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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 18-20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 18-20 aredrawn to a method of applying and curing a utility nail tip, where the claims were previously drawn to a utility nail tip (product claims). As explained in the previous office action, if claims 18-20 had been written as independent method claims (e.g. “A method of….”) or as dependent method claims (e.g. “A method of ….comprising, providing the nail tip of claim 1…..), the claims would have been restricted. The product can be used in a materially different method; for example, the product could be attached to a glove, an end effector, a robotic arm, a driven holder, etc. and the attachment mechanism used could be different (e.g. suction cups, adhesive tape, magnetic, etc.).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires the nail portion being made of a material adapted for attaching on the top surface of the natural nail, where the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined by this language. It is unclear which materials, when considering every possible known material, would be considered “adapted for attaching to the top surface of a nail” and which would not be considered appropriate for attaching to the top surface of a nail. Additionally, claim 1 requires the utility portion be configured to perform a specific function as a tool, where it is unclear what structure is intended by this language. For example, all artificial nails have a distal portion which can perform a specific function(s) such as scratch skin or a scratch-off lottery ticket, pierce a foil seal, lifting tabs on cans, type, etc.
Claims 10 and 11 require a thickness of the nail portion is determined according to features and conditions of the natural nail; therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined as the thickness is dependent on features and conditions of the nail and subjective assessment thereof. Similarly, the claim requires the thickness of the utility portion be determined according to the specific function to be performed for having sufficient stiffness and strength to perform the function. The metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined as the thickness is dependent on undefined functions, undefined desired stiffness and strength. Thickness is a measure of length and should be described in appropriate standard units of measure (e.g. inch, centimeter, millimeter, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullin (US 6631723).
Regarding claim 1, Mullin discloses a utility nail tip (40,44,50,56,66 Refer to Figures 14A-15D) for attaching on a natural nail of a user by a bonding agent, comprising: a nail portion (proximal portion of 40,44,50,56,66), having an underside contact surface (lower surface nail portion which is adhered to the natural nail during use) configured to fit size, shape and curvature of a top surface of the natural nail of the user and being made of a material adapted for attaching on the top surface of the natural nail; and a utility portion (distal portion of 40,44,50,56,66 having 41,48,54,58,62), integrally extended from the nail portion and supported by the nail portion, which is made of a material and configured to perform a specific function as a tool (Refer to col. 7 lines 1-67, col. 8 lines 1-9 and Figures 14A-15D).
Regarding claim 6, Mullin discloses the utility portion has a predetermined shape and size extended from a distal edge of the nail portion to form a utility tool having a specific function after the nail portion is securely attached to the natural nail of the user (Refer to Figures 14A-15D where the utility portion occupies at least one position which is extended beyond the distal edge of the nail portion and each provides a predetermined shape and size and performs a specific function).
Regarding claim 10, Mullin discloses a thickness of the nail portion is determined according to features and conditions of the natural nail of the user for having sufficient strength to securely attached on the top surface of the natural nail of the user (the nail portion is designed with a thickness and has sufficient strength to securely attach to the top surface of a natural nail), and the thickness of the utility portion is determined according to the specific function to be performed for having sufficient stiffness and strength to perform the specific function (the utility portion is intended to be used and therefore provides sufficient stiffness and strength to perform it’s intended function).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Mullin discloses the nail portion is an artificial nail tip having an outer attaching surface (upper surface with 42, 46, 64, Refer to Figures 14A-14C and 15D) opposing the underside contacting surface, and that the utility portion is an independent element having an attaching portion (portion 43, corresponding snap portion of 48, and portion of 62 coupled to 64) which has an inner attaching surface sized, shaped and configured to be adhered to outer attaching surface of the nail portion to form the utility nail tip (Refer to Figures 14A-14C and 15D).
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 2-4, 7, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullin and Lee (US 20190374003).
Regarding claims 2-4, Mullin discloses the utility nail tip of claim 1; however, Mullin does not disclose a rough affixing surface is provided on at least a portion of the underside contact surface of the nail portion of the utility nail tip and configured for increasing a contacting surface area of the rough affixing surface to pick up the bonding agent applied between the underside contact surface of the nail portion of the utility nail tip and the top surface of the natural nail of the user, while reducing a thickness of the bonding agent applied between the underside contact surface of the nail portion of the utility nail tip and the top surface of the natural nail of the user, wherein the rough affixing surface is a coarse surface formed by a plurality of indented grooves. Lee discloses an artificial nail where the underside of the artificial nail is provided with a plurality of grooves (Refer to Figures 1B-4) forming a course surface for affixing the nail to the user’s natural nail with adhesive (Refer to paragraphs 0004, 0014) which improves adhesion of the nail to the natural nail and results in a look that is more natural and similar to a human nail (Refer to paragraph 0003). Since the adhesive occupies the grooves, a strong bond is formed between the artificial nail and the natural nail without the need for a thick adhesive layer, which results in a more natural (thinner) look. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility nail tip of Mullin to provide a rough affixing surface on at least a portion of the underside contact surface, where the rough affixing surface is a course surface formed by a plurality of indented grooves, as claimed, since Lee demonstrates providing this structure improves adhesion of the artificial nail to the natural nail and results in a more natural look.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mullin and Lee disclose the utility nail tip of claim 2 above, Mullin further discloses the utility portion has a predetermined shape and size extended from a distal edge of the nail portion to form a utility tool having a specific function after the nail portion is securely attached to the natural nail of the user (Refer to Figures 14A-15D where the utility portion occupies at least one position which is extended beyond the distal edge of the nail portion and each provides a predetermined shape and size and performs a specific function).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mullin and Lee disclose the utility nail tip of claim 2 above, Mullin further discloses a thickness of the nail portion is determined according to features and conditions of the natural nail of the user for having sufficient strength to securely attached on the top surface of the natural nail of the user (the nail portion is designed with a thickness and has sufficient strength to securely attach to the top surface of a natural nail), and the thickness of the utility portion is determined according to the specific function to be performed for having sufficient stiffness and strength to perform the specific function (the utility portion is intended to be used and therefore provides sufficient stiffness and strength to perform it’s intended function).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, the combination of Mullin and Lee disclose the utility nail tip of claim 2 and 11 above, Mullin further discloses the nail portion is an artificial nail tip having an outer attaching surface (upper surface with 42, 46, 64, Refer to Figures 14A-14C and 15D) opposing the underside contacting surface, and that the utility portion is an independent element having an attaching portion (portion 43, corresponding snap portion of 48, and portion of 62 coupled to 64) which has an inner attaching surface sized, shaped and configured to be adhered to outer attaching surface of the nail portion to form the utility nail tip (Refer to Figures 14A-14C and 15D).
Claim 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullin and Hokawa (US 4554935).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Mullin discloses the utility nail tip of claims 6 and 10 above; however, Mullin does not disclose a thickness of the utility portion/base part of the utility portion is thicker than a thickness of the nail portion/distal edge of the nail portion, to form a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user. Hokama discloses an artificial nail having a nail portion with an underside (12) which is intended to be adhered to the natural nail and a tip portion (portion extending distally from 25,26) where the base part of the tip (at/adjacent 25) is thicker than the distal edge of the nail portion as well as other portions of the nail portion and forms a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user, as best shown in Figures 1 and 2. Hokama explains that the curved step edge (25) conforms to the forward/distal edge (19) of the natural nail (17) and positions that edge, where this configuration reinforces the bond between the natural nail and artificial nail and reduces separation of the free edge of the natural nail from the artificial nail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility nail tip of Mullin such that the thickness of the utility portion, particularly a base part thereof, be thicker than the nail portion, particularly a distal edge thereof, to form a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user as taught by Hokama in order to reinforce the bond between the artificial nail and natural nail and prevent separation thereof near the distal edge of the natural nail.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mullin and Lee as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Hokama (US 4554935).
Regarding claim 9 and 13, the combination of Mullin and Lee disclose the utility nail tip of claims 7 and 11 above; however, the combination does not disclose a thickness of the utility portion/base part of the utility portion is thicker than a thickness of the nail portion/distal edge of the nail portion, to form a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user. Hokama discloses an artificial nail having a nail portion with an underside (12) which is intended to be adhered to the natural nail and a tip portion (portion extending distally from 25,26) where the base part of the tip (at/adjacent 25) is thicker than the distal edge of the nail portion as well as other portions of the nail portion and forms a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user, as best shown in Figures 1 and 2. Hokama explains that the curved step edge (25) conforms to the forward/distal edge (19) of the natural nail (17) and positions that edge, where this configuration reinforces the bond between the natural nail and artificial nail and reduces separation of the free edge of the natural nail from the artificial nail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility nail tip of the combination of Mullin and Lee such that the thickness of the utility portion, particularly a base part thereof, be thicker than the nail portion, particularly a distal edge thereof, to form a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user as taught by Hokama in order to reinforce the bond between the artificial nail and natural nail and prevent separation thereof near the distal edge of the natural nail.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullin and Huynh (US 20110132386).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 5, Mullin discloses the utility nail tip of claim 1; however, Mullin does not disclose a rough affixing surface is provided on at least a portion of the underside contact surface of the nail portion of the utility nail tip and configured for increasing a contacting surface area of the rough affixing surface to pick up the bonding agent applied between the underside contact surface of the nail portion of the utility nail tip and the top surface of the natural nail of the user, while reducing a thickness of the bonding agent applied between the underside contact surface of the nail portion of the utility nail tip and the top surface of the natural nail of the user, wherein the rough affixing surface is a coarse surface.
Huynh discloses an artificial nail having a nail portion with an underside contact surface (surface shown in Figure 5) configure to be bonded to a natural nail (Refer to Abstract). Huynh teaches at least a portion of the underside defines a rough affixing surface (115) which is a course surface which facilitates secure adhesion of the artificial nail to the natural nail (Refer to paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0018, 0034 and 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility nail tip of Mullin to provide a rough affixing surface on at least a portion of the underside contact surface, where the rough affixing surface is a course surface as taught by Huynh to ensure and facilitate secure adhesion of the artificial nail to the natural nail.
The claimed phrase “the rough affixed surface is filed to form the coarse surface” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the coarse surface/rough affixing surface is formed via a filing (grinding/abrading) process. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. Although Huynh teaches the coarse surface is formed via a molding process, the same or similar structure is obtained as the rough surface provides raised areas and recessed which provide a roughened or coarse side.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mullin and Huynh disclose the utility nail tip of claim 2 above, Mullin further discloses the utility portion has a predetermined shape and size extended from a distal edge of the nail portion to form a utility tool having a specific function after the nail portion is securely attached to the natural nail of the user (Refer to Figures 14A-15D where the utility portion occupies at least one position which is extended beyond the distal edge of the nail portion and each provides a predetermined shape and size and performs a specific function).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mullin and Huynh disclose the utility nail tip of claim 2 above, Mullin further discloses a thickness of the nail portion is determined according to features and conditions of the natural nail of the user for having sufficient strength to securely attached on the top surface of the natural nail of the user (the nail portion is designed with a thickness and has sufficient strength to securely attach to the top surface of a natural nail), and the thickness of the utility portion is determined according to the specific function to be performed for having sufficient stiffness and strength to perform the specific function (the utility portion is intended to be used and therefore provides sufficient stiffness and strength to perform it’s intended function).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, the combination of Mullin and Huynh disclose the utility nail tip of claims 2 and 11 above, Mullin further discloses the nail portion is an artificial nail tip having an outer attaching surface (upper surface with 42, 46, 64, Refer to Figures 14A-14C and 15D) opposing the underside contacting surface, and that the utility portion is an independent element having an attaching portion (portion 43, corresponding snap portion of 48, and portion of 62 coupled to 64) which has an inner attaching surface sized, shaped and configured to be adhered to outer attaching surface of the nail portion to form the utility nail tip (Refer to Figures 14A-14C and 15D).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mullin and Huynh as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Hokama (US 4554935).
Regarding claim 9 and 13, the combination of Mullin and Huynh disclose the utility nail tip of claims 7 and 11 above; however, the combination does not disclose a thickness of the utility portion/base part of the utility portion is thicker than a thickness of the nail portion/distal edge of the nail portion, to form a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user. Hokama discloses an artificial nail having a nail portion with an underside (12) which is intended to be adhered to the natural nail and a tip portion (portion extending distally from 25,26) where the base part of the tip (at/adjacent 25) is thicker than the distal edge of the nail portion as well as other portions of the nail portion and forms a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user, as best shown in Figures 1 and 2. Hokama explains that the curved step edge (25) conforms to the forward/distal edge (19) of the natural nail (17) and positions that edge, where this configuration reinforces the bond between the natural nail and artificial nail and reduces separation of the free edge of the natural nail from the artificial nail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the utility nail tip of the combination of Mullin and Huynh such that the thickness of the utility portion, particularly a base part thereof, be thicker than the nail portion, particularly a distal edge thereof, to form a reinforcing step edge having a curvature and configuration adapted for resting on a free edge of the natural nail of the user as taught by Hokama in order to reinforce the bond between the artificial nail and natural nail and prevent separation thereof near the distal edge of the natural nail.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant asserts the recitation “the nail portion being made of a material adapted for attaching on the top surface of the natural nail” is clear because the disclosure provides examples of suitable materials.
Response: It is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims (Refer to MPEP 2111.01 II). Additionally, the disclosure providing some examples does not mean the metes and bounds are clearly defined. Countless materials exists and the claim and disclosure do not provide information or criteria for determining which materials would be considered suitable and which would not. There is no standard for determining if material A would be suitable but material B would be unsuitable. One person may interpret the aforementioned limitation as requiring any material that can be secured to a fingernail could be used, while others may be more restrictive in their interpretation.
Argument 2: The requirement that the utility portion perform a specific function as a tool is clear because one skilled in the art would be aided by the specification in understanding that the structure of the claimed tool feature can be readily determined based on the examples given which include musical picks, painting knives, etc. Applicant cites paragraph 0065 and quotes “the utility portion 20 has a triangular or teardrop-shaped with a sharper rounder tip 22’ for striking strings for a smoother sound or a precision playing”.
Response: It is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims (Refer to MPEP 2111.01 II). The specific example cited reads on standard almond/tapered shaped nails (Refer to US 20240341444, US 11793289, US 11330888, US 20200405035) which demonstrates the language is indefinite because the structure may be provided by a conventional artificial nail without specific reference to a tool. It is noted that these references are applicable to claim 1 under 35 USC 102, as they all provide a nail portion having an underside contact surface configured to fit a top surface of a natural nail and a utility portion (triangular tip) integrally extending from the nail portion where the utility portion is capable of performing various specific functions such as strumming strings of an instrument, scratching skin or a scratch-off lottery ticket, piercing a foil seal, lifting tabs on cans, etc.
Argument 3: As to the thickness of the utility portion, given a particular tool embodiment (e.g. musical pick) the skilled person would know the metes and bounds of the claim as being suitable thickness for it to function as a tool. The specification gives examples of considerations in determining thickness in paragraphs 0067 and 0069.
Response: The thicknesses of the nail portion and utility portion are claimed as being dependent on the features and conditions of the natural nail and function of the utility portion, respectively, which does not clearly define the metes and bounds because there are countless factors that must be considered and change based on the unique conditions and features of a natural nail and the unique function of the utility portion depending on the embodiment. Thickness is a length measurement and should be described by appropriate standard units of measure (e.g. millimeters or inches).
Argument 4: With regard to claim 18, Applicant argues amending the claim to recite a methos of using the device of claim 1 does not require restriction and does not cause a search burden.
Response: Restriction between a product and method of use is deemed proper if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product can be used in a materially different method; for example, the product could be attached to a glove, an end effector, a robotic arm, a driven holder, etc. and the attachment mechanism used could be different (e.g. suction cups, adhesive tape, magnetic, etc.). As explained in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on May 28, 2025, if such method claims had been originally presented, they would have been restricted. It was explained to Applicant that if claims 18-20 were amended to be method claims, the claims would be subject to election by original presentation and not be treated on the merits. As indicated above, claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Argument 5: The claims require the utility portion be integrally extended from the nail portion”, where the disclosure described the term integrally as being molded together or by permanent adhesion (See paragraph 0059). Mullin’s tools are not integral instead, they are removably attached, pivotally attached, extendable, retractable, etc.
Response: Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and under broadest reasonable interpretation, claim words must be given their plain meaning. It is also improper to import claim limitations from the specification. The claims do not require the utility portion be molded with the nail portion or describe the artificial nail as a monolithic structure. Additionally, the claims do not require the utility portion and nail portion be permanently adhered to one another. It is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not describe the adhesive connection as permanent (Refer to citations below). Instead, the claim requires “a utility portion, integrally extended from the nail portion”. The term integrally is understood to include meanings such as incorporated, combined, contained within something, etc. Elements which are joined together to form a device/unit are integrated and form an integral structure. Thus, the device of Mullins provides a utility portion which is integral with the nail portion. If Applicant does not wish for the claims to be interpreted in this manner, then the claims must be amended to recite language which limits the scope to the particular interpretation desired (e.g. monolithic, molded to form a unitary structure, etc.).
Applicant’s disclosure states:
“In one embodiment, the nail portion is an artificial nail tip having an outer attaching surface opposing the underside contacting surface, and that the utility portion is an independent element having an attaching portion which has an inner attaching surface sized, shaped and configured to be adhered to outer attaching surface of the nail portion to form an integral utility nail tip.” (Refer to paragraph 0024)
“The utility portion 20 and the nail portion 10 of the utility nail tip 1 can be made integrally in one piece as shown in FIG. 2 to FIG. 6, or alternatively made by integrally securing a nail portion element 10 and a utility portion element 20 together to form the utility nail tip 1 as shown in FIG. 7.” (Refer to paragraph 0058)
“Alternatively, the nail portion 10 and the utility portion 20 can be made independently, which are integrally combined by, for example, adhering the utility portion 20 on the nail portion 10 by the manufacturer during” (Refer to paragraph 0059).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Duong (US 20200405035) and Chang (US 6394100) demonstrates it is known to provide a roughed surface on a portion of an artificial nail being adhered to a natural nail, where the roughed surface can be made by grinding (filing) or molding. Chen (US 20210315360), Ma (US 20190274408) and Copola et al. (US 8960200) demonstrate it is conventional to apply nail tips by selecting a tip, applying a bonding agent thereto, adhering it by pressing it onto the natural nail, etc.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799