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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on March 16, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 21, and 26 been amended. Claims 27-29 have been added. Claims 2, 11-12, and 14-19 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-10, 13 and 20-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 4, 6-10, 21, and 26 filed on March 16, 2026.
The amendments to claim 8 has addressed the objections previously submitted, and as such the claim objections set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Xi (US PG Pub No. 20130276252). The claims now require consideration of at least one cleaning projection being made of stainless steel.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 9 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which applied Xi (US PG Pub No. 20130276252) in view of Alzahrani (US PG Pub No. 20170116665).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim objections: The examiner agrees the amended claim 8 addresses the objectionable matter. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Independent claim 1: The examiner agrees with the applicant’s remarks on pages 5-7 that the amendment overcomes the rejection and that Xi fails to anticipate all the limitations of claim 1 as filed 03/16/2026. Please see the new rejection set forth within action wherein Jimenez et al. (US PG Pub No. 20110152909) is applied as a teaching reference to address the deficiencies of Xi.
Independent claim 9: The examiner has fully considered the applicant’s remarks on page 8. First, the amendment has overcome the rejection, as claim now requires the limitation of at least one “stainless steel” tongue cleaning projection. Regarding flexibility, a nub made of stainless steel does not preclude it from being considered flexible, as flexibility would be a relative term. While not disclosed as a possible material within Xi’s disclosure, Xi also fails to disclose that a metal could not be used as an alternative to the materials listed. As the applicant quoted, the hardness/shore property is preferably within a certain range, but not necessitated. Materials outside of that preferred range could potentially also be used. The arguments are not considered persuasive.
Newly added Claim 27: In examination of the claim, the examiner has provided a rejection wherein the claim is anticipated by Xi. Please see the rejection set forth in the present action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification recites in paragraph [0109] that “The tongue cleaning blades of FIGs. 4A-5D can have a stiffness greater than a stiffness of the bristles…” However, the claim is written that the stiffness of the nubs may be greater than the cleaning blades. The specification fails to provide support for the claimed limitation and as such the claims are considered to contain new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xi (US PG Pub No. 20130276252).
In regards to claim 27, Xi discloses
a tongue cleaning device comprising:
a base (head 120, fig. 1-6) having length extending along a longitudinal axis and a width extending along a transverse axis (fig. 1/2 – ann. 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
870
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of bristles (bristle tufts 131, fig. 1-2, 4) extending non-parallel from a first side of the base (fig. 1/2 - ann. 1);
a first cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) extending non-parallel from a second side of the base, the second side opposite the first side, the first cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) having a first width (see fig. 4 – ann. 1) extending along the transverse axis;
a second cleaning blade (arcuate ridge 161A, fig. 2, 4) extending non-parallel from the second side of the base,
the second cleaning blade (arcuate ridge 161A, fig. 2, 4) having a second width extending along the transverse axis; and
a third cleaning blade (arcuate ridge 161B, fig. 2, 4) extending non-parallel from the second side of the base, the third cleaning blade (arcuate ridge 161B, fig. 2, 4) having a third width extending along the transverse axis;
wherein the first cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) and the third cleaning blade (arcuate ridge 161B, fig. 2, 4) are disposed at a distal portion of the base (fig. 4 – ann. 1);
wherein the second cleaning blade (arcuate ridge 161A, fig. 2, 4) is disposed at a proximal portion of the base (fig. 4 – ann. 1), the proximal portion opposite the distal portion;
wherein the first width is greater than the third width (see fig. 4 – ann. 1); and
wherein the third width is greater than the second width (see fig. 4 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
450
1202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 20-23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Xi (US PG Pub No. 20130276252) in view of Jimenez et al. (US PG Pub No. 20110152909).
In regards to claim 1, Xi discloses
a tongue cleaning device (toothbrush 100, fig. 1-6) comprising:
a base (head 120, fig. 1-6);
a plurality of bristles (bristle tufts 131, fig. 1-2, 4) extending non-parallel from a first side of the base (fig. 1/2 - ann. 1);
a first cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) having a first length extending non-parallel from a second side of the base, (fig. 1/2 - ann. 1) the second side opposite the first side; and
PNG
media_image3.png
759
1317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
comprising a plurality of bumps (nubs 201, fig. 2, 4) disposed on the second side, each bump of the plurality of bumps having a second length (the height of the bumps) extending non-parallel from the second side of the base.
Xi fails to explicitly disclose that the first length longer than the second length.
However, Jimenez, which is also a toothbrush with bumps and cleaning blades, teaches the length (height) of the cleaning blades being longer than the length of the bumps (see fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
744
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Xi and Jimenez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of toothbrushes with bristles, bumps/nubs, and scraping/cleaning blades.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toothbrush of Xi and provide bumps shorter in length than the cleaning blades.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such, to change the length of the cleaning blades relative to the bumps length would be a design choice and within the abilities of a skilled artisan.
In regards to claim 3, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising a handle (handle 110, fig. 1-4), the base (head 120, fig. 1-6) disposed at a distal end (see fig. 1-4) of the handle (handle 110, fig. 1-4).
In regards to claim 8, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 1, further comprising a second tongue cleaning blade (protuberance 168, fig. 2, 4) on the second side, the second tongue cleaning blade (protuberance 168, fig. 2, 4) spaced apart (see fig. 4) from the first tongue cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4).
In regards to claim 20, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 8, further comprising a third tongue cleaning blade (ridge 202, fig. 2, 4) on the second side, the third tongue cleaning blade (ridge 202, fig. 2, 4) spaced apart (see fig. 4) from the second tongue cleaning blade (protuberance 168, fig. 2, 4).
In regards to claim 21, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 20, wherein the first cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) has a first concave surface, the second tongue cleaning blade (protuberance 168, fig. 2, 4) has a second concave surface, and the third tongue cleaning blade has a third concave surface (see fig. 4 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
675
1272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 22, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 21, wherein the first concave surface and the third concave surface face each other (see fig. 4 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
685
1272
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 23, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of bristles (bristle tufts 131, fig. 1-2, 4) comprises a first bristle region and a second bristle region (see fig. 1 – ann. 1), wherein the first bristle region and the second bristle region are separated by a gap (see fig. 1 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
564
1189
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 28, Xi discloses
the tongue cleaning device of Claim 27, further comprising a plurality of bumps extending non-parallel from the second side of the base. Xi fails to disclose each cleaning blade extends beyond at least one bump.
Xi fails to explicitly disclose that the first length longer than the second length.
However, Jimenez, which is also a toothbrush with bumps and cleaning blades, teaches the length (height) of the cleaning blades being longer than the length of the bumps (see fig. 7), extending down beyond the bump.
PNG
media_image4.png
528
744
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Xi and Jimenez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of toothbrushes with bristles, bumps/nubs, and scraping/cleaning blades.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toothbrush of Xi and provide bumps shorter in length than the cleaning blades, resulting tin the cleaning blades extending beyond bumps towards the brush.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such, to change the length of the cleaning blades relative to the bumps length would be a design choice and within the abilities of a skilled artisan.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi as modified by Jiminez in view of Alzahrani (US PG Pub No. 20170116665).
In regards to claim 4, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 1, but fails to disclose that one of the base (head 120, fig. 1-6) and the first cleaning blade “comprises stainless steel.”
Alzahrani discloses a tongue cleaner with a base/head region made of stainless steel:
[0094] FIG. 13 describes a sample interchangeable head assembly 1300 for aiding in tongue cleaning according to exemplary aspects of the present disclosure. Interchangeable head assembly includes tongue cleaner 1302 that can be inserted and removed from the electronic hygiene monitoring device. Tongue cleaner 1302 may include a series of scrapers 1304 used to remove bacteria and soft plaque in a comfortable and easy way. Tongue cleaner 1302 may be made of any material that is impervious to bacteria such as stainless steel or plastic. Tongue cleaner 1302 may also include a series of bristle assemblies (not shown) designed to further clean the soft tissue of the tongue in addition to the scrapers 1304.
Xi and Alzahrani are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of tongue cleaners.
There, it would have been obvious before to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select stainless steel as a material for the base (head) of the tongue cleaner, in order to prevent the build up bacteria ([0094]), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, pursuant MPEP 2144.07
In regards to claim 5, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 4, wherein the base (head 120, fig. 1-6) comprises stainless steel (as modified in view of Alzahrani [0094]).
In regards to claim 6, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 5,
wherein the cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) comprises a polymer material (hard plastics; [0008], [0037]).
[0008] In one embodiment, the invention can be an oral care implement comprising: a handle; a head connected to the handle; a plurality of tooth cleaning elements extending from a front surface of the head; the head formed by a plurality of spaced-apart segments formed of a rigid material… and the at least one peripheral segment and the central segment comprising at least one protuberance formed of the rigid material that extends through the elastomeric soft tissue cleanser so that a portion of the rigid material of the at least one protuberance is exposed.
[0037] … The plurality of segments 140-145 are constructed of a rigid material. In one embodiment, the plurality of segments 140-145 are formed of a hard plastic. Suitable hard plastics include, without limitation, polypropylene. In certain embodiments, the plurality of the segments 140-145 are formed of the same rigid material as the main structural component of the handle 110.
9, 11, 13 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi in view of Alzahrani (US PG Pub No. 20170116665) and Schafer (US PG Pub No. 20110289699).
In regards to claim 9, Xi discloses
a tongue cleaning device (toothbrush 100, fig. 1-6) comprising:
a base (head 120, fig. 1-6); and
at least one tongue cleaning projection extending from the base (head 120, fig. 1-6), the at least one tongue cleaning projection comprises at least one of a cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) and a plurality of bumps (nubs 201, fig. 2, 4).
However, Xi fails to explicitly disclose a base formed of “stainless steel.”Alzahrani discloses a tongue cleaner with a base/head region made of stainless steel:
[0094] FIG. 13 describes a sample interchangeable head assembly 1300 for aiding in tongue cleaning according to exemplary aspects of the present disclosure. Interchangeable head assembly includes tongue cleaner 1302 that can be inserted and removed from the electronic hygiene monitoring device. Tongue cleaner 1302 may include a series of scrapers 1304 used to remove bacteria and soft plaque in a comfortable and easy way. Tongue cleaner 1302 may be made of any material that is impervious to bacteria such as stainless steel or plastic. Tongue cleaner 1302 may also include a series of bristle assemblies (not shown) designed to further clean the soft tissue of the tongue in addition to the scrapers 1304.
Xi and Alzahrani are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of tongue cleaners.
There, it would have been obvious before to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select stainless steel as a material for the base (head) of the tongue cleaner, in order to prevent the build up bacteria ([0094]), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, pursuant MPEP 2144.07
Xi fails to explicitly disclose at least one tongue cleaning projection being “stainless steel.”
However, Schafer, teaches a head portion for a mouth cleaning device comprising cleaning elements for cleaning teeth that recognizes the advantages of using different materials:
[0003]: … There are many different types and designs of tongue cleaners made from plastic, metal or other materials…
[0038] In an embodiment, the tongue cleaning electrode includes a material selected from a group consisting of metal, in particular noble metal, for example, silver, stainless steel, an electrically conductive plastic or a combination thereof…
[0039] … by punching a sheet of metal foil, the nubs need not necessarily be manufactured of a single piece, but could for example be arranged as a set of individual balls, which are separated from each other.
Xi and Schafer are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of tongue cleaners.
There, it would have been obvious before to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select stainless steel as a material for the cleaning protrusions of the tongue cleaner, in order to prevent the build up bacteria, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, pursuant MPEP 2144.07
In regards to claim 10, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 9, wherein the at least one stainless steel (as modified in view of Schafer) tongue cleaning projection comprises the cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) and the plurality of bumps (nubs 201, fig. 2, 4).
In regards to claim 13, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 10, wherein the cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) and the plurality of bumps (nubs 201, fig. 2, 4) are disposed on a first side of the base (fig. 1/2 - ann. 2) and
a plurality of bristles (bristle tufts 131, fig. 1-2, 4) extend from a second side of the base (fig. 1/2 - ann. 2) opposite the first side.
PNG
media_image8.png
759
1317
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 24, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 10, further comprising an additional cleaning blade (protuberance 168, fig. 2, 4).
In regards to claim 25, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 13, wherein the plurality of bristles (bristle tufts 131, fig. 1-2, 4) includes a first bristle region, a second bristle region, a third bristle region, and a fourth bristle region (see fig. 1 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image9.png
564
1245
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 26, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 25, wherein each individual bristle region is separated from each other by gaps (see fig. 1 – ann. 2).
Claims 7 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi as modified by Jiminez in view of Schaefer (US PG Pub No. 20110289707).
In regards to claim 7, Xi discloses
the tongue cleaning device of claim 2, but fails to specifically disclose that the plurality of bumps (nubs 201, fig. 2, 4) comprises a first material, the first cleaning blade comprises a second material, the first material having a greater stiffness than the second material.
Schaefer discloses a tongue cleaning device with bumps made of stainless for the purpose of tongue cleaning:
[0003] Halitosis or most commonly bad breath is the result of contamination of the tongue by mostly anaerobic bacteria. When left on the tongue the anaerobic respiration of those bacteria can yield a plurality of bad smells. In order to fight malodour from the tongue it is necessary to remove the bacteria from the tongue…In order to provide a better cleaning, tongue cleaners or tongue scrapers are known for collecting and removing the bacterial coating of the tongue… There are many different types and designs of tongue cleaners made from plastic, metal or other materials…
[0039] In a further embodiment, the tongue cleaning electrode is realized as a laminar electrode partly covered by a plurality of electrically isolating cleaning protrusions… In an embodiment, the tongue cleaning electrode comprises a material selected from a group consisting of metal, in particular noble metal, for example, silver, stainless steel, an electrically conductive plastic or a combination thereof.
[0063] The seventh and eight embodiment of a tongue cleaning device as proposed shown in FIGS. 9 to 11 make use of a concept where the tongue cleaning electrode 22 is structured to have cleaning protrusions in the form of nubs 21. Again, the tongue cleaning electrode 22 fulfills a double functionality, namely to provide the electrode surface for establishing an electric contact with the user's tongue during operation and to provide a mechanical tongue cleaning section by having cleaning protrusions formed from the electrode material itself for mechanical scrubbing action. In a different embodiment, the nubs may have been attached to the tongue cleaning electrode, for example, by applying droplets of a liquid metal that solidifies and connects with the material of the tongue cleaning electrode.
Xi and Schaefer are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of tongue cleaners.
There, it would have been obvious before to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select materials from a group of plastics and metals, some being stiffer than others (i.e. one as a plastic and the other a flexible polymer), as all are appropriate for preventing the accumulation of bacteria, assisting in addressing Halitosis as a result of contamination of the tongue by mostly anaerobic bacteria, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, pursuant MPEP 2144.07
In regards to claim 29, Xi as modified discloses
the tongue cleaning device of Claim 28, but fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of bumps (nubs 201, fig. 2, 4) comprises a first material, the first cleaning blade (protuberance 167, fig. 2, 4) comprises a second material, the first material having a greater stiffness than the second material.
Schaefer discloses a tongue cleaning device with bumps made of stainless for the purpose of tongue cleaning:
[0003] Halitosis or most commonly bad breath is the result of contamination of the tongue by mostly anaerobic bacteria. When left on the tongue the anaerobic respiration of those bacteria can yield a plurality of bad smells. In order to fight malodour from the tongue it is necessary to remove the bacteria from the tongue…In order to provide a better cleaning, tongue cleaners or tongue scrapers are known for collecting and removing the bacterial coating of the tongue… There are many different types and designs of tongue cleaners made from plastic, metal or other materials…
[0039] In a further embodiment, the tongue cleaning electrode is realized as a laminar electrode partly covered by a plurality of electrically isolating cleaning protrusions… In an embodiment, the tongue cleaning electrode comprises a material selected from a group consisting of metal, in particular noble metal, for example, silver, stainless steel, an electrically conductive plastic or a combination thereof.
[0063] The seventh and eight embodiment of a tongue cleaning device as proposed shown in FIGS. 9 to 11 make use of a concept where the tongue cleaning electrode 22 is structured to have cleaning protrusions in the form of nubs 21. Again, the tongue cleaning electrode 22 fulfills a double functionality, namely to provide the electrode surface for establishing an electric contact with the user's tongue during operation and to provide a mechanical tongue cleaning section by having cleaning protrusions formed from the electrode material itself for mechanical scrubbing action. In a different embodiment, the nubs may have been attached to the tongue cleaning electrode, for example, by applying droplets of a liquid metal that solidifies and connects with the material of the tongue cleaning electrode.
Xi and Schaefer are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of tongue cleaners.
There, it would have been obvious before to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select materials from a group of plastics and metals, some being stiffer than others (i.e. one as a plastic and the other a flexible polymer), as all are appropriate for preventing the accumulation of bacteria, assisting in addressing Halitosis as a result of contamination of the tongue by mostly anaerobic bacteria, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, pursuant MPEP 2144.07
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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights