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 9/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the
application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piwaron (US 20080282550).
Regarding claim 1, Piwaron discloses a blade hinge assembly, comprising: an inner blade comprising blade teeth (upper blade 52 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 80; see fig. 4); an outer blade comprising blade teeth oriented parallel to the inner blade teeth (lower blade 48 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 76 and forward cutting edge 76 is oriented parallel to forward cutting edge 80; see figs. 2, 4, and paragraph [0022]) and configured to facilitate cutting when the inner blade oscillates over the outer blade (upper blade 52 oscillates in the direction of arrow 53 relative to lower blade 48; see figs. 8-9 and paragraph [0030]); a mounting bracket comprising tabs (support member 60 comprises tabs; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the mounting bracket coupled to an inner surface of the inner blade and configured to press the inner blade against the outer blade (support member 60 is coupled to the inner surface of upper blade 52 by biasing member 72, which biases upper blade 52 against lower blade 48; see paragraph [0030] and fig. 2); and two metallic stampings (biasing member 72 comprises two spring arms, each of which form a metallic stamping; see fig. 4), wherein each metallic stamping is coupled to the inner surface of the inner blade (each metallic stamping of biasing member 72 biases upper blade 52 against lower blade 48; see paragraph [0030] and fig. 2) and extends through an opening in the mounting bracket (each metallic stamping of biasing member 72 passes through an opening in support member 60; see figs. 2 and 4), the opening positioned adjacent to the tabs (the opening within support member 60 is adjacent to the tabs; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the two metallic stampings comprising snap tabs configured to couple to the tabs of the mounting bracket (each metallic stamping comprises a snap tab which indirectly couples to the tabs of support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), wherein the snap tabs couple with tabs to generate an adjustable tensile force that pulls the mounting bracket away from the inner blade (when the snap tabs are indirectly coupled to the tabs, an adjustable force is generated which pulls support member 60 away from upper blade 52; see figs. 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the two metallic stampings are press fit into the mounting bracket (the metallic stampings of biasing member 72 are snapped into the tabs of support member 60; see fig. 2 and annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 6, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tabs on respective ends of each metallic stamping extend beyond the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of each metallic stamping extend through support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), the snap tabs configured to provide surfaces to adjust the force between the two metallic stampings and mounting bracket and thereby adjust the tensile force between the inner blade and outer blade (the snap tabs have surfaces abutting upper blade 52 that allow for variance in tensile force between the snap tabs and support member 60, such that force between upper blade 52 and lower blade 48 is adjustable; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph 0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tabs of the two metallic stampings extend through the mounting bracket and a base of each of the two metallic stampings is coupled to the inner blade (each snap tab extends through the opening of support member 60 such that a base of each snap tab is indirectly coupled to upper blade 52; see paragraph [0030] and figs. 2, 4), wherein changing an offset measured from the bases to the snap tabs of the two metallic stampings proportionally changes the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (assuming the spring constant remains the same, changing the length of each metallic stamping would result in a change in the force it can apply, since the possible extension of each metallic stamping would change; see Hooke’s Law, where F=-kx).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Ring (DE 102008031135).
Regarding claim 3, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose wherein the two metallic stampings are molded into the mounting bracket.
Ring discloses wherein the two metallic stampings are molded into the mounting bracket (spring element 21 can be made of a molded part; see pg. 5, paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Ring to make the metallic stamping molded into the mounting bracket. Ring discloses a spring element which can be molded (see pg. 5, paragraph 7). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that molding the metallic stamping into the mounting bracket is simply an alternative method of fixing the two parts together and would function in substantially the same way as press fitting or using fasteners. Since the same results are expected, the modification would be obvious as a simple substitution of elements.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550).
Regarding claim 4, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tabs increase the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (actuation of biasing member 72 in a forward direction opposite the tabs will cause biasing member 72 to press down, thus pressing upper blade 52 and lower blade 48 together and increasing the force; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph [0030]).
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose that the tensile force is increased by 5% or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron such that the tensile force is increased by 5% or more because it would be routine optimization of a result-effective variable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform routine experimentation in order to find the optimal amount of force that adjusts the blades without causing damage. Further, it appears as though Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the tensile force can be adjusted by 5% (see instant specification paragraph [0025]). Still further, such a modification is considered to be obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 5, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron further discloses wherein the snap tabs decrease the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade by 5% or more (actuation of biasing member 72 in a rearward direction towards the tabs will cause biasing member 72 to lift up, thus pulling upper blade 52 away from lower blade 48 and decreasing the force; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph [0030]).
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose that the tensile force is decreased by 5% or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron such that the tensile force is decreased by 5% or more because it would be routine optimization of a result-effective variable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform routine experimentation in order to find the optimal amount of force that adjusts the blades without causing damage. Further, it appears as though Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the tensile force can be adjusted by 5% (see instant specification paragraph [0025]). Still further, such a modification is considered to be obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Jungnickel (CN 103703668).
Regarding claim 7, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose wherein the two metallic stampings are brazed onto the inner surface of the inner blade.
Jungnickel discloses wherein the two metallic stampings are brazed onto the inner surface of the inner blade (springs can be affixed through braze welding; see paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Jungnickel to braze the metallic stamping onto the inner blade. It is known in the art and similar arts, as evidenced by Jungnickel, to affix springs via brazing, fasteners, etc. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that biasing member 72 of Piwaron could be modified in the same way to yield the same results, without changing the overall function of the device. Thus, brazing can be applied as a known technique to improve the device of Piwaron.
Regarding claim 8, Piwaron discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose fasteners that fasten the inner blade to the two metallic stampings.
Jungnickel discloses fasteners that fasten the inner blade to the two metallic stampings (springs can be affixed using fasteners; see paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Jungnickel to fasten the metallic stamping onto the inner blade. It is known in the art and similar arts, as evidenced by Jungnickel, to affix springs via brazing, fasteners, etc. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that biasing member 72 of Piwaron could be modified in the same way to yield the same results, without changing the overall function of the device. Thus, the use of fasteners can be applied as a known technique to improve the device of Piwaron.
Claims 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Weschta (EP 3663058), as evidenced by Wang (CN 109454674).
Regarding claim 10, Piwaron discloses a blade attachment assembly, comprising: an inner blade comprising a plurality of blade teeth (upper blade 52 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 80; see fig. 4); an outer blade comprising a plurality of blade teeth (lower blade 48 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 76; see figs. 2, 4, and paragraph [0022]); a mounting bracket comprising plastic tabs (support member 60 comprises plastic tabs; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the mounting bracket coupled to an inner surface of the inner blade and pressing the inner blade towards the outer blade to capture the inner blade (support member 60 is coupled to the inner surface of upper blade 52 by biasing member 72, which biases upper blade 52 against lower blade 48; see paragraph [0030] and fig. 2); and a pair of hinges (biasing member 72 comprises two spring arms, each of which form a hinge; see fig. 4), the pair of hinges coupling an inner surface of the inner blade to an inner surface of the mounting bracket with snap tabs (each hinge of biasing member 72 couples an inner surface of upper blade 52 to an inner surface of support member 60, where the snap tabs couple to upper blade 52; see paragraph [0030] and annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the snap tabs integrally formed with each hinge of the pair of hinges and protruding out to form a proximate end of the respective hinge (the snap tabs are formed as part of each hinge and protrude outwards to form an end of the hinge; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), wherein adjustment of the snap tabs against the plastic tabs on the mounting bracket changes a tensile force applied to the mounting bracket to adjust a position of the inner blade relative to the outer blade (an adjustable tensile force is generated by the interaction of the snap tabs relative to the plastic tabs, such that a position of upper blade 52 is adjusted relative to lower blade 48; see figs. 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose each hinge comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in.
Weschta discloses each hinge comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in (the biasing force may range from 0.15 N/mm to 0.25 N/mm. Multiplying both values by the conversion factor 5.71 provides an approximate range of 0.86 lbf/in to 1.43 lbf/in; see paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Weschta, and as evidenced by Wang, to make the hinges have a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in. As evidenced by Wang, having a specified spring constant range, such as the one disclosed by Weschta, can make the process of shaving more comfortable, efficient, and overall more convenient (see Wang, pg. 1, paragraph 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same benefits if modifying Piwaron to have such a spring constant, thus the modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the pair of hinges are adjustable to change the tensile force between the mounting bracket and the inner blade (each hinge of biasing member 72 can be actuated to increase or decrease the force applied to upper blade 52; see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein each hinge of the pair of hinges is a metal stamping that is press fit into the mounting bracket (the hinges of biasing member 72 are snapped into the tabs of support member 60; see fig. 2 and annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 14, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the pair of hinges change the tensile force generated by the mounting bracket (actuation of biasing member 72 in a forward direction opposite the tabs will cause biasing member 72 to press down, thus pressing upper blade 52 and lower blade 48 together and increasing the force; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph [0030]).
Piwaron as modified does not explicitly disclose that the change in tensile force is 5% or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron such that the tensile force is adjusted by 5% or more because it would be routine optimization of a result-effective variable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform routine experimentation in order to find the optimal amount of force that adjusts the blades without causing damage. Further, it appears as though Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the tensile force can be adjusted by 5% (see instant specification paragraph [0025]). Still further, such a modification is considered to be obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 15, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the snap tabs extend beyond the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of each hinge extend through support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) and provide movable surfaces configured to adjust the force between the pair of hinges and the mounting bracket to adjust the tensile force between the inner blade and outer blade (the snap tabs have movable surfaces abutting upper blade 52 that allow for variance in tensile force between the snap tabs and support member 60, such that force between upper blade 52 and lower blade 48 is adjustable; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph 0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses each hinge further comprising a base that is coupled to the inner blade (each snap tab comprises a base that is indirectly coupled to upper blade 52; see paragraph [0030] and figs. 2, 4), wherein changing an offset measured from the base to the snap tab of the hinge proportionally changes the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (assuming the spring constant remains the same, changing the length of each hinge would result in a change in the force it can apply, since the possible extension of each metallic stamping would change; see Hooke’s Law, where F=-kx).
Regarding claim 17, Piwaron discloses an adjustable blade attachment assembly, comprising: an inner blade comprising blade teeth (upper blade 52 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 80; see fig. 4); an outer blade comprising blade teeth oriented parallel to the inner blade teeth (lower blade 48 includes teeth on forward cutting edge 76 and forward cutting edge 76 is oriented parallel to forward cutting edge 80; see figs. 2, 4, and paragraph [0022]) and configured to facilitate cutting when the inner blade oscillates over the outer blade (upper blade 52 oscillates in the direction of arrow 53 relative to lower blade 48; see figs. 8-9 and paragraph [0030]); a mounting bracket comprising plastic tabs (support member 60 comprises plastic tabs; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the mounting bracket coupled to an inner surface of the inner blade and pressing the inner blade towards the outer blade to capture the inner blade (support member 60 is coupled to the inner surface of upper blade 52 by biasing member 72, which biases upper blade 52 against lower blade 48; see paragraph [0030] and fig. 2); and two metallic stamped hinges (biasing member 72 comprises two spring arms, each of which form a metallic stamped hinge; see fig. 4) that couple an inner surface of the inner blade to an inner surface of the mounting bracket with snap tabs that couple to the plastic tabs of the mounting bracket (each metallic stamped hinge of biasing member 72 couples an inner surface of upper blade 52 to an inner surface of support member 60, where the snap tabs couple to upper blade 52 (and indirectly couple to the plastic tabs); see paragraph [0030] and annotated portion of fig. 4 below), the snap tabs comprising angled projections at respective ends of the two metallic stamped hinges (the snap tabs of each metallic stamped hinge comprise an angled portion which projects outwardly; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), to generate a force that pulls the mounting bracket inwards and generates a tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (when the snap tabs are indirectly coupled to the tabs, an adjustable force is generated which pulls support member 60 away from upper blade 52; see figs. 8-9), wherein adjustment of the snap tabs on the two metallic stamped hinges changes a tensile force applied to the mounting bracket to adjust the inner blade relative to the outer blade (an adjustable tensile force is generated by the interaction of the snap tabs relative to the plastic tabs, such that a position of upper blade 52 is adjusted relative to lower blade 48; see figs. 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Piwaron does not explicitly disclose the two metallic stamped hinges comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in.
Weschta discloses the two metallic stamped hinges comprising a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in (the biasing force may range from 0.15 N/mm to 0.25 N/mm. Multiplying both values by the conversion factor 5.71 provides an approximate range of 0.86 lbf/in to 1.43 lbf/in; see paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Piwaron in view of Weschta, and as evidenced by Wang, to make the hinges have a spring constant between 0.1 lbf/in and 4 lbf/in. As evidenced by Wang, having a specified spring constant range, such as the one disclosed by Weschta, can make the process of shaving more comfortable, efficient, and overall more convenient (see Wang, pg. 1, paragraph 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same benefits if modifying Piwaron to have such a spring constant, thus the modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the snap tabs on the respective ends of the two metallic stamped hinges extend beyond the mounting bracket (the snap tabs of each metallic stamped hinge extend through support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) and are configured to provide movable surfaces to adjust the force between the two metallic stamped hinges and the mounting bracket that adjusts the tensile force between the inner blade and outer blade (the snap tabs have surfaces abutting upper blade 52 that allow for variance in tensile force between the snap tabs and support member 60, such that force between upper blade 52 and lower blade 48 is adjustable; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above and paragraph 0030]).
Regarding claim 19, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses each of the two metallic stamped hinges further comprising a base at a proximal end extending through the mounting bracket and coupled to the inner blade (a portion of each metallic stamped hinge extends through the opening of support member 60, such that each base is indirectly coupled to upper blade 52; see paragraph [0030] and figs. 2, 4), wherein changing an offset measured from the base to the snap tab of the hinge proportionally changes the tensile force between the inner blade and the outer blade (assuming the spring constant remains the same, changing the length of each hinge would result in a change in the force it can apply, since the possible extension of each metallic stamping would change; see Hooke’s Law, where F=-kx).
Regarding claim 20, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified further discloses wherein the snap tabs on the two metallic stamped hinges are oriented to be coplanar with the plastic tabs of the mounting bracket (the snap tabs are oriented on the same horizontal plane as the plastic tabs of support member 60; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piwaron (US 20080282550) in view of Zhang (CN 108838301).
Regarding claim 13, Piwaron as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Piwaron as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein each hinge of the pair of hinges is a metal comprising an alloy of at least one of an aluminum, a titanium, or a steel.
Zhang discloses wherein each hinge of the pair of hinges is a metal comprising an alloy of at least one of an aluminum, a titanium, or a steel (the spring can be made from a titanium alloy; see pg. 1, paragraphs 3 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Piwaron in view of Zhang to make the hinge out of a titanium alloy. Zhang discloses that titanium alloys are useful for an application such as a spring, since titanium has high strength, as well as good corrosion and heat resistance (see pg. 1, paragraph 1). These traits are especially advantageous in a hair clipper which could potentially be exposed to water during normal use. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). Therefore, such a modification is deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-12, filed 9/30/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of Piwaron (US 20080282550) as modified by the previously applied references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20160075039 to Werner, drawn to a blade assembly having an entrapped spring; US 20170120467 to Schmitt, drawn to a hair grooming appliance; and WO 2020206750 to Yu, drawn to a tool bit structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights