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 .
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 hair cutting appliance comprising a handle (see claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruecker (US 2284038) in view of Godlieb (US 20200331157), further in view of Wu (CN 212287726), as evidenced by Locke (US 4009518).
Regarding claim 1, Bruecker discloses a guard plate for a blade set for a hair cutting appliance (comb unit 39; see fig. 1), the guard plate comprising a skin-facing side and an opposing blade-facing side (comb unit 39 has a central area 62 that engages a user’s skin, and an opposing inner surface which abuts cutter 116; see pg. 2, lines 51-55 and pg. 3, lines 73-pg. 4, lines 1-6): a plurality of close-cutting trimming teeth distributed in a longitudinal direction along an edge of the guard plate (comb unit 39 comprises a plurality of teeth 84 which are arranged in a longitudinal direction along the edge of comb unit 39; see fig. 4), each tooth extending from the edge of the guard plate to a respective tip (each of teeth 84 has a tip; see fig. 4), wherein a plurality of apertures are distributed on the raised section at least within a pressure restoring zone of the raised section (as modified, central area 62 acts as a pressure restoring zone, which restores pressure/tensions the skin of a user after the pressure relenting zone, which does not tension skin, has passed. Further, central area 62 comprises a plurality of openings 88 which as modified, are located on the raised section so that hair is received within openings 88; see fig. 4 and pg. 3, lines 15-21).
Bruecker does not explicitly disclose the guard plate having a thickness of less than 120 microns at the close-cutting trimming teeth.
Godlieb discloses the guard plate having a thickness of less than 120 microns at the close-cutting trimming teeth (the thickness of guard foil 3 is between 40 and 120 micrometers; see paragraphs [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bruecker in view of Godlieb to include wherein the guard plate has a thickness of less than 120 microns at the close-cutting trimming teeth. As evidenced by Locke, optimum shaving conditions are achieved when the foil is formed to the minimum thickness that is necessary, since it allows for hair to be cut closer to a user’s skin without risk of irritation (see col. 1, lines 30-34). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there is a balance that must be reached between structural strength and closeness of the shave. That is, the thicker the guard plate, the higher the structural strength, but at the cost of a less close shave. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find the optimum thickness of the guard plate that balances these two factors. Further, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Bruecker as modified does not explicitly disclose a raised section comprising a curved shape in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that it is raised from the teeth towards the skin-facing side of the guard plate, wherein the curved shape of the raised section does not extend beyond a line passing through the edge of the guard plate and offset from a tangent at the edge of the guard plate; a pressure relenting zone between the teeth and the raised section defining a continuous surface, wherein there is a transition between the pressure relenting zone and the raised section such that, when the guard plate is passed over a user's taut skin, the skin does not directly follow the contours of the transition thereby locally reducing pressure from the skin; the pressure restoring zone being defined between a rising point and a tangent point, wherein the rising point is where a perpendicular distance from the skin-facing surface of the guard plate to a pressure relenting line peaks, wherein the pressure relenting line is defined by a tangent of the raised section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, the tangent passing through the edge of the guard plate, and wherein the tangent point is on the raised section at the tangent of the pressure relenting line.
Wu discloses a raised section comprising a curved shape (reinforcing boss 14; see figs. 1, 3, and paragraph [0033]) in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that it is raised from the teeth towards the skin-facing side of the guard plate (reinforcing boss 14 is curved in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of fixed blade 1 and protrudes from the skin-facing side; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below and fig. 3), wherein the curved shape of the raised section does not extend beyond a line passing through the edge of the guard plate and offset from a tangent at the edge of the guard plate (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below); a pressure relenting zone between the teeth and the raised section defining a continuous surface (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), wherein there is a transition between the pressure relenting zone and the raised section (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below) such that, when the guard plate is passed over a user's taut skin, the skin does not directly follow the contours of the transition thereby locally reducing pressure from the skin (because reinforcing boss 14 is raised relative to the rest of the guard, pressure on the rest of the guard is reduced); the pressure restoring zone being defined between a rising point and a tangent point (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), wherein the rising point is where a perpendicular distance from the skin-facing surface of the guard plate to a pressure relenting line peaks (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), wherein the pressure relenting line is defined by a tangent of the raised section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), the tangent passing through the edge of the guard plate (pressure relenting line is the tangent line; see annotated portion of fig. 3 below), and wherein the tangent point is on the raised section at the tangent of the pressure relenting line (see annotated portion of fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bruecker in view of Wu to include a raised section on the guard plate. Wu discloses that the raised section (reinforcing boss 14) is designed to increase structural strength while avoiding any effect on the cutting operation (see paragraph [0033]). Examiner notes that as modified, Bruecker would still be capable of a cutting operation at the apertures, even if a raised section were added. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inner blades (cutter 116; see fig. 3) can also be extended in order to reach the apertures (openings 88) and facilitate the cutting operation at the raised section. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to further modify Bruecker in order to increase the structural strength of the guard.
Bruecker as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Bruecker as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the curved shape of the raised section does not extend beyond a 30-degree envelope and wherein the line passing through the edge of the guard plate is offset from a tangent at the edge of the guard plate by 30 degrees.
As disclosed by Wu, the raised section (reinforcing boss 14) has a geometry with sufficient thickness to increase the structural strength of the guard while also avoiding any effect on the cutting operation (see paragraph [0033]). In other words, there is a balance that must be achieved between structural strength and effectiveness of the cut. If the thickness of the raised section is too high, the cutting teeth will not be able to achieve as close of a shave; on the other hand, if the thickness of the raised section is too low, insufficient structural strength is added. As such, there is a trade-off between structural strength and cutting ability that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and thus experiment with to find the optimum value. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 2, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of apertures are distributed on the raised section (central area 62 comprises a plurality of openings 88. As modified by Wu, openings 88 are located on the raised section so that hair is received within openings 88; see fig. 4 and pg. 3, lines 15-21).
Bruecker as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Bruecker as modified does not explicitly disclose that the apertures are within at least the first 1mm of the pressure restoring zone from the rising point.
Bruecker as modified discloses that the apertures (openings 88) can vary in size, position, and orientation as shown in figs. 4-7 (see also pg. 3, lines 15-45). Further, Bruecker notes that other considerations must be taken into account when designing the apertures, such as the width of the central strip (central area 62) or the amount of support required in the area (see pg. 3, lines 46-50). As such, there is a trade-off between structural strength and cutting ability that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and thus experiment with to find the optimum value depending on design requirements. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Thus, such a modification would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wu further discloses wherein the surface of the guard plate at the transition comprises a change in height (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above), the height being defined by the perpendicular distance between the skin-facing surface and the pressure relenting line (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Bruecker as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Bruecker as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the change in height is at least 0.1mm.
As disclosed by Wu, the raised section (reinforcing boss 14) has a geometry with sufficient thickness to increase the structural strength of the guard while also avoiding any effect on the cutting operation (see paragraph [0033]). In other words, there is a balance that must be achieved between structural strength and effectiveness of the cut. If the thickness of the raised section is too high, the cutting teeth will not be able to achieve as close of a shave; on the other hand, if the thickness of the raised section is too low, insufficient structural strength is added. As such, there is a trade-off between structural strength and cutting ability that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and thus experiment with to find the optimum value. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Thus, such a modification would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of apertures are further distributed across a top portion of the raised section (central area 62 comprises a plurality of openings 88. As modified by Wu, openings 88 are located on the raised section so that hair is received within openings 88; see fig. 4 and pg. 3, lines 15-21) adjacent to the pressure restoring zone of the raised section (as modified, openings 88 are adjacent to the pressure restoring zone since they are located on the raised section).
Regarding claim 5, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wu further discloses wherein the pressure relenting zone is planar (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 6, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses wherein the guard plate comprises a plurality of close-cutting trimming teeth (comb unit 39 comprises a plurality of teeth 84 which are arranged in a longitudinal direction along the edge of comb unit 39; see fig. 4) distributed in the longitudinal direction along opposing edges of the guard plate (teeth 84 are arranged on opposing sides of comb unit 39; see fig. 4); wherein the raised section comprises a plurality of apertures distributed in at least the two pressure restoring zones (openings 88 are formed across the entire width of central area 62 and thus would be distributed in the pressure restoring zones as modified; see fig. 4).
Wu further discloses wherein there are a pair of pressure relenting zones located on either side of the raised section (due to the nature of the raised section, there is a pressure relenting zone on either side; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above), each pressure relenting zone disposed between the raised section and the teeth along one edge of the guard plate (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above); and wherein the raised section comprises a top portion (the skin-engaging surface of reinforcing boss 14; see fig. 3) flanked by two pressure restoring zones (each side of the raised section comprises a pressure restoring zone; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above), each pressure restoring zone adjacent to a pressure relenting zone (by nature of the pressure restoring and relenting zones, they must be located adjacent to one another, otherwise there is no change in applied pressure and thus the zones would not exist as described; see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 7, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses wherein the guard plate is formed of a single integral plate (comb unit 39 is formed as a single piece of sheet metal; see pg. 5, lines 1-3 and figs. 18-20).
Regarding claim 8, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wu further discloses wherein the curved shape of the raised section (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) extends beyond a line passing through the edge of the guard plate (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above) and offset from a tangent at the edge of the guard plate (see annotated portion of fig. 3 above).
Bruecker as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Bruecker as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the curved shape of the raised section extends beyond a 5-degree envelope and is offset from a tangent at the edge of the guard plate by 5 degrees.
As disclosed by Wu, the raised section (reinforcing boss 14) has a geometry with sufficient thickness to increase the structural strength of the guard while also avoiding any effect on the cutting operation (see paragraph [0033]). In other words, there is a balance that must be achieved between structural strength and effectiveness of the cut. If the thickness of the raised section is too high, the cutting teeth will not be able to achieve as close of a shave; on the other hand, if the thickness of the raised section is too low, insufficient structural strength is added. As such, there is a trade-off between structural strength and cutting ability that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and thus experiment with to find the optimum value. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Thus, such a modification would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses wherein the apertures are evenly distributed across the pressure restoring zone (as modified by Wu, openings 88, which extend nearly the full width of central area 62, are evenly arranged across the pressure restoring zone of the raised section).
Regarding claim 11, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Bruecker as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the proportion of the area of apertures to total area of the pressure restoring zone is at least 40%.
As modified, Bruecker discloses that the apertures (openings 88) may vary considerably in size, shape, and arrangement. One factor which is important to the structure of these apertures is the overall thickness of the comb (see pg. 3, lines 5-21). As discussed above, there is a trade-off to be considered between the structural strength and cutting ability of the guard. Since the structure of the apertures is a key factor in determining the guard’s structural strength, the shape, orientation, and arrangement are particularly relevant when considering the trade-off between strength and cutting ability. That is, more apertures could increase cutting ability, but reduce the structural strength and vice versa. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably experiment with various values to determine the optimal balance between strength and cutting ability.
Regarding claim 12, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses a blade set for a hair cutting appliance comprising the guard plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and a cutting plate (cutter 116; see fig. 8) configured to be received on the guard plate and to cooperate with the guard plate to cut hair (comb unit 39 cooperates with cutter 116 to cut short and long hairs; see fig. 8 and pg. 4, lines 13-36).
Regarding claim 13, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses a cutting assembly comprising a blade set according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above) and a driving unit (impulse motor comprises armature 26, which carries crank pin 28 arranged to drive the cutter; see pg. 2, lines 22-27) configured to oscillate the cutting plate with respect to the guard plate (cutter 116 oscillates when driven by the motor; pg. 3, lines 73-75-pg. 4, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 14, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses a hair cutting appliance comprising a cutting assembly according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) mounted on a handle (handle 18; see fig. 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruecker (US 2284038) in view of Godlieb (US 20200331157), Wu (CN 212287726), and further in view of Phoon (US 20200130207).
Regarding claim 9, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bruecker as modified further discloses wherein each tooth extends from the edge to a tip (each of teeth 84 has a tip; see fig. 4).
Bruecker as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein at the tip, each tooth is bent towards the blade-facing surface and directed back towards the edge, connecting to the blade-facing surface to form a buttress to reinforce the tooth.
Phoon discloses wherein at the tip, each tooth is bent towards the blade-facing surface and directed back towards the edge (teeth 74 of stationary blade 66 have ends 100 which bend back towards movable blade 68; see fig. 6), connecting to the blade-facing surface to form a buttress to reinforce the tooth (the bent portions of ends 100 act as a secondary layer for increasing the strength of teeth 74; see fig. 4 and paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bruecker in view of Phoon to include teeth that are bent towards the blade-facing surface such that a buttress is formed. Phoon discloses that the folded edges of the teeth provide for increased strength, since the folded edges function essentially as an extra layer. As such, the rigidity and thus the durability of the teeth is increased (see paragraph [0027]). In view of the teachings of Phoon, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to further modify Bruecker in order to reinforce the teeth by bending them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, regarding Applicant’s assertion that Godlieb (US 20200331157) cannot be used as prior art due to an exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C), Examiner notes that it is properly applied under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and thus the exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2) are not relevant (see MPEP 2153.01(a), which states that a publication can be used as prior art if the application names fewer joint inventors than the publication). If Applicant were to provide evidence that an exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) is applicable, an earlier publication of the same reference (which would not be subject to any exceptions) can be applied.
Secondly, Applicant asserts that Wu does not disclose modulation of skin pressure through pressure-relenting or pressure-restoring zones, pressure-relenting lines, rising points, tangent points, or envelope angles. Examiner respectfully notes that even if Wu does not explicitly disclose these elements or teachings, the structure provided, particularly as shown in fig. 3, is very similar to that of fig. 4 in the instant application. Thus, even if the raised section (reinforcing boss 14) is not explicitly designed for the modulation of skin pressure during shaving, it is still capable of performing this function by nature of its structure. Although reinforcing boss 14 is included primarily for reinforcing the strength of the blade, when pressed against a user’s skin, similar pressure modulating effects will be achieved as that of the instant application.
Further, Locke is applied as an evidentiary reference that teaches using a specific thickness of the foil in order to achieve the closest shave possible without irritation to a user’s skin. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need for choosing a thickness based on the foil strength and the resulting closeness of the shave. That is, it is desirable to achieve a close shave without irritating the skin, but a designer must take into account the strength of the foil since it could become damaged if it is too thin. Therefore, the thickness of the foil is understood to be a result-effective variable which directly affects the recognized result of a close shave with minimal/no irritation to the user. Modifying the primary reference of Bruecker as described in the rejections above would yield a device that reads on the claims as currently recited. Specifically, as discussed above, even if Wu does not explicitly disclose that reinforcing boss 14 is for the same purpose as the raised section of the instant application, the similar structure would provide the same skin modulation benefits. That is, the pressure relenting line, rising point, and pressure restoring zone are not result-effective variables, but are instead features inherent to the structure due to the result-effective variable of foil thickness.
Regarding the dependent claims, Bruecker as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as recited. Bruecker discloses that the apertures (openings 88) can vary in size, position, and orientation (see figs. 4-7 and pg. 3, lines 15-45) depending on design considerations such as width of the central strip (central area 62) or the amount of support required (see pg. 3, lines 46-50). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need to position the apertures based on strength requirements, while keeping in mind cut quality. Thus, the size, position, and orientation of the apertures are understood to be result-effective variables. Regarding claim 3, the height of the raised section is a result-effective variable similar to the thickness of the foil as discussed above – a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need for balancing strength of the raised section and closeness of the shave, and thus select a height, or thickness, of the raised section accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, implementing the structure of Phoon into Bruecker as modified would not impede the device from operating. Bruecker discloses a structure similar to the buttresses in intermediate portions 81 (see fig. 10) which could easily be replaced with teeth 74 (particularly the bent ends of teeth 74) of Phoon. Specifically, the folded edge 108 at frontal end 100 of teeth 74 forms a similar structure to that of Bruecker as modified, such that the tip is “directed back towards the edge” and is connected to the blade-facing surface. As described, this modification would not block slots 85, 86, since it is effectively replacing intermediate portions 81. Thus, further modifying Bruecker in view of Phoon is proper and would yield the recited structure without impeding operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20200164533 to Phoon, drawn to a stationary blade, blade set, and manufacturing method.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights