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 Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 7 and withdraws the claim objection of record.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 3,138,865 A) in view of Depaz (US 2018/0161999 A1), Ortiz (US 5,557,851 A), and Daskal et al. (US 2005/0188548 A1), hereafter known as Daskal.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches a method of making a shaving razor (Meyer, Fig. 1-7), comprising: providing a blade platform (Meyer, Fig. 1 and 5-7, 1) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Meyer, Fig. 1, 4); providing a housing cover (Meyer, Fig. 1, 3) with a top surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) below) configured to be secured to the blade platform (Meyer, Col. 2, lines 27-34).
Meyer does not teach a housing cover removably secured to the blade platform and forming a first textured surface including a first pattern of elements on a front portion of the housing cover by laser ablating, the first pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the housing cover.
Depaz teaches a shaving razor (Depaz, Fig. 1-13) comprising a blade platform (Depaz, Fig. 1, 150) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Depaz, Fig. 1, 120 and 140), and a housing cover (Depaz, Fig. 1, 110) configured to be removably secured to the blade platform (Depaz, P. 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer such that the housing cover was removable as taught by Depaz as doing so allow for the blades to be replaced.
Ortiz teaches a blade platform (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 20) for receiving one or more blades (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 40 and 50) and a housing cover (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 60) secured to the blade platform, wherein the housing cover features a textured surface including a pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) while Meyer teaches a blade platform featuring a textured surface on a front and rear portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) below) that provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 41-44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer in view of the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz such as to feature a textured surface as taught by Ortiz and to have these surfaces featured on both a front and rear portion as further taught by Meyer as this provides a surface on either portion to provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin and as evidenced by Daskal it is known for an element of a pattern to have a width between 25 and 50 micrometers and a depth between 10 and 25 micrometers (Daskal, P. 0122), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) comprises one of a plurality of parallel grooves (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62).
As Meyer teaches a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9, Col. 1, lines 52-64) which serve a similar function of skin tightening and hair-raising as the plurality of parallel grooves taught by Ortiz and, as such, the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and third pattern of elements to each comprise one of a first plurality of grooves.
Regarding claim 4, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising forming a second textured surface (Meyer, Fig. 1, 8) including a second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) on a front portion of the blade platform (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above).
Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel as modified does not teach a second textured surface including a second pattern of element on a front portion of the blade platform by laser ablating and the second pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the blade platform.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel to further include laser ablating patterns of elements on the blade platform as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin and as evidenced by Daskal it is known for an element of a pattern to have a width between 25 and 50 micrometers and a depth between 10 and 25 micrometers (Daskal, P. 0122), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 5, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) comprises one of a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising forming a third textured surface (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) including a third pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) on a rear portion of the housing cover (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above).
Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel as modified does not teach a third textured surface including a third pattern of element on a rear portion of the blade platform by laser ablating and the third pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of housing cover.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin and as evidenced by Daskal it is known for an element of a pattern to have a width between 25 and 50 micrometers and a depth between 10 and 25 micrometers (Daskal, P. 0122), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 8, Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskel teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the first pattern of elements and the third pattern of elements comprise one of a plurality of parallel grooves (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62).
As Meyer teaches a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9, Col. 1, lines 52-64) which serve a similar function of skin tightening and hair-raising as the plurality of parallel grooves taught by Ortiz and, as such, the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and third pattern of elements to each comprise one of a first plurality of grooves.
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 3,138,865 A) in view of Depaz (US 2018/0161999 A1) and Daskal (US 2005/0188548 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Meyer teaches a method of making a shaving razor (Meyer, Fig. 1-7), comprising:
providing a blade platform (Meyer, Fig. 1 and 5-7, 1) with a top surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Meyer, Fig. 1, 4);
providing a housing cover (Meyer, Fig. 1, 3) configured to be secured to the blade platform (Meyer, Col. 2, lines 27-34); and
forming a second textured surface (Meyer, Fig. 1, 8) including a second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) on a front portion of the blade platform (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) on a top surface of the blade platform.
Meyer does not teach a housing cover removably secured to the blade platform and forming a second textured surface including a second pattern of elements on a front portion of the blade platform by laser ablating, the second pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the blade platform.
Depaz teaches a shaving razor (Depaz, Fig. 1-13) comprising a blade platform (Depaz, Fig. 1, 150) configured to receive one or more shaving blades (Depaz, Fig. 1, 120 and 140), and a housing cover (Depaz, Fig. 1, 110) configured to be removably secured to the blade platform (Depaz, P. 0053).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer such that the housing cover were removable as taught by Depaz as doing so allow for the blades to be replaced.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin and as evidenced by Daskal it is known for an element of a pattern to have a width between 25 and 50 micrometers and a depth between 10 and 25 micrometers (Daskal, P. 0122), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 11, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the second pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) comprises one of a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 13, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 11.
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not teach wherein the first plurality of parallel grooves are spaced apart by a distance of 20 µm to 100 µm.
While Meyer does not specifically teach the spacing between the first plurality of parallel grooves it does show that such parallel grooves are known to be spaced in the art. Additionally, the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed range and discloses in the instant specification that the range is an example for such a spacing (Pg. 3, lines 1-2). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide spacing between each groove in such a plurality of parallel grooves as to allow for tightening of the skin during shaving and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the plurality of parallel grooves such that they were spaced apart by any distance deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 14, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising forming a fourth textured surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) including a fourth pattern of elements (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9) on a rear portion of the blade platform (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above).
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal as modified does not teach forming a fourth textured surface including a fourth pattern of elements on a rear portion of the blade platform by laser ablating, the fourth pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the blade platform.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin and as evidenced by Daskal it is known for an element of a pattern to have a width between 25 and 50 micrometers and a depth between 10 and 25 micrometers (Daskal, P. 0122), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 15, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the second pattern of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) and the fourth pattern of elements (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) above) comprise one of a first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 52-64)
Regarding claim 17, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 15.
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal does not teach wherein the first plurality of parallel grooves are spaced apart by a distance of 20 µm to 100 µm.
While Meyer does not specifically teach the spacing between the first plurality of parallel grooves it does show that such parallel grooves are known to be spaced in the art. Additionally, the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed range and discloses in the instant specification that the range is an example for such a spacing (Pg. 3, lines 1-2). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide spacing between each groove in such a plurality of parallel grooves as to allow for tightening of the skin during shaving and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the plurality of parallel grooves such that they were spaced apart by any distance deemed desirable.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 3,138,865 A) in view of Depaz (US 2018/0161999 A1) and Daskal (US 2005/0188548 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ortiz (US 5,557,851 A).
Regarding claim 18, Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal teaches the method of claim 14.
Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal as modified does not teach further comprising: forming a first textured surface including a first pattern of elements on a front portion of the housing cover by laser ablating the front portion of the housing cover, the first pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the housing cover; and forming a third textured surface including a third pattern of elements on a rear portion of the housing cover by laser ablating the rear portion of the housing cover, the third pattern of elements having a depth of 10 µm to 100 µm and a width of 20 µm to 100 µm at a top surface of the housing cover.
Ortiz teaches a blade platform (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 20) for receiving one or more blades (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 40 and 50) and a housing cover (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 60) secured to the blade platform, wherein the housing cover features a textured surface including a pattern of elements (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62) while Meyer teaches a blade platform featuring a textured surface on a front and rear portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Meyer) below) that provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving (Meyer, Col. 1, lines 41-44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the housing cover taught by Meyer in view of the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz such as to feature a textured surface as taught by Ortiz and to have these surfaces featured on both a front and rear portion as further taught by Meyer as this provides a surface on either portion to provide skin-tightening and a hair-raising effect during shaving.
Daskal teaches a method of using a laser to ablate a surface (Daskal, P. 0122-0123) with a pattern of elements (Daskal, P. 0076). Laser ablating allows for fine details to be cut into a surface (Daskal, P. 0076 and 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the method taught by Meyer in view of Depaz and Daskal to include laser ablating patterns of elements as taught by Daskal as to allow fine detailed elements to be cut into the skin contacting surfaces.
While the combination of Meyer in view of Depaz, Ortiz and Daskal does not specifically teach a depth or a width for the pattern of elements the applicant does not disclose a nexus of criticality for the claimed ranges. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a pattern with a width and depth as to avoid pulling hair during shaving while also tightening the skin and as evidenced by Daskal it is known for an element of a pattern to have a width between 25 and 50 micrometers and a depth between 10 and 25 micrometers (Daskal, P. 0122), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the patterns of elements such that they were any width or depth deemed desirable.
Regarding claim 19, Meyer in view of Depaz, Daskal, and Ortiz teaches method of claim 18, wherein the first pattern of elements and the third pattern of elements each comprise one of a plurality of parallel grooves (Ortiz, Fig. 1, 62).
As Meyer teaches the first plurality of parallel grooves (Meyer, Fig. 2, 9, Col. 1, lines 52-64) which serve a similar function of skin tightening and hair-raising as the plurality of parallel grooves taught by Ortiz and, as such, the combination of the teachings of Meyer and Ortiz would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and third pattern of elements to each comprise one of a first plurality of grooves.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant asserts claim 7 has been amended such that it overcomes the claim objection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the objection of record.
The Applicant asserts that the prior art of Daskal is non-analogous art. The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Daskal (US 2005/0188548 A1) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Daskal deals with the process of laser ablating a blade with a pattern, while the blade taught by
“Therefore, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art of the invention that although reference is made to "surgical blades" throughout these discussions, numerous other types of cutting devices can be fabricated, including, for example, medical razors, lancets, hypodermic needles, sample collection cannula and other medical sharps. Additionally, the blades manufactured according to the system and method of the present invention can be used as blades in other, non-medical uses, including, for example, shaving and laboratory uses (i.e., tissue sampling). Additionally, although reference is made throughout the discussions below to ophthalmic use, numerous other types of medical uses include, but are not limited to, eye, heart, ear, brain, cosmetic and reconstructive surgeries.”
Emphasis on shaving added by the Examiner. As such, it would have been likely for a person of ordinary skill in the razor art to turn to the art of laser ablating of cutting blades for such a teaching. Therefore, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The Applicant asserts that as the prior art of record does not specifically teach the claimed range for the depth and width for the pattern of elements that it would not have been obvious to modify the prior art such that the patterns were “any width or depth deemed desirable”. The Examiner disagrees. In P. 0122 of Daskal it states that the “dimension of the circular ablated regions ranges from 25-50 microns in diameter, and again is dependent upon the manufacturer and type of laser used. The depth of the circular ablated regions ranges from 10-25 microns”. This paragraph is cited specifically in the prior art rejection of record of claims 1, 10 and 18. Claims 1, 4, 10, 14, and 18 now point specifically to this evidence to promote clarity of record. While it is not relied on to show that the particular range for the depth and width are known in the art, it is evidence that such ranges would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the manufacturer of a laser and the type of laser when deciding to best to dimension such plurality of elements and thus would have considered “any width or depth deemed desirable” at the time. Therefore, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the prior art rejection of record for claims 1, 10 and 18 lack “motivation for laser ablation and specific ranges” and is thus allowable. The Examiner disagrees; the prior art rejection clearly shows that Daskal is analogous art (as explained above in Para. 10) and that the prior art of record does show that a POSITA would have considered any desirable range for the depth and width of the plurality of elements. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the prior art rejections of record for claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 13-15, 17 and 19 are improper as the prior art of record does not teach the specific method of formation and the precise control over dimensions to achieve the desired functional effect. The Examiner disagrees, Daskal clearly teaches the specific method of formation and includes teaches for precise control over dimensions. Further, the applicant does not claim a desired functional effect. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights