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 amendment filed 8/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the
application. The examiner withdraws the claim objections set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 4/24/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-20 begin with “The non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim x”, while claims 1 begins “A non-disposable, non-electric dermaplane razor”. Claims 2-20 should be updated to read “The non-disposable, non-electric dermaplane razor of claim x” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom", “the bottom portion”, and “the stem portion” without first introducing “a bottom”, “a bottom portion”, or “a stem portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bottom of the angled portions", “the top of the angled portions”, and “the vertical stem” without first introducing “a bottom of the angled portions”, “a top of the angled portions”, or “a vertical stem”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, 4, 8, and 10 recite the limitation "the stem” without first introducing “a stem”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 7, and 9 recite the limitation "the top surface” without first introducing “a top surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 9 recite the limitation “the top portion” without first introducing “a top portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation “the upper portion” without first introducing “an upper portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the angles” without first introducing “angles” in relation to the vertical portion of the I-shaped spine and the stem of the T-shape opening. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the bottom portion” and “the direction” without first introducing “a bottom portion” and “a direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the cartridge connection portion” without first introducing “a cartridge connection portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5-7, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Dara Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli
Shentu et al. (WO 2019226335 A1 – hereinafter Shentu).
Regarding claim 1, Levy teaches a non-disposable dermaplane razor (Fig. 25a,
Dermaplaning Device 300) comprising a main body having a handle portion (Fig. 21, Handle
Portion 304) and a cartridge retention portion (Fig. 21, Base Portion 306), the cartridge retention
portion comprising a cartridge opening (Fig. 38, opening shown) at a front face, and a
replaceable blade cartridge (Fig. 28, Removable Blade Assembly 330) comprising a single blade
(Fig. 28, Blade 364) and a spine (Fig. 28, Blade Holder 360).
Levy fails to teach that the dermaplane razor is non-electric, that the spine of the blade cartridge comprises an I-shape, the I-shape comprising a horizontal top portion, a vertical middle portion and a horizontal bottom portion and that the cartridge opening comprising a T-shape terminating at the bottom in an open slot, the T-shape comprising a horizontal upper portion and a vertical stem portion, wherein the top portion and middle portion of the I-shape correspond with and are positioned within the upper portion and the stem portion of the T-shape, with the bottom portion of the I-shape configured to be positioned outside of the slot.
However, Shentu teaches a non-electric dermaplane razor with a blade cartridge (Fig. 8, Cartridge 14) with a T-shape opening (Fig. 8, opening shown) terminating at the bottom in an open slot, the T-Shape comprising a horizontal upper portion and a vertical stem portion, and a cartridge retention portion (Fig. 8, upper half of Handle 12) comprising an I-shape spine (Fig. 8, Rail 40), the I-shape comprising a horizontal top portion, a vertical middle portion, and a horizontal bottom portion, wherein the top portion and middle portion of the I-shape correspond with and are positioned within the upper portion and the stem portion of the T-shape, with the bottom portion of the I-shape configured to be positioned outside of the slot (Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shentu such that the T-Shape opening is located on the cartridge retention portion, and the I-Shape spine is located on the blade cartridge as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Flipping the locations of the opening and spine still allows the blade cartridge to slidingly attach to the cartridge retention portion, therefore the operation of the device is not modified. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spine of the blade cartridge of Levy to comprise an I-shape, the I-shape comprising a horizontal top portion, a vertical middle portion and a horizontal bottom portion and the cartridge opening of Levy to comprise a T-shape terminating at the bottom in an open slot, the T-shape comprising a horizontal upper portion and a vertical stem portion, wherein the top portion and middle portion of the I-shape correspond with and are positioned within the upper portion and the stem portion of the T-shape, with the bottom portion of the I-shape configured to be positioned outside of the slot as taught by Shentu as a matter of design choice. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Levy already teaches that the single blade extends downwardly from a lowest central portion of the spine (Fig. 28 of Levy), and the modification of Levy with Shentu to create the I-shaped spine would then result in the single blade extending downwardly from a lowest central portion of the horizontal bottom portion of the I-shape, as that is the lowest central portion of the I shape.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dermaplane of Levi to be non-electric as taught by Shentu. It is well known in the art that a non-electric device when compared to an electric device would be cheaper to manufacture.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Levy and Shentu already teaches an I-shape
spine (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Levy further teaches that the cartridge (Fig. 28, Removable Blade Assembly 330)
comprises a detent (Fig. 28, Tab 352) at the top surface of the top portion of the spine (Fig. 28,
Blade Holder 360).
Regarding claim 6, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
5, wherein the detent (Fig. 28, Tab 352) is configured to be compressible against an inner top
surface (Fig. 28, Spring Loaded Bullet Pin 414) of the cartridge opening to create a friction fit of
the cartridge in the cartridge opening (Tab 352 exerts a normal force on the Spring Loaded Bullet
Pin 414, resulting in friction force in the event that an attempt is made to remove the cartridge) ,
with bottoms of the top portion of the I-shape spine pushed down against tops of undersides of
the upper portion of the T-shape opening (Levy teaches that the spine is biased downwards, and
rests on Rails 334 which extend into the opening of the cartridge retention portion (Fig. 38).
Viewing the combination of Levy and Shentu, this downward bias would cause the bottoms of
the top portion of the I-shape spine to push down against tops of undersides of the upper portion
of the T-shape opening).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Levy and Shentu does not teach the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, further comprising a cover configured to protect the
blade when not in use.
However, Shentu teaches a dermaplane razor comprising a cover (Fig. 1, Protective
Cover 16; [0026]) configured to protect the blade when not in use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu to comprise a cover configured to protect the blade when not in use as taught by
Shentu. It is well known in the art that having a cover over a shaving blade when it is not in use
is beneficial as it protects the user from accidentally cutting themselves.
Regarding claim 16, the existing combination of Levy and Shentu does not teach the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 15, wherein the main body further comprises one or
more projections on the cartridge connection portion that engage one or more depressions on the
interior of the cover to securely retain the cover on the main body.
However, Shentu teaches that the interior of the cover comprises one or more projections
(Fig. 1, Detents 20) that engage one or more depressions (Fig. 1, Depression 22) on the cartridge
connection portion to securely retain the cover on the main body. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
Shentu such that the depressions are located on the interior of they cover, and the projections are
located on the main body as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different
location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the
device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Flipping the locations of the depressions and the projections still
allows the cover to attach to the main body, therefore the operation of the device is not modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu such that the main body further comprises one or more projections on the cartridge
connection portion that engage one or more depressions on the interior of the cover to securely
retain the cover on the main body as taught by Shentu. Doing so is beneficial as it allow an easy
and secure snap-fit connection between the main body and the cover (Shentu, [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
1, wherein the replaceable blade cartridge (Fig. 28, Removable Blade Assembly 330) further
comprises a graspable end (Fig. 28, Nose Portion 362), wherein the graspable end extends
beyond the front face of the cartridge retention portion and comprises one or more recesses (Fig.
38, sidewall behind the nose is farther inwards than the outer edges of the nose ) for a user to
grasp the cartridge during replacement.
Regarding claim 20, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
19, wherein the graspable end comprises a stop surface (Fig. 40, inside top vertical face of Nose
Portion 362) configured to abut the front face of the cartridge retention portion.
Claims 2-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Dara Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli Shentu et al. (WO
2019226335 A1 – hereinafter Shentu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Albert Bresler (US 4037322 A – hereinafter Bresler).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Levy and Shentu fails to teach the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the vertical stem portion of the T-shape opening and a corresponding vertical portion of the I-shape spine are smaller at the bottom than at the top when the cutting edge of the blade is facing downward.
However, Bresler teaches a dermaplane razor, wherein a portion of the vertical stem portion of the T-shape opening (Fig. 4, Vertical Slot 29) and a corresponding vertical portion of the spine (Fig. 5, Sides 37 and 38) are smaller at the bottom of an angled portion (Fig. 4, angled portion at the top of Slot 29, which is smaller in width the lower down in Fig. 4 one looks) of the vertical stem of the t-shape opening and a corresponding vertical portion of the I-shape spine (Fig. 5, any point lower down on the I-shape spine is smaller in width than any point relatively higher) than at the top of the angled portions of the vertical stem of the T-shape opening and a corresponding vertical portion of the I-shape spine when the cutting edge of the blade (Fig. 5, Blade 11) is facing downwards, that the stem and the corresponding vertical portion each comprise parallel upper sections (Fig. 4 and 5, top halves of Slot 29 and Sides 37 and 38; Col. 3, lines 49-54 -- Sides 37 and 38 are intended to come into contact with the sides of the blade, and therefore be parallel when inserted into Slot 29) adjacent to top horizontal portions, and that the stem has an angled portion (Fig. 4, angled portion at the top of Slot 29) following the parallel upper section where the vertical portion extends inwardly as it extends downwardly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy and to include the limitations of claim 2 as taught by Bresler, in addition to including that the that the vertical portion of the I-shape spine has an angled portion following the parallel upper section where the vertical portion extends inwardly as it extends downwardly as a matter of design choice. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler does not teach
the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 2, wherein a portion of the T-shape opening and
corresponding I-shape spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the vertical portion of
the I-shape spine and the stem of the T-shape each comprising an angle that extends inward as it
extends downward.
However, Bresler further teaches wherein a portion of the T-shape opening and
corresponding spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the vertical portion of the
spine (Fig. 5, Sides 37 and 38) and the stem of the T-shape (Fig. 4, Vertical Slot 29) each
comprising an angle that extends inward as it extends downward. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
the dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler such that the T-shape
opening and corresponding I-shape spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the
vertical portion of the I-shape spine and the stem of the T-shape each comprising an angle that
extends inward as it extends downward as taught by Bresler as a matter of design choice. A
change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the
art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 3, wherein a portion of the T-shape opening and
corresponding I-shape spine are quasi-triangular, with at least a portion of the vertical portion of
the I-shape spine and the stem of the T-shape each comprising an angle that extends inward as it
extends downward on each side of the vertical portion of the I-shape spine and on each side of
the stem of the T-shape opening (See the rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bresler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 3, wherein the cartridge further comprises a detent on the
top surface of the top portion of the I-shape spine (See the rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 7, wherein the detent is configured to be compressible
against an inner top surface of the cartridge opening to create a friction fit of the cartridge in the
cartridge opening (See the rejection of claim 6 above). Levy also teaches that the spine is biased
downwards, and rests on Rails 334 which extend into the opening of the cartridge retention
portion (Fig. 38). Viewing the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler, this downward bias
would cause the angle on the vertical portion of the I-shape spine to be pushed down against the
angle of the stem of the T-shape opening.
Regarding claim 9, Levy further teaches the non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim
4, wherein the cartridge further comprises a detent on the top surface of the top portion of the
spine (See the rejection of claim 5 above). The combination of Levy and Shentu already teaches
an I-shape spine (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 9, wherein the detent is configured to be compressible
against an inner top surface of the cartridge opening to create a friction fit of the cartridge in the
cartridge opening (See the rejection of claim 6 above). Levy also teaches that the spine is biased
downwards, and rests on Rails 334 which extend into the opening of the cartridge retention
portion (Fig. 38). Viewing the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler, this downward bias
would cause the angle on the vertical portion of the I-shape spine to be pushed down against the
angle of the stem of the T-shape opening.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Bressler teaches the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein the bottom portion of the I-shape spine has
sides that angle inwardly as they extend downwardly in the direction that the blade extends from
the spine (See the rejection of claim 3 above).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dara
Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli Shentu et al. (WO 2019226335
A1 – hereinafter Shentu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott Gilman
(US 10814508 B1– hereinafter Gilman).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Levy and Shentu fails to teach the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein the main body further comprises a grip pad on
an upper surface when the blade is facing downwardly.
However, Gilman teaches a razor with a main body that comprises a grip pad (Fig. 3,
Grip Pad 205) on an upper surface when the blade is facing downwardly (the razor blade is able
to rotate 180 degrees relative to the grip pad from image shown – Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu to include the features of claim 12 as taught by Gilman. Doing so is beneficial as it
provide an ergonomic gripping surface for the user (Gilman; Col 5, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Gilman already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 12, wherein the grip pad comprises an indented area
(Fig. 3, X-shaped indents on Grip Pad 205).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Gilman already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 12, wherein the grip pad is formed of a non -slip
material (Col 4, lines 61-67) press fit or molded into an aperture on the main body (Fig. 10,
aperture containing Grip Pad 205 shown). The exact method of securing the non-slip material in
the aperture is not disclosed, however even if the prior art product was made via a different
process, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production In re Thorpe,
777 F.2d 695, 698, 22 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dara
Levy (US 10842521 B2 – hereinafter Levy) in view of Yuanli Shentu et al. (WO 2019226335
A1 – hereinafter Shentu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu Yang (WO
2020133131 A1– hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Levy and Shentu does not teach the non-
disposable dermaplane razor of claim 1, wherein the handle portion of the main body comprises
a non-slip surface.
However, Yang teaches a razor with a handle portion (Fig. 15, handle portion shown) of
the main body that comprises a non-slip surface (Fig. 15, Rubber Sleeve 22 – rubber is inherently
non-slip as it has a high coefficient of friction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the non-disposable dermaplane razor of the combination of Levy
and Shentu to include the limitations of claim 17 as taught by Yang. Doing so is beneficial as a
user is less likely to lose their grip on the razor (Yang; Page 9, Para 10).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Levy, Shentu, and Yang already teaches the
non-disposable dermaplane razor of claim 17, wherein the non-slip surface comprises a sleeve
configured of a non-slip material on the handle portion of the main body (Fig. 15, Rubber Sleeve
22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Shentu does not teach the bottom portion of the I-shaped retention portion configured to be outside the slot as this is at the top of the T-shaped slot in Shentu, not the bottom of the slot as claimed. Applicant arguments seem to rely on the “top” direction being the leftward direction as shown in Fig. 5 of Shentu. However, in the rejection of claim 1 the examiner has generally interpreted the “top” direction to be the rightward direction as shown in Fig. 8. Top and bottom are relative terms in the claimed language, seemingly only defined relative to the shapes of the T and I shaped portions. Therefore, a top direction in view of the claims is one opposite to where the T-shape terminates in an open slot, making a rightward top direction in Fig. 5 a sound interpretation.
Applicant argues that there is not a reasonable expectation of success in switching the location of the I and T shaped mating portions such that the T-shape opening is located on the cartridge retention portion and the I-shape spine is located on the replaceable blade cartridge. Applicant does not explain how exactly this configuration would not work or be successful. The examiner sees no reason why switching these mating parts would not be both successful and functional. Further, it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). The device in question could clearly still be used for shaving if this change was made.
Applicant argues that Levy does not teach a non-electric dermaplane device. Shentu has been brought in to teach the non-electric feature. This modification would mean, according to Applicant’s arguments, that the robust attachment of Levy is not required, and there should be no issue in utilizing the I and T shaped design of Shentu. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is a clear and obvious benefit to switching to a non-electric design which is highlighted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that the I and T design of Shentu cannot support a single blade in a central area since Shentu teaches two off center blades, requiring a wider lower portion. When using Shentu to teach the I and T design, the Examiner does not also bring in the dual blades of Shentu. Therefore, this wider base which allegedly cannot be modified in any way would not be required. Further, this requirement of the lower portion to be “wider” is not dictated anywhere in the disclosure of Shentu and is rather a speculative addition by the Applicant. The examiner uses Shentu to teach a coupling method between a cartridge retention portion and a cartridge, which has nothing to do with the number of blades present on the cartridge and does not constitute picking and choosing. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that Bressler does not teach parallel sides contiguous to the horizontal top portion for the opening and cartridge. The examiner utilizes this definition of contiguous from Merriam-Webster for analysis: “touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence”. The parallel sides are contiguous with the horizontal top portions in that they are at all times connected via angled portions betwixt the two.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights