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 August 3rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 13-15, 18, and 22 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 16-17, and 19-21 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/6/2026.
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, 3-7, 10, 12, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Hyun Ju Lee et al. (US 20210094199 A1 – hereinafter Lee) in view of
Ioannis Papatriantafyllou et al. (EP 3372361 A1 – hereinafter Papatriantafyllou) as evidenced by S.G. Croll (See attached research article) and Graham Simms et al. (US 20150360376 A1 – hereinafter Simms).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a razor blade comprising: a substrate (Fig. 1, Substrate
10) having a cutting edge (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 11) formed at a tip (Fig. 1, Tip 12), the substrate
comprising: a plurality of first facets (Fig. 1, [0025]-[0026]; there is a plurality of first facets formed by scratches on both sides of the tip. The facets formed on the leftmost so-called “first facet” will be considered the first facets. The facets are formed by an abrading wheel which would inherently create scratches in the material); a plurality of second facets formed between the tip and the plurality of first facets (Fig. 1, [0025]-[0026]; there is a plurality of second facets formed by scratches on both sides of the tip, between the tip and the first facets. The facets formed on the leftmost so-called “second facet” will be considered the second facets. The facets are formed by an abrading wheel which would inherently create scratches in the material); a facet brake region having facet brake spots where the plurality of first facets and the plurality of second facets intersect ([0025]; the region where the first and second facets overlap is the facet brake region. The facets are formed by an abrading wheel which would inherently create scratches in the material, the facet brake spots being where those scratches intersect); and a first facet region including the plurality of first facets and not including the plurality of second facets ([0025]; the second facets overlap a portion of the first facets, so there is a region which includes only the first facets), wherein the substrate is made of stainless steel ([0023]), wherein the facet brake region is formed within a distance of 500 μm from the tip ([0027]; the first facet is formed within 500 μm, so the facet brake region must also be within 500 μm), wherein a first thickness T4 (Fig. 1, T4), defined as a thickness of the substrate measured at a distance of 4 μm from the tip, is between 1.40 μm and 1.70 μm (T4 is 1.53 μm in Table 1), wherein, within a distance of 500 μm from the tip, portions of the plurality of first facets and portions of the plurality of second facets coexist along a line parallel to the tip ([0025-0027] – the second facet non-uniformly overlaps at least a portion of the first facet), wherein first abraded scratches of the plurality of first facets ([0026]; scratches which would be inherently created by the use of the abrading wheel which has relatively coarse and rough grains) and second abraded scratches of the plurality of second facets ([0026]; scratches which would be inherently created by the use of the abrading wheel which has relatively fine and dense grains) intersect in the facet brake region ([0025]; the region where the first and second facets overlap is the facet brake region), wherein the facet brake spots are irregularly distributed within the facet brake region ([0025]-[0027] – an abrading wheel inherently creates irregularly distributed scratches, which would result in irregularly distributed spots where those scratches intersect), wherein the facet brake spots are discontinuously formed within a distance of 500 μm from the tip ([0025]-[0027]; facet brake spots being formed where scratches of the first and second facets overlap, this spots being discontinuous in that there would inherently be gaps between scratches made by an abrading wheel and therefore gaps between spots where scratches overlap), wherein the facet brake spots are configured such that the plurality of first facets and the plurality of second facets remain in contact with hair during shaving to continuously spread the hair (the examiner finds this to be a statement of intended use, and since there is an area where the first and second facets overlap, that area could be held against the hair and used to spread the hair continuously during shaving), wherein the first facet region and the second facet region are smoothly connected through the facet brake region ([0025-0027] – the first facet region and second facet region overlap to create the facet brake region, which the examiner interprets to be a smooth connection between the two), wherein the first abraded scratches and the second abraded scratches are configured to expand a surface area of a substrate (a scratch inherently expands the surface area of the surface on which the scratch is made), wherein the plurality of first facets having the first abraded scratches are formed by a first abrading wheel, wherein the plurality of second facets having the second abraded scratches are formed by a second abrading wheel, and wherein the facet brake spots are discontinuously formed at locations where a first abrading operation using the first abrading wheel and a second abrading operation using the second abrading wheel intersect or overlap ([0025]-[0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet brake region (where the facet brake spots are discontinuously formed), and the location where portions of the plurality of first facets and portions of the plurality of second facets coexist along a line parallel to the tip, to be formed instead within a distance of 200 μm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0060]) and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Lee does not teach wherein a first abraded scratch of one of the plurality of first facets and a second abraded scratch of one of the plurality of second facets intersect at an angle of less than 10 degrees, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee to have this angle 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lee would not operate differently with the claimed angle. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0074]). Lee does not teach wherein a first angle of a first abraded scratch of the plurality of first facets with respect to a line extended from the tip is greater than a second angle of a second abraded scratch of the plurality of second facets with respect to the line extended from the tip, and wherein the second angle is 82 degrees to 87 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the values of the aforementioned angles as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range and relationship (Specification of the claimed invention, [0075] and [0076]) and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Lee further teaches a metal coating layer deposited on the substrate (Fig. 3, First Coating Layer 20).
Lee fails to teach wherein a ratio (T4/T200) of the first thickness T4 to the second thickness T200 is between 0.022 and 0.030, wherein a second thickness T200, defined as a thickness of the substrate measured at a distance of 200 μm from the tip, is between 56.50 μm and 64.12 μm, wherein the first facet region has a first surface roughness between 300 nm to 400 nm, the facet brake region has a second surface roughness between 150 nm to 280 nm, and a second facet region including the plurality of second facets has a third surface roughness between 1 nm to 50 nm, wherein the first surface roughness, the second surface roughness, and the third surface roughness are configured to improve adhesion of a metal coating layer deposited on the substrate, wherein each of the first surface roughness, the second surface roughness, and the third surface roughness comprises an arithmetic average roughness (Ra) calculated using a center-line average method.
However, Papatriantafyllou teaches a thickness of a substrate of a blade of 34.60 μm to
56.92 μm at a distance of 200 μm from the tip (Table 1), a surface roughness of 5 nm to 40
nm ([0056] – this anticipates a range of 10 nm to 50 nm), and a thickness of a substrate of a blade of 34.60 μm to 56.92 μm at a distance of 200 μm from the tip (Table 1). Papatriantafyllou is silent as to the method of calculating the surface roughness, however it is well known in the art that that the arithmetic average (Ra) method of calculating surface roughness is the most commonly used measure for surface roughness, and is beneficial in that it accounts for outlier high or low values by averaging them out. While Papatriantafyllou and Lee do not explicitly mention that the first surface roughness, the second surface roughness, the third surface roughness, and the abraded scratches are configured to improve adhesion of a metal coating layer deposited on the substrate, it is well known in the art that surface roughness greatly influences coating adhesion, with a higher surface roughness generally leading to improved coating adhesion. The third surface roughness of the substrate is the lowest, and is shown in Papatriantafyllou to support a coating over the substrate (Fig. 9c), and therefore all three surface roughnesses are configured to improve adhesion of a coating layer as they are equal to or greater than the surface roughness taught by Papatriantafyllou.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 56.50 μm and
64.12 μm at a distance of 200 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). When the thickness is be between 56.50 μm and 64.12 μm at a
distance of 200 μm and the thickness is between 1.40 μm and 1.70 μm at a distance of 4 μm, the
resulting ratio T4/T200 is between 0.022 and 0.030. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to
between 56.50 μm and 64.12 μm at a distance of 200 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first facet region to have a first surface roughness between 300 nm to 400 nm and the facet brake region to have a second surface roughness between 150 nm to 280 nm as a matter of routine optimization. Papatriantafyllou identifies the surface roughness of a substrate a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized such that there is not excess surface roughness ([0056]), implicating that a higher surface roughness should be avoided. Simms additionally identifies the surface roughness of a substrate as a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to have a low value such that it provides for a more comfortable shave and less skin irritation experienced by the user ([0041]). Croll on the other hand identifies surface roughness of a substrate as a result effective variable which needs to be optimized to improve coating adhesion, providing benefit for a higher surface roughness value (Introduction). Therefore, surface roughness is identified in the art as result effective variable which must be optimized to provide a balance between promoting adhesion while providing a comfortable shave.
Regarding claim 3, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the facet
brake region is formed within a distance of 500 μm from the tip. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet brake region to
be formed instead at a distance of 16 μm from the tip as applicant appears to have placed no
criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0060]) and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777
(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the second
facet region includes the plurality of second facets and does not include the plurality of first facets ([0025]; the second facets overlap a portion of the first facets, so there is a region which includes only the second facets)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Papatriantafyllou fails to teach the shaving razor of claim 1, wherein there is a difference of 0 to 2 degrees between an angle between a central axis of the substrate passing through the tip and the first facet, and an
angle between the central axis and the second facet. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the difference in angle between
a central axis and the first and second facet to be between 0 and 2 degrees as applicant appears to
have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0071])
and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338,
220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and Papatriantafyllou fails to teach the shaving razor of claim 1, wherein there is a difference of 0 to 1 degrees between an angle between a central axis of the substrate passing through the tip and the first facet, and an angle between the central axis and the second facet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the difference in angle between a central axis and the first and second facet to be between 0 and 1 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0071]) and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Lee and Papatriantafyllou fails to teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the first angle is 88.5 degrees to 89.8 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first angle as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0075]) and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Lee and Papatriantafyllou fails to teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the second angle is 84 degrees to 85 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of an abraded scratch of the second facet with respect to the tip to be between 84 degrees and 85 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0076]) and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a surface
roughness value of the facet brake region is lower than a surface roughness value of the first
facet region ([0026]; the first facet region is formed using rougher coarser grains on an abrading
wheel than the second facet region, and so it has a higher surface roughness. The facet brake
region is a blend of both, so the surface roughness would be lower in the facet brake region than
in the first facet region).
Regarding claim 16, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the facet
brake region is formed between the cutting edge and the first facet region ([0025]; the facet brake
region is formed between the first facet region and the second facet region. Since the second
facet region lies between the first facet region and the tip, the facet brake region is between the
cutting edge and the first facet region).
Regarding claim 17, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a third
thickness T100 (Fig. 1, T100), defined as a thickness of the substrate measured at a distance of
100 μm from the tip (Table 1 and [0029]), is between 29.00 μm and 34.14 μm (Table 1 – 30.72
μm), and wherein a ratio (T4/T100) of a first thickness T4 to the third thickness T100 is
0.066 (2.04 μm /30.72 μm from Comparative Example 1 in Table 1). It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first thickness T4
such that a ratio (T4/T100) is between 0.041 and 0.059 as a matter of routine optimization since
it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is
disclosed to be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to reduce the cutting force
of the shaving blade (Lee, [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a third thickness T8, defined as a thickness of the substrate measured at a distance of 8 μm from the tip, is between 2.81 μm and 3.42 μm (Table 1, Example 2 – 2.98 μm), and wherein a ratio (T4/T8) of the first thickness T4 and the third thickness T8 is between 0.409 and 0.605 (1.69/2.98 = 0.57).
Regarding claim 20, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein a third thickness T100, defined as a thickness of the substrate measured at a distance of 100 μm from the tip, is between 29.00 μm and 34.14 μm (Table 1, Example 1– 30.72 μm), and wherein a ratio
(T4/T100) of the first thickness T4 and the third thickness T100 is between 0.041 and 0.059
(1.69/30.72 = 0.055).
Regarding claim 21, Lee fails to teach wherein a third thickness T250, defined as a thickness of the substrate measured at a distance of 250 μm from the tip, is between 67.67 μm and 78.11 μm, and wherein a ratio (T4/T250) of the first thickness T4 and the third thickness T100 is between 0.018 and 0.025.
However, Papatriantafyllou teaches a thickness of a substrate of a blade of 41.69 μm to
68.69 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 67.67 μm and
78.11 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). When the thickness is between 67.67 μm and 78.11 μm at a distance of 250 μm and the thickness is between 1.40 μm and 1.70 μm at a distance of 4 μm, the resulting ratio T4/T200 is between 0.018 and 0.025. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to between 67.67 μm and 78.11 μm at a distance of 200 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach T4 and the ratio T4/T200 because these values define a blade profile which creates a variety of benefits. However, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Lee teaches the range T4, and there is adequate motivation cited in the rejection of claim 1 to combine Lee with Papatriantafyllou to teach T200, which yields the T4/T200 ratio claimed.
Applicant additionally argues that Lee does not teach (1) irregularly distributed and discontinuously formed facet brake spots within a distance of 200 µm from the tip; (2) the coexistence of portions of the plurality of first facets and portions of the plurality of second facets along a line parallel to the tip within the same 200 µm distance range; and (3) a facet brake region that nevertheless provides an overall smooth structural transition between the first facet region and the second facet region. However, Lee does teach wherein the facet brake spots are irregularly distributed within the facet brake region ([0025]-[0027] – an abrading wheel inherently creates irregularly distributed scratches, which would result in irregularly distributed spots where those scratches intersect), wherein the first facet region and the second facet region are smoothly connected through the facet brake region ([0025-0027] – the first facet region and second facet region overlap to create the facet brake region, which the examiner interprets to be a smooth connection between the two). Lee additionally teaches within a distance of 500 μm from the tip, portions of the plurality of first facets and portions of the plurality of second facets coexist along a line parallel to the tip ([0025-0027] – the second facet non-uniformly overlaps at least a portion of the first facet). The first facet region and second facet region of Lee extend normal to the line defining the tip of the blade, and the overlap between the two which is the facet brake region would coexist then along a line parallel to the tip. While Lee does not teach that this occurs within a distance of 500 μm, it is explained in the rejection of claim 1 above that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet brake region (where the facet brake spots are discontinuously formed), and the location where portions of the plurality of first facets and portions of the plurality of second facets coexist along a line parallel to the tip, to be formed instead within a distance of 200 μm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0060]) and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Applicant argues that Gluche and Daskal do not teach the claimed surface roughness values. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the aforementioned features of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference (Gluche and Daskal) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (surface roughness).
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach a variety of other claimed features, however Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation provided to simultaneously have items (i)-(vi) combined in one single reference for the purpose of creating an integrated blade structure. However, as mentioned above it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). All claimed features (i)-(vi) are taught by the references cited in the rejection of claim 1, with proper motivation provided for incorporating those limitations taught by combinations of references.
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 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