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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on February 16th, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended, claim 3 has been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-6 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the amended limitation of claim 1 to further limit the three layers of the comb stimulator, the examiner is examining this limitation to refer to the three layers being the shallow bristles, short comb teeth, and long comb teeth, and that these three layers are distinct from each other in terms of their height. Since the bristles and teeth have varying heights, they are distinct in this way which is most clearly seen in Figs. 4 and 5. If applicant intends to have 3 separate bases with holes where each base comprises a different layer of bristles or comb teeth, then applicant should amend claim language to meet structure of these different layers with different bases. As of now, the drawings nor specifications support the mixture of the 400 and 900 series layers of combs. The examiner interprets the 400 series of comb heads to be integrated into the comb head 400 as recited in paragraph 0030 of the specification. The 900 series comb heads of Fig. 9 have teeth holes to allow corresponding teeth to fit through, but only comprises 2 layers and does not have shallow bristles as taught in paragraph 0031 of the specification. Fig. 8 does not have these same teeth holes of Fig. 9 and therefore examiner interprets all three layers recited on claim 1 to be attached to the same comb head and formed integrally on the comb head. If applicant intends to claim the structure where the teeth fit through holes of a base with a different layer of teeth where the 3 layers are 3 stackable bases that fit together onto the comb head, this could create potential 112(a) issues based on the present disclosure. Therefore, applicant should be aware to avoid these 112(a) issues.
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: “via a mechanism to changeably protrude the hair parting prong rigidly from the fore portion of the comb head” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz (US 20070193597 A1) in view of Trice (US 20180014621 A1), Torres (US 20200170398 A1), Heath (US 20230015646 A1), Grez (US 20190098975 A1), Jin (CN 214854958 U), and Hope (EP 2818076 A2).
Regarding Claim 1, Hurwitz discloses a triple-layered infused comb stimulator comprising:
a comb handle comprising an ergonomically shaped (the handle shown in Fig. 1b demonstrates handle with a slight protrusion that can allow a user to more easily grip the handle. Considering the Cambridge dictionary definition “relating to the design of furniture or equipment which makes it comfortable and effective for people who use it” , it can be reasonably determined that the handle of Fig. 1b would be considered ergonomic) hollow lower grip portion (Paragraph 0040, “the back cover removably attached to a vessel holding liquid containing active ingredients and acting as a handle”; Fig. 1b shows a handle that is filled with liquid making it hollow when unfilled), a hollow upper head portion abutting the lower grip portion (Paragraph 0063 "a brush base that has an internal cavity"), the hollow upper head portion comprising a peripheral groove for sliding a comb head as an attachment (Paragraph 0087 “an insertable or interchangeable flexible deformable membrane, as shown in FIGS. 9a-9f, is appointed to be received within second opening 414 and attached by way of sliding under lip 416 and clasping by way of attachment tab portion 417”, sliding under lip 416 is analogous to sliding the comb head into a groove ), an underside with pliable caps comprising slits for dispensing infusion fluid (Fig. 3a, Paragraph 0082 “spray element 330 comprises elongated hollow conical shaft 331 with central spray aperture 332, a head portion 333, and at least one spray orifice 334", the spray orifice is analogous to the slit; paragraph 0021 "both the bristles and the spray elements may be constructed with the flexible deformable membrane" which demonstrates that the spray elements are pliable), and a topside with an opening covered by a button (Paragraph 0080, Fig. 2a "on the topside back cover 121 located at second opening 114, provided with a control button 155"), and housing the infusion fluid filled via the opening in the topside (Fig. 2a shows button 155 being a part of the cover 121, which covers the opening on the topside of the handle, which houses the fluid 101), wherein the button controls an amount of infusion fluid dispensed through the slits in the pliable caps via an amount of pressure applied to the button when in a closed position (Paragraph 0072 “transference of the liquid/powder from the vessel is preferably controlled and achieved by the control button integrated within the back cover”; A user needs to apply pressure to the button in order to operate it and thereby allow the fluid to be dispensed);
and a comb head comprising a peripheral channel for attaching the comb head to the comb handle by sliding the peripheral channel into the peripheral groove on the comb handle (Paragraph 0088 "an overhang 841 is provided along with a tab 840 for interaction with lip 416 and clasping by way of attachment tab portion 417 of FIG. 8" where the overhang is the peripheral channel), and an underside comprising holes aligned to the pliable caps on the underside of the comb handle and snugly accommodating the pliable caps (Paragraph 0082 “delivery apertures 322 constructed therein which receive spray elements' 330 elongated hollow conical shafts 331 and align with attached spray elements”).
Hurwitz is silent wherein the button is pliable.
However, Trice teaches a pliable button to cover an opening in a comb handle (paragraph 0023 “Moreover, the button 46 may be comprised of a resiliently deformable material such as rubber or the like. The button 46 is positioned in the aperture 30 in the handle 18 and the button 46 closes the aperture 30”) and controls an amount of infusion fluid dispensed through a comb head (paragraph 0026 “The button 46 is selectively depressed to pressurize the fluid 16. Thus, the fluid 16 is urged outwardly from each of the second bristles 40. The fluid 16 is distributed in the hair as the hair is combed”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to make the button pliable. This is more comfortable to a user pushing down on the button as the button can deform according to the user’s pressure.
Modified Hurwitz is silent regarding the lower grip portion housing batteries and electrical circuitry of an electrical stimulator and comprising a switch to connect the batteries to the electrical stimulator.
However, Torres teaches a fluid dispensing brush (Fig. 1) with a lower grip portion housing batteries (paragraph 0024; battery 64; One skilled in the art would reasonably expect that power module 62 could also hold multiple batteries) and electrical circuitry (the circuitry that would make up power module 62; paragraph 0024) of an electrical stimulator (pump 48) and comprising a switch to connect the batteries to the electrical stimulator (paragraph 0025 “A switch 66 is coupled to the handle 34 and is operationally coupled to both the pump 48 and the power module 62, as shown in FIG. 1”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to include batteries and components for an electrical stimulator to dispense the fluid more efficiently and easily. The brush disclosed by Hurwitz relies on pressure by the user to release the stored fluid, but utilizing an electrical stimulator to dispense the fluid alleviates the burden on the user and more evenly releases the fluid.
Modified Hurwitz is silent regarding a latch mechanism fixedly disposed at the abutment of the upper head portion with the lower grip portion, the latch mechanism operably connected to the pliable button for opening and closing the pliable button.
However, Heath teaches a latch mechanism that is mechanically connected to a switch and is located between the head and handle of the brush (Paragraph 0043 “the handle 116 is configured to securely connect to the proximal end 124 of the head portion 102 via a latch or lever 112”, Paragraph 0044 “the switch 114 is mechanically connected to the latch 112, thereby enabling the user to close and open the passageway 110 for dispensing the stored substance over the user's scalp from the internal cavity 118 of the handle 116”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to include a latch mechanism that opens and closes the pliable button. The latch being operably connected to the button is more convenient to open the button and therefore open the passageway to the liquid storage. This eases the burden of the user in filling or draining the liquid stored within the brush handle while being able to secure the button in place.
Modified Hurwitz is silent wherein the electrical stimulator powered by the batteries via the switch on the comb handle performs one or more of vibrating the comb stimulator and dispensing the infusion fluid through the slits in the pliable caps with a constant pressurized flow in accordance with the amount of pressure applied to the pliable button.
However, Grez teaches an electrical stimulator on a comb handle (paragraph 0061 “The handle shell 110 houses various appliance control components, such as one or more of a drive motor having a drive gear 310 (see FIG. 3), a CPU”) that performs one or more of vibrating the comb stimulator (paragraph 0071 “In other embodiments, the nozzles 210 of the appliance are configured to oscillate, reciprocate along the length of the nozzles 210, vibrate, or remain stationary during use”) and dispensing the infusion fluid through the slits in the pliable caps with a constant pressurized flow in accordance with the amount of pressure applied to the pliable button (paragraph 0062 “In some embodiments, the control button 106 is capable of pressure sensitive operation, such that applying a higher pressure to the control button 106 causes a variable response, such as, for example, causing the formulation to flow faster, the nozzles to move faster, or the like”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz so the stimulator performs one or more of vibrating the comb stimulator and dispensing the infusion fluid through the slits in the pliable caps with a constant pressurized flow in accordance with the amount of pressure applied to the pliable button. The vibration of the nozzles can provide a therapeutic massaging effect to a user’s scalp. The fluid dispersion being in accordance with button pressure allows a user to have more refined control of the flow of the fluid so they can determine exactly how much fluid is released and the speed of the release instead of all the fluid releasing at once when pressing the button. The stimulator being powered by batteries via a switch on the comb handle was taught above.
Modified Hurwitz is silent regarding a hair parting prong at a fore portion of the comb head.
However, Jin teaches a hair parting prong located at the fore portion of a comb head that can be used to separate hair (Fig. 3, page 6 paragraph 4 “the dividing strip 600 is vertically protruded in the upper direction between the hair finishing part and the brush part 310 to form a dividing strip").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to include a hair parting prong to allow the user to section and divide their hair without requiring a separate brush to do so. Combining these elements in the same brush makes the brush more convenient for the user and makes the brush more accessible to different hairstyles.
Modified Hurwitz is silent regarding a comb head with shallow bristles, short comb teeth, and long comb teeth, wherein the shallow bristles, the short comb teeth, and the long comb teeth form three layers of the triple-layered infused comb stimulator, wherein each of the three layers of the triple-layered infused comb stimulator are distinct from each other, wherein the first layer comprises the shallow bristles that cluster along a comb head surface, wherein the shallow bristles surround the pliable caps with the slits that dispense the infusion fluid stored in the upper head portion of the comb handle, wherein the second layer comprises the short comb teeth that surround the shallow bristles of the first layer, and wherein the third layer comprises the long comb teeth that surround the second layer formed by the short comb teeth.
However, Hope teaches a hair brush with shallow bristles, short comb teeth, and long comb teeth, wherein the shallow bristles, short comb teeth, and the long comb teeth form three layers (Fig. 5 demonstrates 3 different sized pins, S,M, and L where each pin could be a bristle or tooth; claim 3 “the pins predominantly comprise long length pins, medium length pins and short length pins, and the difference in length between the long and medium length pins is substantially the same as the difference in length between the medium length pins and the short length pins”), wherein each of the three layers are distinct from each other (the pins are distinct in terms of their height which defines 3 distinct layers), wherein the first layer comprises shallow bristles that cluster along a comb head surface (the short pins of Fig. 5 cluster along the surface of the comb head 12; Figs. 2 and 5 show the shallow bristles that are the small pins are closer to the comb head surface due to their height and would thereby cluster along the surface), wherein the second layer comprises the short comb teeth that surround the shallow bristles of the first layer (Fig. 5, the medium pins surround the small pins), and wherein the third layer comprises the long comb teeth that surround the second layer formed by the short comb teeth (Fig. 5, the long pins surround the medium pins).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to include three layers consisting of shallow bristles, short comb teeth, and long comb teeth on the comb head. Including a variety of teeth and bristle lengths allows the comb head to contact a larger volume of a user’s hair (Paragraph 0003), allowing the dispensed fluid to penetrate deeper and affect more hair follicles. It would have been obvious given the pliable cap teachings of Hurwitz that when the teachings of Hope are includes, the shallow bristles would surround the pliable caps that dispense the infusion fluid so that the device maintains its function to dispense fluid while also stimulating a user’s scalp with the bristles of the comb head.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Hurwitz teaches the comb stimulator of claim 1.
Modified Hurwitz is silent regarding wherein the comb head operates independently as a triple-layered comb without fluid infusion when detached from the comb handle.
However, Hope teaches a triple-layered comb that operates a comb without being attached to a handle (Fig. 7 demonstrates the layered comb head with 3 layers of pins that is designed to function as a comb independently without any other attachments. However, it could be attached to a handle if desired, paragraph 0090 “the hairbrush could be provided with a handle”,).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to operate independently as a comb without fluid infusion. Allowing the comb head to function as comb without fluid infusion increases the versatility of the product and makes it more function to different aspects of the hair grooming process. The increased versatility and utility of the product decreases the need for the user to purchase additional tools or attachments for other steps in the hair grooming process.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Hurwitz teaches the comb stimulator of claim 1.
Hurwitz further teaches wherein the comb head operates as a triple-layered comb with a handle when attached to an alternate comb handle via the peripheral channel, the alternate comb handle requiring nothing more than a surface with a perimeter and a peripheral groove corresponding to the peripheral channel to accommodate the peripheral channel for the attachment (Paragraph 0087 “an insertable or interchangeable flexible deformable membrane, as shown in FIGS. 9a-9f, is appointed to be received within second opening 414 and attached by way of sliding under lip 416 and clasping by way of attachment tab portion 417”, sliding under lip 416 is analogous to sliding the comb head into a groove; the comb head can function independently but can also configure with any handle that accommodates the deformable membrane).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz (US 20070193597 A1) in view of Trice (US 20180014621 A1), Torres (US 20200170398 A1), Heath (US 20230015646 A1), Grez (US 20190098975 A1), Jin (CN 214854958 U), and Hope (EP 2818076 A2) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Sommer (US 20180344020 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Hurwitz teaches the comb stimulator of claim 1.
Modified Hurwitz is silent wherein the comb handle comprises an opening in the lower grip portion to hang the comb stimulator on a hook.
However, Sommer teaches an opening on a handle that is configured to receive a hook to support the brush when not in use (Paragraph 0056 "the plug 114 may include a hole 115 defined therein and configured to receive a hook or other means for supporting the brush 100 therethrough").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to include an opening in the lower grip to hang the product on a hook. The opening allows creates a convenient method of storing the comb stimulator and supporting the brush via an external hook or other means.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz (US 20070193597 A1) in view of Trice (US 20180014621 A1), Torres (US 20200170398 A1), Heath (US 20230015646 A1), Grez (US 20190098975 A1), Jin (CN 214854958 U), and Hope (EP 2818076 A2) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Collins (US 20220211158 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hurwitz teaches the comb stimulator of claim 1.
Modified Hurwitz is silent wherein the hair parting prong at the fore portion of the comb head is affixed to the comb head via a mechanism to changeably protrude the hair parting prong rigidly from the fore portion of the comb head in one of a direction parallel to the short comb teeth and the long comb teeth and a direction perpendicular to the short comb teeth and the long comb teeth.
However, Collins teaches a hair parting prong that is attached to a comb head via a mechanism that allows the prong to transition from a direction parallel to the comb teeth to a direction perpendicular to the comb teeth (Paragraph 0026 " the tail comb 310 can be attached to an axis 408 for securing in place and to facilitate rotating of the tail comb 310 for folding into the groove 316. In an embodiment, the axis 408 could be a pin, small rod, or any other conventional fastening and rotating mechanisms known to a person of skill in the art"; Fig. 4 demonstrates the different orientations of the prong 310. These orientations include directions that are both parallel (402) and perpendicular (400) to the comb teeth).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the product of Hurwitz to affix the hair parting prong via a mechanism that changeably protrudes the prong from a direction parallel to the comb teeth and a direction perpendicular to the comb teeth. The flexibility of the prong creates an easier use of the product as the prong can be utilized by the user in their preferred orientation. The prong orientation flexibility also allows for more hair to be contacted by the prong which allows for more effective use of the dispensed fluid. Collins further discloses that the prong flexibility reduces the potential of the user being injured by the tip and reduces damage during device storage (Paragraph 0025).
Response to Arguments
Applicant states on pages 8-11 that Hope does not teach 3 distinct layers as newly amended. Applicant argues that the 3 distinct layers are assembled onto each other through respective holes. However, examiner disagrees with this argument. Hope teaches 3 distinct layers in terms of height, wherein the 3 different length pins form 3 layers that teach the structures of claim 1. If the applicant intends to have 3 separate bases with holes wherein the 3 layers are assembled onto each other via respective holes as best taught by Fig. 9, then applicant should amend claim language to meet structure of layers. As of now, the drawings nor specifications support the mixture of the 400 and 900 series layers of combs. The examiner interprets the 400 series of comb heads to be integrated into the comb head 400 as recited in paragraph 0030 of the specification. The 900 series comb heads of Fig. 9 have teeth holes to allow corresponding teeth to fit through, but only comprises 2 layers and does not have shallow bristles as taught in paragraph 0031 of the specification. Fig. 8 does not have these same teeth holes of Fig. 9 and therefore examiner interprets all three layers recited on claim 1 to be attached to the same comb head and formed integrally on the comb head. If applicant intends to claim the structure where the teeth fit through holes of a base with a different layer of teeth where the 3 layers are 3 stackable bases that fit together onto the comb head, this could create potential 112(a) issues based on the present disclosure. Therefore, applicant should be aware to avoid these 112(a) issues.
Applicant states on page 12-14 that Hurwitz and Koopah cannot be combined. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states on page 14-15 that the button is not a pliable button. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Trice (US 20180014621 A1). Trice teaches a pliable button that covers an opening on the handle as taught above. It would have been obvious to incorporate these teachings to provide more comfort to the user when pressing on the button so that it deforms according to a user’s pressure.
Applicant states on page 15 that the handle of Hurwitz is not ergonomically shaped. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous office action refers to the entirety of the handle of Fig. 1b. When looking at the handle as a whole, the handle structure can be reasonably determined to be designed for more comfort and effectiveness when a user grasps it. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the handle is ergonomically shaped.
In regards to claims 2 and 4-6, a new ground of rejection has been made above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHIL A JAYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 5712729034. 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.
/AKHIL A JAYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785