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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 15 in the reply filed on 9/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Imaginary line (see at least claim 20)
Voice coil motor (see at least claim 16)
Piezoelectric element (see at least claim 16)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “vibrating body” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “body” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “vibrating”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “vibrating” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the body)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugahara (US 20100101480).
Regarding claim 1, Sugahara discloses a handle comprising: a casing that is grippable with a hand and fingers of a user (casing 2 is formed such that it is easy for a user to carry; see paragraph [0029]); a first vibrating body in the casing (force-sense generating unit 4A is located within casing 2; see fig. 1); a second vibrating body in the casing (force-sense generating unit 4B is located within casing 2; see fig. 1); and a controller (force-sense controller 7; see paragraph [0034]) configured to generate a first sense of force in a first direction by controlling a vibration pattern of the first vibrating body (force-sense generating unit 4A can generate a force FL in the downward direction; see fig. 6A), and to generate a second sense of force in a second direction by controlling a vibration pattern of the second vibrating body (force-sense generating unit 4B can generate a force FR in the upward direction; see fig. 6A), wherein the controller is configured to control the vibration pattern of the first vibrating body and the vibration pattern of the second vibrating body so that the first direction and the second direction are different (force-sense controller 7 can control actuators 6A, 6B of force-sense generating units 4A, 4B to move in different directions; see paragraph [0030] and figs. 6A-6B).
Examiner notes that the device of Sugahara, specifically casing 2, is considered a handle. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “handle” as “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand”. Since casing 2 is designed to be held by a user (see figs. 8A and 8B), it fulfills the definition of a handle.
Regarding claim 2, Sugahara discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara further discloses wherein an axis passing through a center of gravity of the casing is a first reference axis (the first reference axis is understood to be arranged on the center of gravity of casing 2 based on the similar configuration shown in fig. 13A; see paragraph [0086] and annotated portion of fig. 6A below) and an axis orthogonal to the first reference axis is a second reference axis (the second reference axis is orthogonal to the first reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below), wherein a size of the casing in a direction along the first reference axis is larger than a size of the casing in a direction along the second reference axis (casing 2 is larger along the first reference axis than the second reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below), wherein the first vibrating body and the second vibrating body are on opposite sides of the second reference axis (force-sense generating unit 4A and force-sense generating unit 4B are on opposing sides of the second reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below) and are along the first reference axis when viewed from the center of gravity (force-sense generating units 4A, 4B are at least partially located along the first reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below), and wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal to the first reference axis (the first direction and second direction are orthogonal to the first reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sugahara discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara further discloses wherein the casing comprises a grip portion including the center of gravity (the sides of casing 2 are configured to be gripped by a user; see figs. 8A-8B and annotated portion of fig. 6A above), a first end portion adjacent to a first end of the grip portion (the first end portion is adjacent to the first end of the grip portion; see annotated portion of fig. 6A above), and a second end portion adjacent to a second end of the grip portion (the second end portion is adjacent to the second end of the grip portion; see annotated portion of fig. 6A above), wherein the first vibrating body is in the first end portion (force-sense generating unit 4A is located at the first end portion; see annotated portion of fig. 6A above), and wherein the second vibrating body is in the second end portion (force-sense generating unit 4B is located at the second end portion; see annotated portion of fig. 6A above).
Regarding claim 5, Sugahara discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara further discloses wherein a distance from the center of gravity to the first vibrating body is equal to a distance from the center of gravity to the second vibrating body (force-sense generating units 4A, 4B are understood to be at symmetrical positions relative to the second reference axis; see paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 15, Sugahara discloses a handle comprising: a casing that is grippable by a hand and fingers of a user (casing 2 is formed such that it is easy for a user to carry; see paragraph [0029]); a first vibrating body in the casing (force-sense generating unit 4A; see figs. 6A and 6B); a second vibrating body in the casing (force-sense generating unit 4B; see figs. 6A and 6B); and a controller (force-sense controller 7; see paragraph [0034]) configured to control a vibration pattern of the first vibrating body and a vibration pattern of the second vibrating body so as to give the user gripping the casing a sense of force that feels as if the casing is rotating (force-sense controller 7 can control actuators 6A, 6B of force-sense generating units 4A, 4B to move in different directions in order to impart the feeling of rotation to a user; see paragraphs [0030, 0046] and figs. 6A-6B).
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 20100101480).
Regarding claim 4, Sugahara discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara further discloses wherein an axis passing through a center of gravity of the casing is a first reference axis (the first reference axis is understood to be arranged on the center of gravity of casing 2 based on the similar configuration shown in fig. 13A; see paragraph [0086] and annotated portion of fig. 6A below) and an axis orthogonal to the first reference axis is a second reference axis (the second reference axis is orthogonal to the first reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below), wherein the first vibrating body and the second vibrating body are on opposite sides of the first reference axis (force-sense generating unit 4A and force-sense generating unit 4B are on opposing sides of the first reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below) and are along the second reference axis when viewed from the center of gravity (force-sense generating units 4A, 4B are at least partially located along the second reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below), and wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal to the second reference axis (the first and second directions are orthogonal to the second reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
465
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sugahara does not explicitly disclose wherein a size of the casing in a direction along the first reference axis is larger than a size of the casing in a direction along the second reference axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sugahara to make the size of the casing in a direction along the first axis larger than the size of the casing in a direction along the second reference axis since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, rearranging casing 2 such that the longer sides are oriented in a vertical direction along the first reference axis would not impede operation of the device. Sugahara discloses a device which is typically grabbed from the top (see figs. 8A and 8B). However, rearranging casing 2 to have the longer sides arranged along the first reference axis provides an alternative configuration that allows a user to easily grab the device from the sides. Such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because this configuration is easier for a user to hold and carry.
Regarding claim 6, Sugahara as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara as modified further discloses wherein a distance from the center of gravity to the first vibrating body is equal to a distance from the center of gravity to the second vibrating body (force-sense generating units 4A, 4B are understood to be at symmetrical positions relative to the first reference axis; see paragraph [0086]).
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 20100101480) in view of Fuerst (US 20190299434).
Regarding claim 7, Sugahara discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara does not explicitly disclose a shaver comprising: the handle according to claim 1; a head coupled to the handle and comprising blades configured to cut hair; and an inclination sensor configured to detect an attitude of the handle, wherein the controller is configured to control the vibration patterns when the detected attitude of the handle is within a predetermined range.
Fuerst discloses a shaver (shaver 1; see fig. 1) comprising: the handle according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); a head coupled to the handle and comprising blades configured to cut hair (head 2 comprises a plurality of hair removal tools 4; see paragraph [0055] and fig. 4); and an inclination sensor configured to detect an attitude of the handle (an accelerometer may be included on the PCB to detect acceleration of three axes of the device; see paragraph [0068]), wherein the controller is configured to control the vibration patterns when the detected attitude of the handle is within a predetermined range (electronic control unit 80 receives data from the accelerometer and other sensors to generate a signal – as modified to include the accelerometer, the controller of Sugahara could similarly receive data and generate signals to control vibration patterns; see paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sugahara in view of Fuerst to include the handle on a shaver. Fuerst discloses a shaver that includes various sensors that control how the shaver behaves. For example, the shaver is configured to detect changes in shaving pressure and control shaving head 2 to swing on its axis in response (see paragraphs [0069-0070]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to combine the handle of Sugahara into the device of Fuerst to yield a device which is capable of generating various vibrational forces in response to detected data. Further, Sugahara discloses that force-sense can be imparted to a user in order to transmit information to the user (see paragraph [0048]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would be beneficial in a shaver since it could, for example, be used to indicate to the user which direction the device should be oriented in order to apply a consistent and even shaving pressure.
Regarding claim 8, Sugahara as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the vibration patterns (electronic control unit 80 receives data from the accelerometer and other sensors to generate a signal; see paragraph [0069]) such that a difference between a rate of change of the first vibration pattern and a rate of change of the second vibration pattern exceeds a predetermined threshold (the accelerometer can detect acceleration along three axes, which allows electronic control unit 80 to measure the detected data against stored values – thus, electronic control unit 80 should be capable of measuring the difference between the two rates against a predetermined threshold; see paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 17, Sugahara as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara as modified further discloses wherein the casing comprises a grip portion (see annotated portion of fig. 6A above) that includes a center of gravity of the casing, and is grippable by the hand and fingers of the user (the sides of casing 2 are configured to be gripped by a user; see figs. 8A-8B and annotated portion of fig. 6A above), and the controller controls the vibration patterns such that the first vibrating body and the second vibrating body cause the hand and fingers gripping the casing a sense of rotation (force-sense controller 7 can control actuators 6A, 6B of force-sense generating units 4A, 4B to move in different directions in order to impart the feeling of rotation to a user; see paragraphs [0030, 0046] and figs. 6A-6B).
Regarding claim 18, Sugahara as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara as modified further discloses wherein an axis passing through a center of gravity of the casing is a first reference axis (the first reference axis is understood to be arranged on the center of gravity of casing 2 based on the similar configuration shown in fig. 13A; see paragraph [0086] and annotated portion of fig. 6A below) and an axis orthogonal to the first reference axis is a second reference axis (the second reference axis is orthogonal to the first reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below), wherein a size of the casing in a direction along the first reference axis is larger than a size of the casing in a direction along the second reference axis (casing 2 is larger along the first reference axis than the second reference axis; see annotated portion of fig. 6A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugahara as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined range is an inclination angle of the first reference axis being 10 degrees or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sugahara to make the predetermined range within a range of 10 degrees or smaller since it has been held that “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 (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Sugahara as modified would not operate differently if further modified to have the claimed range. The device as modified could reasonably be configured to have various predetermined ranges that detected data is measured against, including an angle of 10 degrees or smaller. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, only indicating that the head of the device is pressed against the skin such that the attitude of the first reference axis generally extends along an axis of gravity (see paragraph [0058] of instant specification). As best understood, the range can deviate from the 10 degrees or less range as long as the handle generally extends along the direction of gravity.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 20100101480) in view of Guntersdorfer (US 3748504).
Regarding claim 16, Sugahara discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara does not explicitly disclose wherein the first vibrating body and the second vibrating body each include at least one of a voice coil motor with a weight disposed in a housing, and a piezoelectric element that generates vibration.
Guntersdorf discloses wherein the first vibrating body and the second vibrating body each include at least one of a voice coil motor with a weight disposed in a housing, and a piezoelectric element (piezoelectric motor; see fig. 1) that generates vibration (the piezoelectric motor is configured to vibrate, in particular to produce straight line movements of a part; see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sugahara in view of Guntersdorfer to include a piezoelectric element that generates vibration. The piezoelectric motor of Guntersdorfer is configured to drive a part in a vibratory manner (see abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to substitute the piezoelectric motor of Guntersdorfer for drivers 15A, 15B of Sugahara as an alternative method of driving the first and second vibrating bodies. Since no particular structure is provided to drivers 15A, 15B, it is presumed that replacing these components with Guntersdorfer’s piezoelectric motor would not change the operation of the device. Examiner notes that each driver 15A, 15B would be replaced such that each vibrating body (force-sense generating units 4A, 4B) is driven by its own motor.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 20100101480) in view of Komizunai (WO 2018146934).
Regarding claim 19, Sugahara as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first direction and the second direction are angularly offset from each other along the second reference axis.
Komizunai discloses wherein the first direction (the direction along force sensation F10; see fig. 5(g)) and the second direction (the direction along force sensation F20; see fig. 5(g)) are angularly offset from each other along the second reference axis (as modified, force sensations F10, F20 are offset from one another relative to an axis that extends along the length of housing B3; see fig. 5(g)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sugahara in view of Komizunai to make the first and second directions offset from one another. Komizunai discloses an alternate arrangement that provides the same rotational feeling to a user as that of Sugahara as modified. Specifically, force sensations F10 and F20 are offset from one another, but still provide force sense F4 in a rotational manner (see paragraph [0042]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the configuration of Komizunai in place of Sugahara’s as a simple substitution of elements.
Regarding claim 20, Sugahara discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sugahara does not explicitly disclose wherein an imaginary line headed in the first direction from the first vibrating body and an imaginary line headed in the second direction from the second vibrating body are not located on a same straight line.
Komizunai discloses wherein an imaginary line headed in the first direction from the first vibrating body and an imaginary line headed in the second direction from the second vibrating body are not located on a same straight line (an imaginary line headed in the direction of force sensation F10 is located on a different imaginary line than that of the direction of force sensation F20; see fig. 5(g)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sugahara in view of Komizunai to make the first and second directions be located on a different imaginary line from one another. Komizunai discloses an alternate arrangement that provides the same rotational feeling to a user as that of Sugahara as modified. Specifically, force sensations F10 and F20 are offset from one another, but still provide force sense F4 in a rotational manner (see paragraph [0042]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the configuration of Komizunai in place of Sugahara’s as a simple substitution of elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-17, filed 1/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 15 under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sugahara (US 20100101480) as modified above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20190191850 to Yoganandan, drawn to a system and method for object modification using mixed reality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724