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 July 22nd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 6 and 15 have been
cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/21/2025, 11/27/2025, and
1/22/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 4/22/2025. The
submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information
disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger L. Perry (US 3863340 A – hereinafter Perry) in view of Sawada Koji (JP H05115633 A – hereinafter Koji), Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US 20140360021 A1 –
hereinafter Sonnenberg), and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus).
Regarding claim 1, Perry teaches a razor blade comprising an asymmetric substrate (Fig.
3, Member 18).
Perry fails to teach that the razor blade comprises a non-fluorinated organic coating
extending along a first and second outer sides of the asymmetric substrate from a tip region
toward a base of the substrate, wherein the non-fluorinated coating comprises an organosilane, and wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises a thickness of less than 500 Angstroms.
However, Koji further teaches a coating for a razor blade which comprises a non-
fluorinated organic material which is an organosilane (Page 3, para 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the razor blade of Perry to have a non-fluorinated organic coating comprising organosilane as taught by Koji. Doing so provides the benefit of preventing shavings from attaching to the blade, therefore preventing a loss of cutting quality and avoiding the generation of a bad smell (Koji, Abstract).
Perry and Koji do not specifically disclose that the coating extends along a first and
second outer sides of the asymmetric substrate from a tip region toward a base of the substrate, and wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises a thickness of less than 500 Angstroms.
However, Sonnenberg teaches a coating (Fig. 6, Coating 64) on a razor blade which
extends along a first and second outer sides (Fig. 5, Flanks 53) of the substrate (Fig. 6, Substrate
52) from a tip region (Fig. 6, Tip Portion 54) toward a base (Fig. 6, bottom portion of the
substrate) of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the shape of the coating of the combination of Perry and Koji so that it extends along a first and second outer sides of the asymmetric substrate from a tip region toward a base of the substrate as taught by Sonnenberg as doing so requires only changing the shape of the coating and it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally, Claus teaches a coating layer which comprises a thickness of less than 500
Angstroms (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40; Page 4, para 2 – layer can be as thin as 100 Angstroms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the thickness of the organosilane coating monolayer of the combination of
Decker and Koji to be less than 500 Angstroms as taught by Claus. Doing so is beneficial as
reduced coating thickness can provide improved first shave results (Claus, Page 4, para 2).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the organosilane is derived from bis(trimethylsilyl)amine (Koji; Page 3, para 7 – it is well known in the art that bis(trimethylsilyl)amine and hexamethyldisilazane refer to the same chemical compound).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the organosilane is derived from
hexamethyldisiloxane (Koji; Page 3, para 7).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus fails to teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein an outer shape of the non-fluorinated organic coating is the same as an outer shape of the tip region.
However, Claus teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein an outer shape of the
outermost layer of coating (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40) is the same as an outer shape of the tip
portion (Fig. 2, top half of Substrate 11 in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the outer shape of the non-fluorinated organic coating of the combination of
Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to be the same as an outer shape of the tip portion as taught by Claus as it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises an outermost layer (the non-fluorinated organic coating is the only layer, and therefore it is the outermost layer).
The existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus fails to teach wherein the coating comprises at least one additional layer.
However, Claus teaches a razor blade with an outermost layer (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40)
and at least one additional layer (Fig. 2, Overcoat Layer 38 and Hard Coating Layer 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg to comprise at
least one additional layer as taught by Claus. The additional layers are beneficial as they provide
improved strength and corrosion resistance, as well reduce tip rounding (Claus, Page 4 para 1
and page 3 para 4).
Regarding claim 12, Perry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the razor blade further comprises a body portion (Fig. 3, portion of Member 18 between Faces 32 and 34).
Regarding claim 14, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does not teach the razor blade of claim 12, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating material is deposited on the tip portion and at least a section of the body portion.
However, Sonnenberg further teaches the razor blade of claim 12, wherein the coating material (Fig. 6, Coating 64) is deposited on the tip portion (Fig. 6, Tip Portion 54) and at least a section of the body portion (Fig. 6, examiner interprets that body portion is formed below separated from the tip portion at the first angle formed on the side of substrate 52 as measured from the tip portion in Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus so that it is
deposited on the tip portion and at least a section of the body portion as taught by Sonnenberg as doing so requires only changing the shape of the coating and it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 16, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg fails to teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises a thickness of less than 100 Angstroms.
However, Claus teaches wherein the outermost layer comprises a thickness as thin as 100
Angstroms (Fig. 2, Outer Layer 40; Page 4, para 2 – layer can be as thin as 100 Angstroms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the thickness of the non-fluorinated organic coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to be as thin as 100 Angstroms as taught by Claus. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the thickness of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to be less than 100 Angstroms as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the outer layer is disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to improve first shave results (Claus, Page 4, para 2), therefore changing the thickness involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Regarding claim 17, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating has a surface energy of less than 33 dynes/cm.
However, Claus teaches a coating for a razor blade that has a surface energy of less than
33 dynes/cm (Claus, Page 4 para 2 - PTFE is used as a coating. It is well known in the art that
PTFE has a surface energy of about 19 dynes/cm, which is less than 33 dynes/cm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to have a surface energy of less than 33 dynes/cm as taught by Claus. It is well known in the art, and discussed in Koji (Koji, Page 2 para 2), that a low surface energy coating is beneficial as water and debris is less likely to adhere to it.
Regarding claim 18, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating has a surface energy of less than 25 dynes/cm.
However, Claus teaches a coating for a razor blade that has a surface energy of less than
25 dynes/cm (Claus, Page 4 para 2 - PTFE is used as a coating. It is well known in the art that
PTFE has a surface energy of about 19 dynes/cm, which is less than 25 dynes/cm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to have a surface energy of less than 25 dynes/cm as taught by Claus. It is well known in the art, and discussed in Koji (Koji, Page 2 para 2), that a low surface energy coating is beneficial as water and debris is less likely to adhere to it.
Regarding claim 19, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating is not a gel.
However, Sonnenberg further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating is not a gel ([0048], examiner interprets that the porous solid infiltrated with a liquid is not a gel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the non-fluorinated organic coating of the combination of Perry, Koji,
Sonnenberg, and Claus to not be a gel as taught by Sonnenberg. Doing so provides the benefit of preventing the growth of bacteria (Sonnenberg, [0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Perry further teaches the razor blade of claim 1 comprising a tip portion (Fig. 3, portion of razor blade that comprises Edge 26) having a cutting edge (Fig. 3, Edge 26) defined by a sharpened tip (Fig. 3, point that defines the protruding end of Edge 26) that comprise flanks (Fig. 3, the left and right sides of the razor blade that converge at Edge 26) that converge at a sharpened tip, the flanks each comprise one or more bevels of unequal length (Fig. 3, the faces that are immediately to the left and right of Edge 26), wherein a first, and longer, outer side may define a skin- contacting surface (Fig. 3, the face immediately to the right of Edge 26), and the second, and shorter, outer side may define a hair-cutting surface (Fig. 3, the face immediately to the left of Edge 26).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger L.
Perry (US 3863340 A – hereinafter Perry) in view of Sawada Koji (JP H05115633 A –
hereinafter Koji), Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US 20140360021 A1 – hereinafter Sonnenberg), and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Park Min Joo (KR 20220056102 A – hereinafter Joo).
Regarding claim 2, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a split line of the substrate coincides with a centerline of the non-fluorinated organic coating.
However, Joo teaches wherein a split line (Fig. 8(b), Central Line CL) of the substrate
(Fig. 8(b), substrate defined by Substrate Tip 112B) coincides with a centerline of the coating
(Fig. 8(b), coating defined by Final Tip 122B; examiner interprets that a centerline of the coating
would extend downwards from Final Tip 122B and parallel to the Central Line of the substrate,
and therefore the centerline of the coating coincides with the centerline of the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the split line of the substrate of the combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg
to coincide with the centerline of the coating as taught by Joo. Doing so is beneficial as all the
pressing force transmitted from the substrate tip is applied to the cutting of body hair without
dissipating as a moment, allowing shaving to be performed with less force (Joo, Page 10 para
10).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus does not specifically disclose the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the coating is an asymmetric coating having a centerline is offset from a centerline of the substrate.
However, Joo teaches wherein the coating is an asymmetric coating (Fig. 2, Coating 120)
having a centerline (Fig. 2, Vertical Line PL) is offset from a centerline (Fig. 2, Center Line CL)
of the substrate (Fig. 2, Substrate 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus to be asymmetric as taught by Joo. Doing so is beneficial as relatively increasing the thickness of the coating formed on one side of the substrate improves the durability of that side (Joo, Page 4 para 11). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the centerline of the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg such that it is offset from a centerline of the substrate as taught by Joo as doing so requires only changing the shape of the coating and it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Joo teaches wherein the centerline of the asymmetric coating is offset from the centerline of the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the centerline of the asymmetric coating of the combination of combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo to be offset by at least 3 degrees from the centerline of the substrate. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The offset of at least 3 degrees would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in
the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The examiner recognized that there was a design need to dimension the coating of the
blade of Joo in view of Fig. 2 to have a specific thickness on one side of the blade to improve the durability of that side, which is a design need based in the art of cutting blades. Modifying the
coating thickness of one side of the blade creates an asymmetric coating and changes the angle of
the centerline of that coating with respect to a centerline of the substrate. Based on the teachings
provided by Joo, the Examiner concludes that modifying the thickness such that the centerline of
the asymmetric coating is offset from a centerline of the substrate by at least 3 degrees creates an
increased coating thickness on one side of the blade which improves the durability of that side.
(2) A finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential
solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The examiner recognizes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there
are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the offset angle between the
two centerlines in order to allow the blade to perform the intended cutting operation. The value
of an offset of 0 degrees taught by Joo would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a
baseline value to begin experimentation. In other words, one would have prompted to try various
values above 0 degrees before arriving at the thickness on one side of the blade which improves
the durability of that side and results in the claimed offset angle.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential
solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner determined that based on the teachings of Joo, the modified blade of the
combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo could have an offset angle as set forth by Joo, since an offset angle greater than 0 degrees but less than 90 degrees would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been
knowledgeable that the expectation of success of providing the offset angle of at least 3 degrees
would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be
necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain the conclusion of
obviousness.
The examiner recognized that Joo teaches a coating thickness on one side of a blade
greater than a thickness on the opposing side of the blade leading to an offset angle between the
centerline of the coating and the centerline of the substrate of the blade, which is in view of the
facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have
been prompted to try various relative thicknesses leading to offset angles greater than 0 degrees
as taught by Joo to find the thickness of one side that improves the durability of that side.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Joo teaches wherein the centerline of the asymmetric coating is offset from the centerline of the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the centerline of the asymmetric coating of the combination of combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo to be offset by at least 8 degrees from the centerline of the substrate. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The offset of at least 8 degrees would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in
the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The examiner recognized that there was a design need to dimension the coating of the
blade of Joo in view of Fig. 2 to have a specific thickness on one side of the blade to improve the durability of that side, which is a design need based in the art of cutting blades. Modifying the
coating thickness of one side of the blade creates an asymmetric coating and changes the angle of
the centerline of that coating with respect to a centerline of the substrate. Based on the teachings
provided by Joo, the Examiner concluded that modifying the thickness such that the centerline of
the asymmetric coating is offset from a centerline of the substrate by at least 8 degrees creates an
increased coating thickness on one side of the blade which improves the durability of that side.
(2) A finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential
solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The examiner recognizes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there
are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the offset angle between the
two centerlines in order to allow the blade to perform the intended cutting operation. The value
of an offset of 0 degrees taught by Joo would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a
baseline value to begin experimentation. In other words, one would have prompted to try various
values above 0 degrees before arriving at the thickness on one side of the blade which improves
the durability of that side and results in the claimed offset angle.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential
solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner determined that based on the teachings of Joo, the modified blade of the
combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, Claus, and Joo could have an offset angle as set forth by Joo, since an offset angle greater than 0 degrees but less than 90 degrees would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been
knowledgeable that the expectation of success of providing the offset angle of at least 8 degrees
would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be
necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain the conclusion of
obviousness.
The examiner recognized that Joo teaches a coating thickness on one side of a blade
greater than a thickness on the opposing side of the blade leading to an offset angle between the
centerline of the coating and the centerline of the substrate of the blade, which is in view of the
facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have
been prompted to try various relative thicknesses leading to offset angles greater than 0 degrees
as taught by Joo to find the thickness of one side that improves the durability of that side.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger L. Perry
(US 3863340 A – hereinafter Perry) in view of Sawada Koji (JP H05115633 A – hereinafter
Koji), Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US 20140360021 A1 – hereinafter Sonnenberg), and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robert Petcavich et al. (WO 2008123957 A2 – hereinafter Petcavich).
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating comprises an outermost layer (the non-fluorinated organic coating is the only layer, and therefore it is the outermost layer).
The existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus fails to teach that the coating comprises one or more self-assembled monolayers.
However, Petcavich teaches a self-assembled monolayer for use on a razor blade
([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, and Sonnenberg to comprise one
or more self- assembled monolayers as taught by Petcavich. Doing so is beneficial as it provides
a rough coating that is not easily removed, retaining a high level of cutting quality (Petcavich,
[0010]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger L. Perry
(US 3863340 A – hereinafter Perry) in view of Sawada Koji (JP H05115633 A – hereinafter
Koji), Neville Sonnenberg et al. (US 20140360021 A1 – hereinafter Sonnenberg), and Oliver H. Claus et al. (WO 2010008980 A1 – hereinafter Claus) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tomasz Hejmowski et al. (US 9969094 B2 – hereinafter Hejmowski).
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus fails to teach the razor blade of claim 12, wherein the non-fluorinated organic coating material is deposited only on the tip portion.
However, Hejmowski teaches a razor blade where the coating material (Fig. 9b, Coating
Layer 66) is only deposited on the tip portion (Fig. 9b, Blade Tip 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing to modify the coating of the combination of Perry, Koji, Sonnenberg, and Claus such that the coating is only deposited on the tip portion as taught by Hejmowski as doing so requires only changing the shape of the coating and it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that Koji and Claus cannot be used in combination
to teach an organosilane coating of less than 500 angstroms as neither of the two documents
teach both limitations, and there would not be a reasonable expectation of success to combine the
two limitations. Examiner finds that there would be a reasonable expectation of success in
modifying the organosilane coating of Koji to have a thickness of less than 500 angstroms as
taught by Claus. Koji does not imply anywhere in its disclose that it would be impossible to
create an organosilane layer of less than 500 Angstroms, and in fact defines a preferable range
down to 500 Angstroms in addition to clarifying that the thickness of the coating layer is not
limited to this preferred range. One of ordinary skill in the art would certainly have a reasonable
expectation of success in creating a layer having a thickness of only 1 Angstrom below a defined
preferred range with a lower cap of 500 Angstroms. Further, Claus encourages the minimization
of the thickness of a coating layer down to 100 Angstroms, and does not include anywhere in its
disclosure any limitations towards a material regarding its ability to be as thin or thinner than 500
angstroms.
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