DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 4 and 12 were cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 was filed after the filing date of the application on 10/17/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-16 of copending Application No. 17966010 in view of Scholin (US 3702026).
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches a cutting edge along at least a portion of an inner perimeter of the aperture, wherein the cutting edges have an asymmetric cross-sectional shape with a first face, a second face opposed to the first face and a cutting edge at the intersection of the first face and the second face, wherein:
the first face comprises a first surface, and
the second face comprises a primary bevel, a secondary bevel and a tertiary bevel, with e the primary bevel extending from the cutting edge to the secondary bevel,
the secondary bevel extending from the primary bevel to the tertiary bevel,
a first intersecting line connecting the primary bevel and the sec- ondary bevel, and
a second intersecting line connecting the secondary bevel and the tertiary bevel,
a first wedge angle theta 1 between the first surface and the primary bevel,
a second wedge angle theta 2 between the first surface and the secondary bevel, and
a third wedge angle theta 3 between the first surface and the tertiary bevel, wherein theta 1 > theta 2 and/or theta 2 < theta 3 (see claim 1),
the primary bevel has a length d1 being the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary ex-tension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the first intersecting line from 0.1 to 7 pm, preferably from 0.5 to 5 um, more preferably 1 to 3 um.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 17966010 fails to teach a cutting element comprising a substrate with at least one aperture.
Scholin teaches a cutting element comprising a substrate with at least one aperture (17, see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of copending Application No. 17966010 to add the cutting edge on the cutter of Scholin, in order to provide a better cutting edge.
Regarding claim 2, claim 8 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the substrate has a thickness of 20 to 1000 um, preferably 30 to 500 um, and more preferably 50 to 300 um (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 3, claim 5 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the substrate comprises a first material or comprises a first material and a second material adjacent to the first material.
Regarding claim 5, claim 7 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the second material comprises a material selected from the group consisting of:
oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides, preferably aluminum nitride, chromium nitride, titanium nitride, titanium carbon nitride, tita-nium aluminum nitride, cubic boron nitride,
boron aluminum magnesium,
carbon, preferably diamond, nano-crystalline diamond, diamond like carbon (DLC) like tetrahedral amorphous carbon, and
combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 6, claim 8 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the second material fulfills at least one of the following properties:
a thickness of 0.15 to 20 um, preferably 2 to 15 um and more preferably 3 to 12 um,
a modulus of elasticity of less than 1200 GPa, preferably less than 900 GPa, more preferably less than 750 GPa, even more preferably 500 GPa,
a transverse rupture stress oo of at least 1 GPa, preferably at least 2.5 GPa, more preferably at least 5 GPa,
a hardness of at least 20 GPa.
Regarding claim 7, claim 9 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the material of the second material is nano-crystalline diamond and fulfills at least one of the following properties:
an average surface roughness Rrms of less than 100 nm, less than 50 nm, more preferably less than 20 nm,
an average grain size d50 of the fine-crystalline diamond of 1 to 100 nm, preferably from 5 to 90 nm, more preferably from 7 to 30 nm, and even more preferably 10 to 20 nm.
Regarding claim 8, claim 10 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the first material and/or the second material are coated at least in regions with a low-friction material, pref-erably selected from the group consisting of fluoropolymer materials like PTFE, parylene, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyme-thyl methacrylate, graphite, diamond-like carbon (DLC) and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 9, claim 14 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the first intersecting line is shaped in the second material and/or the second intersecting line is arranged at a boundary surface of the first material and the second material.
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of copending Application No. 17966010 with Scholin teaches the at least one aperture has a form which is selected from the group consisting of circular, ellipsoidal, square, triangular, rectangular, trapezoidal, hexagonal, octagonal or combina-tions thereof, wherein the at least one aperture has an aperture area ranging from 0.2 mm^2 to 25 mm^2, preferably from 1 mm^2 to 15 mm^2”, more preferably from 2 mm^2 to 12 mm^2 (see Figure 1 of Scholin).
Regarding claim 11, claim 2 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the first wedge angle theta 1 ranges from 5° to 75° and/or the second wedge angle theta 2 ranges from - 10° to 40° and/or the third wedge angle theta 3 ranges from 1° to 60° wherein theta 1 > theta 2 and/or theta 2 < theta 3.
Regarding claim 13, claim 4 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line has a length d2 which ranges from 5 to 150 um, preferably from 10 to 100 um, and more preferably from 20 to 80 um.
Regarding claim 14, claim 13 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the cutting edge has a tip ra-dius of less than 200 nm, preferably less than 100 nm and more preferably less than 50 nm.
Regarding claim 15, claim 14 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches the first face comprises a qua-ternary bevel with:
a third intersecting line connecting the quaternary bevel and the first surface,
the quaternary bevel extending from the cutting edge to the third intersecting line, and
a fourth wedge angle 04 between an imaginary extension of the first surface and the quaternary bevel.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of copending Application No. 17966010 teaches a hair removal device comprising the cutting element of claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholin (US 3702026) in view of Dorion (US 3842499), Zuidervaart (US 20020088122 A1) and Camp (US 3606682).
Examiner notes that theta 1/2/3/4 is listed as T1/2/3/4 in the office action.
Regarding claim 1, Scholin teaches a cutting element (11) comprising a substrate 13) with at least one aperture (17) which comprises a cutting edge along at least a portion of an inner perimeter of the aperture (see Figures 1-3).
Scholin fails to teach the cutting edges have an asymmetric cross-sectional shape with a first face, a second face opposed to the first face and a cutting edge at the intersection of the first face and the second face, wherein:
the first face comprises a first surface, and
the second face comprises a primary bevel, a secondary bevel and a tertiary bevel, with e the primary bevel extending from the cutting edge to the secondary bevel,
the secondary bevel extending from the primary bevel to the tertiary bevel,
a first intersecting line connecting the primary bevel and the secondary bevel, and
a second intersecting line connecting the secondary bevel and the tertiary bevel,
a first wedge angle theta 1 between the first surface and the primary bevel,
a second wedge angle theta 2 between the first surface and the secondary bevel, and
a third wedge angle theta 3 between the first surface and the tertiary bevel, wherein theta 1 > theta 2 and/or theta 2 < theta 3.
Dorion teaches a cutting blade having a first face (22, see Figure 7), a second face (22, see Figure 7) opposed to the first face and different from the first face as well as a cutting edge (26) at the intersection of the first face and the second face (See Figure 7), wherein,
the first face comprises a first surface (16) and a primary bevel (16a) with
the primary bevel extending from the cutting edge to the first surface (see annotated Figure 7),
a first intersecting line (a line into the page at the intersection of 16a and 16, see annotated Figure 7) connecting the primary bevel and the first surface (see annotated Figure 7) and
a first wedge angle T1 between an imaginary extension (dotted line extension from 16 see annotated Figure 7) of the first surface and the primary bevel (T1 is the angle between a dotted line extend from 16 and 16a, see annotated Figure 7) and
the second face comprises a secondary bevel (18b) and a tertiary bevel (18a) with
the secondary bevel extending from the cutting edge to the tertiary bevel (see annotated Figure 7);
a second intersecting line (a line into the page at the intersection of 18a and 18b, see annotated Figure 7) connecting the secondary bevel and the tertiary bevel;
a second wedge angle T2 between the first surface and the secondary bevel (T2 is the angle at the intersection of the extended 16 and 18b, see annotated Figure 7); and
a third wedge angle T3 between the first surface and the tertiary bevel (T3 is the angle at the intersection of the extended end 16 and 18a, see annotated Figure 7),
wherein T2 > T1 and T3 < T2,
the primary bevel has a length d1 (see annotated Figure 7 of Dorion); being the dimension projected onto the imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the first intersecting line from an unknow value (see annotated Figure 7 of Dorion).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Scholin to change the cutting edge shape, as taught by Dorion, in order to better cut hair (abstract of Dorion).
Modified Scholin still fails to teach T1 > T2 and T2 < T3, 0.1 to 5 um.
Zuidervaart teach a razor blade tip with a changing tip pointed direction (angle of beta/phi, see Figure 4-5), with keeping the same tip angle (alpha/epsilon, see Figures 4-5) base on the desired shaving angle required after the blade are set up in a device (paragraph 0020-0022, see Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Scholin to change the tip pointed direction while keeping the tip angle (angle E of Dorion), as taught by Zuidervaart, in order to achieve the desired shaving angle required after the blade are set up in a device (paragraph 0020-0022, see Figures 4-5).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific angle relationship of T1 > T2, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Scholin’s tip (changing the pointing angle like above, which is made up of 16a and 18c of Dorion, thus keeping the angle of T2 the same) to have the specific angle relationship of T1 > T2 to get the end user’s desired shaving angle.
Camp teaches shaving razor tip with a T2 < T3, wherein T2 is the angle between 20 degrees and 18 degrees and T3 is the angle between 20 degrees and 22 degrees.
Examiner notes that the angle of T3 appears to be cosmetic, therefore with respect to the specific angle relationship of T2 < T3, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Scholin’s T3 to have the specific angle relationship of T2 < T3 to get the end user’s desired look.
Modified Scholin finally fails to teach 0.1 to 5 um.
With respect to the specific d1 length of 0.1 to 5 um, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Scholin’s tip length to have the specific d1 length of 0.1 to 5 um to get the desired shape wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 2, modified Scholin further teaches the substrate has a thickness of 20 to 1000 um (1/100 inch is above 254 um, col. 3 lines 1-6 of Scholin).
Regarding claim 3, modified Scholin further teaches the substrate comprises a first material (the steel of col. 2 lines 55-68 of Scholin).
Regarding claim 10, modified Scholin further teaches the at least one aperture has a form which is selected from the group consisting of circular, ellipsoidal, square, triangular, rectangular, trapezoidal, hexagonal, octagonal or combina-tions thereof (see Figure 2 of Scholin), wherein the at least one aperture has an aperture area of ranging from 96 mm^2 (7/16 inch diameter make the aperture about 96 mm^2, col. 4 lines 48-55 of Scholin).
Modified Scholin fails to teach an aperture area of ranging from 0.2 mm^2 to 25 mm^2.
With respect to the specific aperture area of ranging from 0.2 mm^2 to 25 mm^2, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Scholin’s tip length to have the specific aperture area of ranging from 0.2 mm^2 to 25 mm^2 to get the desired shape wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 11, modified Scholin further teaches the first wedge angle T1; ranges from 5° to 75°, and/or the second wedge angle T2 ranges from -5° to 40°, and/or the third wedge angle T3 ranges from 1° to 60° (base on the “or” language of the claim here, only one value for the wedge angle seen to be required, therefore the 14° of T2 in Dorion meets the limitation, see Figure 7 of Dorion).
Regarding claim 13, modified Scholin further teaches the dimension projected onto the first surface and/or the imaginary extension of the first surface taken from the cutting edge to the second intersecting line has a length d2 which ranges an unknown value (see annotated Figure 7 of Dorion).
Modified Scholin fails to teach from 5 to 150 um.
With respect to the specific d2 length of 5 to 150 um, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Scholin’s tip length to have the specific d2 length of 1 to 150 um to get the desired shape wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 15, modified Scholin further teaches the secondary bevel comprises a further beveled region (18c) extending from the cutting edge to a third intersecting line (a line going into the blade at the intersection of 18a and 18b) connecting the secondary bevel and the beveled region (see annotated Figure 7 of Dorion), the beveled region preferably having a fourth wedge angle T4 between the first surface and the beveled region (see annotated Figure 7 of Dorion).
Regarding claim 16, modified Scholin further teaches a hair removal device comprising the cutting element of claim 1 (see Figure 1 of Scholin).
Claims 3, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholin (US 3702026) in view of Dorion (US 3842499) in view of Zuidervaart (US 20020088122 A1) and Camp (US 3606682) and in further view of Craig (US 3349488).
Regarding claim 3, modified Scholin further teaches the cutting blade comprises or consisting of a blade body consisting of a first material (the steel of col. 2 lines 55-68 of Scholin).
Modified Scholin further teaches a second material joined with the first material.
Craig teach a razor made of a first material (layer 12) and a second material (layer 11) joined with the first material (see Figure 1, col. 3 lines 9-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Scholin to make tip of the razor into a harder material and use the tip dimension, as taught by Craig, in order to increase the life of the cutting tip and a shaper tip (col. 3 lines 18-42 of Craig).
Regarding claim 5, modified Scholin further teaches the material of the second material comprises or consists of a material selected from the group consisting of:
oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides,
boron aluminium magnesium
carbon, and
combinations thereof (as modified by Craig, at least “diamond” of Craig meets the limitation of carbon, col. 3 lines 18-29 of Craig).
Regarding claim 6, modified Scholin further teaches the second material fulfills at least one of the following properties:
a thickness of 0.15 to 20 um;
a modulus of elasticity of less than 1200 GPa;
a transverse rupture stress of at least 1 GPa; and
a hardness of at least 20 GPa (as modified by Craig, at least the tip of 2500 angstrom unit meets (about 0.25 um) the limitation of a thickness of 0.15 to 20 um).
Regarding claim 9, modified Scholin further teaches all element of the current invention as set forth in claim 3 stated above.
Modified Scholin fails to teach the first intersecting line is shaped within the second material.
Examiner notes that ratio of second material to the first material with in the razor is base on the desired shape and material ratio of blade wanted by the end user, therefore with respect to the specific size of the second material up to the first intersecting line, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Scholin to have the specific size of second material to get the desired material ratio wanted by the end user.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholin (US 3702026) in view of Dorion (US 3842499) in view of Zuidervaart (US 20020088122 A1) and Camp (US 3606682) and in further view of Craig (US 3349488) and in further view of Floter (US 20120276826 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Scholin teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 3 stated above.
Modified Scholin fails to teach the material of the second material is nanocrystalline diamond and fulfills at least one of the following properties:
an average surface roughness Rrms of less than 100 nm; and
an average grain size d50 of the nano-crystalline diamond of 1 to 100 nm.
Floter teaches a razor blade made of nanocrystalline diamond with an average grain size d50 of the nano-crystalline diamond of 1 to 100 nm (paragraph 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Scholin to change type of diamond into nano-crystalline diamond, as taught by Float, in order to keep constant sharpness (paragraph 0073 of Floter).
Regarding claim 8, modified Scholin teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 3 stated above.
Modified Scholin fails to teach the first material and/or the second material are coated at least in regions with a low-friction material, wherein the low-friction material is selected from the group consisting of fluoropolymers, parylene, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene, polypropylene, polymethyl methacrylate, graphite, diamond-like carbon (DLC), and combinations thereof.
Floter teaches a razor blade coated with carbon layer for reducing friction (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Scholin to add the carbon layer, as taught by Float, in order to reducing friction on the blade (paragraph 0037 of Floter).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholin (US 3702026) in view of Dorion (US 3842499) in view of Zuidervaart (US 20020088122 A1) and Camp (US 3606682) and in further view Floter (US 20120276826 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Scholin teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Modified Scholin fails to teach the cutting edge has a tip radius of less than 200 nm.
Floter teaches a tip radius of less than 200 nm (15-70 nm, paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Scholin to change the tip radius, as taught by Float. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that a very small rounded tip can keep the blade sharpness longer..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, in this case Zuidervaart provide a reason for the change of the closest surface the forms the cutting edge, the changes of q1 and q2 is base on the desired cut angle for the razor blade (paragraph 0020-0022, see Figures 4-5 of Zuidervaart), thus making the change of the specific angle of each portion obvious base on the end result effect desired by the end user.
In response to applicant’s argument that Camp fails to teach q1, the examiner agrees. However, Camp is only rely upon to teach the relationship of q2 and q3, which is the angle of the blade after the cutting edge, examiner notes that the angle of q3 appears to be cosmetic, therefore with respect to the specific angle relationship of q2 < q3, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Dorion’s q3 to have the specific angle relationship of q2 < q3 to get the end user’s desired look.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to the specific d1 length of 0.1 to 5 um, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify modified Scholin’s tip length to have the specific d1 length of 0.1 to 5 um to get the desired shape wanted by the end user.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/2/2026