placing hair fibers along the hairline, and wherein said using step includes moving the non-cutting reciprocating tool stationary blade along the second side of the hairline to remove hair fibers on the second side of the hairline.
However, Perez teaches a method for enhancing a hairline on a head of an individual
which includes the step of placing hair fibers along the hairlines (1:30 to 2:20) and the step of moving a non-cutting reciprocating tool stationary blade (Brush – manually reciprocated side to side by the hair dresser, wherein the stationary blade is the bristles facing the person receiving the haircut) along the second side of the hairline to remove hair fibers on the second side of the hairline (2:45 to 2:50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the method of the combination of Ortega and Chininis to include
the features of claim 21 above as taught by Perez. Doing so is beneficial as it allows a thinner hairline to look full and dark (Perez, 2:02 to 2:08), and prevents undesirable hair fiber being located on the forehead (also known as the second side of the hairlines) is undesirable (Perez, 1:40 to 1:55).
Regarding claim 22, the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis fails to
teach the method of claim 21 wherein said using step includes removing fibers on the second
side of the hairline.
However, Perez further teaches a method for enhancing a hairline on a head of an
individual which includes removing fibers on a second side of the hairline (2:20 to 2:50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the using step of the combination of Ortega and Chininis to
include removing fibers on the second side of the hairline. Doing so is beneficial as hair fiber
being located on the forehead (also known as the second side of the hairlines) is undesirable
(Perez, 1:40 to 1:55).
Regarding claim 23, the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis fails to
explicitly teach the method of claim 21 wherein said placing step includes spraying hair fibers
along the hairline, with some hair fibers being sprayed on the first side of the hairline and some
hair fibers being sprayed onto the second side of the hairline.
However, Perez further teaches a method for enhancing a hairline on a head of an
individual which includes spraying hair fibers along the hairline, with some hair fibers being
sprayed on the first side of the hairline and some hair fibers being sprayed onto the second side
of the hairline (1:30 to 2:20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis such that
the hair fibers are sprayed on both sides of the hairline as taught by Perez. It is well known in the
art that spraying a hair product allows for a more even application.
Regarding claim 24, the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis fails to
explicitly teach the method of claim 21 wherein said placing step is preceded by a step of
shaping the hairline using a cutting reciprocating tool.
However, Perez further teaches the step of shaping the hairline using a cutting
reciprocating tool preceding the step of placing fibers (1:15 to 1:30 – Perez references using a #4
to cut the hair, which refers to a guard used on a reciprocating hair clipper).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the method of the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and
Chininis such that the placing step is preceded by a step of shaping the hairline using a cutting
reciprocating tool as taught by Perez. Doing so is beneficial as it is well known in the art that
cutting hair before products are applied generally leads to a better quality haircut.
Regarding claim 25, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 24 wherein said shaping
step includes the cutting reciprocating tool having a stationary blade (Fig. 4b, Clipper Plate 242)
with a plurality of teeth and a reciprocating blade (Fig. 4b, Clipper 246) having a plurality of
teeth, with hair cut when it is pinched between teeth of the reciprocating blade and teeth of the
stationary blade (Col 4, lines 41-52), and with a reciprocating motor (Fig. 3, Motor 70) within a
handle (Fig. 1, handle defined by Housing 20) with the stationary blade fixed to the handle and
the reciprocating blade coupled to the reciprocating motor (Col 4, lines 32-52).
Regarding claim 28, the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis fails to
explicitly teach the method of claim 21 wherein said using step includes keeping the non-cutting
reciprocating tool stationary blade away from the first side of the hairline, such that hair fibers on
the first side of the hairline are not removed.
However, Perez further teaches the step of keeping the non-cutting reciprocating tool
stationary blade away from the first side of the hairline, such that hair fibers on the first side of
the hairline are not removed (2:45 to 2:50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the method of the combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis such
that the using step includes keeping the non-cutting reciprocating tool stationary blade away
from the first side of the hairline, such that hair fibers on the first side of the hairline are not
removed as taught by Perez. Doing so is beneficial as hair fiber located on the first side of the
hairline (where hair grows) is desirable (Perez, 2:00 to 2:10 – hair fibers on the first side are
desirable as they make the hairline look full and dark).
Regarding claim 29, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 21 wherein the non-
cutting reciprocating tool includes a non-cutting reciprocating head (Fig. 4d, Removeable Head
Assembly 490), the non-cutting reciprocating head removable from the handle, and wherein a
cutting reciprocating head (Fig. 4b, Removable Head Assembly 290) is also provided which
includes a stationary blade (Fig. 4b, Clipper Plate 242) with a plurality of teeth and a
reciprocating blade (Fig. 4b, Clipper 246) having a plurality of teeth, the teeth cutting hair which
comes between the teeth (Col 4, lines 41-52), the cutting reciprocating head also removable from the handle; swapping the non-cutting reciprocating head with the cutting reciprocating head (it is
inherently understood that since all heads are removeable, the step of swapping any head with
another is included in the invention); and using the tool to cut hair (Col 4, lines 41-52).
The existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis fails to explicitly teach that the
non-cutting reciprocating tool includes a non-cutting reciprocating head supporting the stationary
blade and the reciprocating blade.
However, Chininis further teaches a non-cutting reciprocating tool (Fig. 1, Comb 10) that
includes a non-cutting reciprocating head (Head Portion 30) supporting the stationary blade and
the reciprocating blade.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-cutting reciprocating tool of existing combination of
Ortega, Perez, and Chininis to include a non-cutting reciprocating head which supports the
stationary blade and reciprocating blade as taught by Chininis as a simple substitution of one
known element for another to obtain predictable results. The head of the existing combination of
Ortega, Perez, and Chininis is not designed to support the stationary blade and the reciprocating
blade, and can be simply substituted with the head of Chininis, which does. The predictable
result is the head holding the stationary blade so as to be immovable while providing structure
for the reciprocating head to be moveable back-and-forth (Chininis, [0035]).
Regarding claim 30, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 29 including the further
step of swapping the cutting reciprocating head with the non-cutting reciprocating head (it is
inherently understood that since all heads are removeable, the step of swapping any head with
another is included in the invention); and using the tool to displace hair fibers while not cutting
hair (Col 4, lines 65-67 and Col 5, lines 1-4).
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermis Ortega (US 7114257 B1 – hereinafter Ortega) in view of Will Perez (See attached YouTube video – hereinafter Perez).
Regarding claim 13, Ortega teaches a method for styling hair fibers, including the steps of: utilizing a tool (Fig. 1, Instant Invention 10) having at least one mode of operation (Fig. 4d, mode of operation being operation of the Instant Invention when Removeable Head Assembly 490 is in use) for displacing the hair fibers placed during said placing step (Col 4, lines 65-67 and Col 5, lines 1-4); and said utilizing step including moving the tool adjacent to areas of a scalp of a user to have hair fibers removed (Col 3, lines 21-23; the tool would inherently need to be adjacent to the scalp while cutting and removing hair fibers), and said utilizing step includes moving a distal end of the tool adjacent to a hairline to be established (Fig. 1, Guard 28; Col 3, lines 21-23; Guard 28, in this case the distal end of the tool, would inherently need to be adjacent to the scalp, which includes the hairline, while cutting and removing hair fibers), and wherein said at least one mode of operation of said utilizing step is a shaping mode for said utilizing step when only hair fibers are being removed (Fig. 4d, Removeable Head Assembly 490; Col 4, lines 65-67 and Col 5, lines 1-4 – Removeable Head Assembly 490 is configured to remove hair fibers only, not cut).
Ortega does not teach the step of placing hair fibers in an area of a scalp of an individual to be styled.
However, Perez teaches the step of placing hair fibers in an area of a scalp of an
individual to be styled (1:30 to 2:20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the method of Ortega to include the step of placing hair fibers in
an area of a scalp of an individual to be styled as taught by Perez. Doing so is beneficial as it
allows a thinner hairline to look full and dark (Perez, 2:02 to 2:08).
Regarding claim 14, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 12 wherein said
utilizing step includes a second mode of operation which is a cutting mode for said utilizing step,
when only growing hair is being cut and removed (Fig. 4b, Removable Head Assembly 290; Col
4 lines 32-52 and Col 3 lines 55-62 – when using Removeable Head Assembly with Switch 30 in
the “on” position, the tool is disclosed only to cut hair, thereby removing it from the head, not to
vacuum or otherwise remove any other hair fibers. It is inherently understood that the cut hair is
growing hair from the scalp of a user).
Regarding claim 15, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 14 wherein said cutting
mode is used for said utilizing step to simultaneously remove both hair fibers and growing hair (Fig. 4b, Removable Head Assembly 290; Col 4 lines 32-52 and Col 3 lines 63-67 to Col 4 lines
1-2) – when using Removeable Head Assembly with Switch 32 in the “on” position, the tool is
disclosed to cut and vacuum, the vacuum being capable of indiscriminately vacuuming added
hair fibers and cut growing hairs).
Regarding claim 16, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the tool
includes a trimmer head (Fig. 4b, Removable Head Assembly 290) and a shaper head (Fig. 4d,
Removeable Head Assembly 490), both the trimmer head and the shaper head removably
attachable to a body (Fig. 1, Housing 20) of the tool, the body supporting an output of a motor
(Fig. 3, Motor 70), which output is attachable to the trimmer head to impart motion upon the
trimmer head (Col 4, lines 32-40).
Ortega fails to teach that the output of the motor is attached to the shaper head to impart
motion upon the shaper head.
However, Chininis teaches a hair care device (Fig. 1, Comb 10) wherein the output of the
motor (Fig. 4, Motor 50) is attached to the shaper head (Fig. 1, Head Portion 30) to impart
motion upon the shaper head ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the tool of the combination of Ortega and Perez such that the
motor is attached to the shaper head and imparts motion to the shaper head as taught by Chininis. Doing so is beneficial as it moves the shaper head in a way that can assist in detangling hair
(Chininis, [0005] and [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 16 wherein the trimmer
head (Fig. 4b, Removable Head Assembly 290) includes a stationary blade (Fig. 4b, Clipper
Plate 242) and a reciprocating blade (Fig. 4b, Clipper 246), each blade having teeth thereon (Fig.
4b) to cut hair encountered by the teeth of the blades (Col 4, lines 41-52).
Regarding claim 18, Ortega further teaches the method of claim 16 wherein the shaper
head has a similar size as the trimmer head so that similar tool movements of the user have
similar removal results for the shaper tool removing hair fibers as the trimmer tool removing
growing hair (the shaper head and trimmer head attach to the same Housing 20, so they are
inherently a similar size. Being a similar size, they would have similar removal results for similar
tool movements).
Claim 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermis Ortega (US 7114257 B1 – hereinafter Ortega) in view of Will Perez (See attached YouTube video – hereinafter Perez) and Steve Chininis et al. (US 20150136163 A1 – hereinafter Chininis) as applied to claims 11 and 21 above, and further in view of Walter Stemme (US 3870056 A - hereinafter Stemme).
Regarding claim 31, the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis already teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the posts of the moving plate extend to terminating tips, and there are terminating tips of stationary posts of the stationary plate (See the rejection of claim 11 above).
The existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis fails to teach that the terminating tips of the posts of the moving plate are separate from the terminating tips of the stationary posts of the stationary plate.
However, Stemme teaches a tool with terminating tips of the posts of a first plate (Fig. 4, tips of Guide Comb 86) which are separate from the terminating tips of the posts of a second plate (Fig. 4, tips of Guide Comb 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis to include the limitations of claim 31 above as taught by Stemme. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the tip of the stationary posts to reciprocate relative to the tips of the posts in order to detangle hair (Stemme; Col. 1, lines 3-9)
Regarding claim 33, the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis already teaches the method of claim 21 wherein the plurality of teeth of the stationary blade extend to terminating tips (See the rejection of claim 21 above – in Chininis, Ends 42 have terminating tips which are the half of Apex Portion 46 associated with Second Ends 42), and the plurality of posts of the reciprocating blade extend to terminating tips (See the rejection of claim 21 above – in Chininis, Ends 44 have terminating tips which are the half of Apex Portion 46 associated with Second Ends 44 in Fig. 2), the reciprocating blade and the stationary blade adjacent to each other (See the rejection of claim 21 above – in Chininis, Fig. 2).
The existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis does not teach that the terminating tips of the posts of the moving plate are separate from the terminating tips of the stationary posts of the stationary plate.
However, Stemme teaches a tool with terminating tips of the posts of a first plate (Fig. 4, tips of Guide Comb 86) which are separate from the terminating tips of the posts of a second plate (Fig. 4, tips of Guide Comb 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis to include the limitations of claim 31 above as taught by Stemme. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the tip of the stationary posts to reciprocate relative to the tips of the posts in order to detangle hair (Stemme; Col. 1, lines 3-9).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermis Ortega (US 7114257 B1 – hereinafter Ortega) in view of Will Perez (See attached YouTube video – hereinafter Perez) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Steve Chininis et al. (US 20150136163 A1 – hereinafter Chininis) and Walter Stemme (US 3870056 A - hereinafter Stemme).
Regarding claim 32, the existing combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis does not teach the method of claim 13 wherein said utilizing step includes the shaping mode having the tool include a moving plate with moving posts extending therefrom to terminating tips and a stationary plate with stationary posts extending therefrom to terminating tips, the tips of the moving posts separate from the tips of the stationary posts, the moving plate and the stationary plate adjacent to each other.
However, Chininis teaches a hair care tool (Fig. 1, Comb 10) with a shaper head (Fig. 1, Head Portion 30) that has a stationary plate (Fig. 2, First Attachment Section 32) and a moving
plate (Fig. 2, Second Attachment Section 34) adjacent to each other, the moving plate having posts (Fig. 2, Second Ends 44) extending therefrom to terminating tips (Fig. 2, the half of Apex Portion 46 associated with Second Ends 44), and the stationary plate having posts (Fig. 2, First Ends 42) extending therefrom to terminating tips (Fig. 2, the half of the Apex portion 46 associated with First Ends 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaper head of the combination of Ortega and Perez to the features of claim 1 above as taught by Chininis. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the device to gently break apart tangles (Chininis, [0038]).
Additionally, Stemme teaches a tool with terminating tips of the posts of a first plate (Fig. 4, tips of Guide Comb 86) which are separate from the terminating tips of the posts of a second plate (Fig. 4, tips of Guide Comb 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Ortega, Perez, and Chininis to include the limitations of claim 31 above as taught by Stemme. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the tip of the stationary posts to reciprocate relative to the tips of the posts in order to detangle hair (Stemme; Col. 1, lines 3-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant contends that Chininis does teach the posts of the stationary and moving plates having tips, since the ends of the two sets of posts are connected to each other. Claim 11 does not include any limitations which would explicitly from prohibit the two sets of tips from being connected. Further, Merriam-Webster defines a tip as “a small piece or part serving as an end, cap, or point”. The respective halves of the apexes 46 in Chininis serve as the ends of the posts for the stationary and moving plates, qualifying them as tips. Examiner interprets that the movement of the stationary and moving plates would still be effective at displacing hair fibers is the posts were laid sideways along the forehead of an individual, such that the length of the posts of the reciprocating plates are swept side to side during their reciprocating movement. The posts are outlined in claim 1 to be the structure which displaces the hair fibers, not the tips of the posts.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant asserts that the vacuum tool of Ortega is incapable of participating in a shaping mode since vacuums are not suitable for shaping as it relates to hair. However, the language of claim 13 only suggests that the shaping mode is one where only hair fibers are being removed, and the vacuum of Ortega is configured only to remove detached hair fibers from a user. Therefore, it participates in a shaping mode. Further, there is no evidence present in Ortega that the vacuum attachment would not be suitable for styling and shaping of hair.
Regarding claim 21, it is Applicant’s stance that Perez does not teach a stationary blade. Examiner agrees. Chininis is brought in to teach a stationary blade. Additionally, Applicant asserts that the brush of Perez does not move along the second side of the hairline, since the brush is spaced apart from the hairline on the forehead when the brushing motion occurs. However, Merriam-Webster defines along as “in a line matching the length or direction of”. In the video, the brush is demonstrated to be brushed in a direction matching the direction in which the hairline extends, while in a close proximity to the hairline, and therefore is indeed moved along the second side of the hairline.
Regarding claims 31-33, Applicant asserts that Chininis does not teach that the posts and stationary posts are separate. Applicant agrees. New prior art document Stemme is brought in to teach this limitation.
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