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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “load adjustment mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “load adjustment”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “load adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “float mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “float”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “float” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “biasing member” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “biasing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
• “reception part” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “part” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “reception”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “reception” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the part)
• “movable mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “movable”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “movable” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
• “holding member” as recited in at least claim 9 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “holding”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “holding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 4-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 20190299434) in view of Füllgrabe (EP 3546152).
Regarding claim 1, Fuerst discloses an electric shaver (electric shaver 1; see fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of outer blades (hair removal tool 4 comprises hair cutters 5, 6; see fig. 2) and a first load adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a load applied to the plurality of outer blades (adjustment actuator AA adjusts the settings of biasing device 10 so as to increase/decrease biasing force/torque in response to skin contact pressure; see paragraphs [0066-0067]), wherein the first load adjustment mechanism comprises: a first float mechanism that comprises a biasing member (biasing element 10a; see fig. 4) that biases the plurality of outer blades toward one side in one direction (biasing elements 10a urge hair removal tools 4 into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]), and a reception part (see annotated portion of fig. 4 below) that receives the biasing member (biasing element 10a is supported by the reception part; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), and floats the plurality of outer blades in the one direction (biasing elements 10a urge hair removal tools 4 into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]); a first sensor (hall sensor 104; see fig. 6) that detects the load applied to the plurality of outer blades (hall sensor 104 detects shaving pressure based on how far hair removal tools 4 are pressed down; see paragraph [0068]); and a first controller (electronic control unit 80; see fig. 6) that controls a movement amount of the reception part in the one direction based on the load applied to the plurality of outer blades detected by the first sensor (electronic control unit 80 controls adjustment actuator AA (which adjusts biasing device 10) in response to skin contact pressure detected by hall sensor 104; see paragraphs [0066-0067]), at least two outer blades selected from the plurality of outer blades are configured to be separately and independently adjustable by the first load adjustment mechanism such that the movement amount in the one direction of each of at least two outer blades selected from the plurality of outer blades is separately and independently adjustable by the first load adjustment mechanism (adjustment actuator AA controls the setting of biasing device 10 (which may include biasing elements 10a and/or 10b) so that each hair removal tool 4 can float or dive individually; see paragraphs [0060, 0066-0067]).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fuerst does not explicitly disclose a first movable mechanism configured to move the reception part in the one direction.
Füllgrabe discloses a first movable mechanism (actuator 12; see paragraph [0026] and figs. 3A, 3B) configured to move the reception part in the one direction (as modified, actuator 12 is configured to adjust a functional property of the hair removal apparatus, for example the distance between blades; see paragraphs [0026-0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fuerst in view of Füllgrabe to include a first movable mechanism. Füllgrabe discloses a movable mechanism (actuator 12) which is capable of adjusting a distance between blades, among other characteristics (see paragraphs [0026-0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a benefit allows for a more versatile device, since multiple functions can be changed depending on the desired characteristic (see paragraphs [0028-0029]). Therefore, in order to provide a versatile device that offers a user more functional options, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls a movement amount of the reception part in the one direction (electronic control unit 80 directs adjustment actuator AA to adjust biasing element 10b, which urges working head frame 12 (which includes the reception part) into a neutral position; see paragraphs [0066-0067]) so that loads applied to the plurality of outer blades are substantially the same as each other (adjustment actuator AA causes biasing device 10 to urge hair removal tools 4 into a neutral position in response to forces/torques applied to hair removal tools 4; see paragraphs [0063-0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls at least one outer blade having a load larger than a predetermined load so that a total of loads applied to the plurality of outer blades becomes a preset load (sensitivity can be automatically adjusted based on measured and/or predefined skin contact force, and/or in response to threshold values at which pivoting stiffness changes; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 6, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls at least one outer blade having a load smaller than a predetermined load so that a total of loads applied to the plurality of outer blades becomes a preset load (sensitivity can be automatically adjusted based on measured and/or predefined skin contact force, and/or in response to threshold values at which pivoting stiffness changes; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 7, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the first controller controls the plurality of outer blades so that the load applied to plurality of outer blades becomes a preset set load, and is configured to change the set load (sensitivity can be automatically adjusted based on measured and/or predefined skin contact force, and/or in response to threshold values at which pivoting stiffness changes; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 8, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the electric shaver is configured to change the preset set load remotely (a user can manually change the sensitivity from an external device that is wirelessly connected to the shaver, for example a smartphone; see paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 10, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses a second load adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a load applied to the skin guard part (as modified to include a second system for adjusting the load on the skin guard part, adjustment actuator AA adjusts the settings of biasing device 10 so as to increase/decrease biasing force/torque in response to skin contact pressure; see paragraphs [0066-0067]), wherein the second load adjustment mechanism comprises: a second float mechanism that comprises a second biasing member (as modified to include a second load adjustment mechanism, biasing element 10a; see fig. 4) that biases the skin guard part toward one side in one direction (as modified, biasing elements 10a urge the skin guard part into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]), and a second reception part that receives the second biasing member (biasing element 10a is supported by the reception part; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), and floats the skin guard part in the one direction (as modified, biasing elements 10a urge the skin guard part into a neutral position; see paragraph [0064]); a second sensor (hall sensor 104; see fig. 6) that detects the load applied to the skin guard part (as modified, hall sensor 104 detects shaving pressure based on how far the skin guard part is pressed down; see paragraph [0068]); and a second controller (a second electronic control unit 80; see fig. 6) that controls a movement amount of the second reception part in the one direction based on the load applied to the skin guard part detected by the second sensor (as modified, a second electronic control unit 80 controls adjustment actuator AA (which adjusts biasing device 10) in response to skin contact pressure detected by hall sensor 104; see paragraphs [0066-0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst to include a second load adjustment mechanism since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, including a second load adjustment mechanism for adjusting the skin guard part would allow a user to separately adjust the skin guard part relative to the blades. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that doing so allows for the height of the guard/comb to be variable, such that a user can control the length of hair that is cut. Therefore, in order to provide a more versatile device, including a second load adjustment mechanism to control movement of the skin guard part would have been obvious.
Füllgrabe further discloses a skin guard part (a non-cutting element, such as a guard or comb, may be adjusted by actuator 12; see paragraph [0161]); a second movable mechanism (as modified, a second actuator 12; see figs. 3A and 3B) configured to move the second reception part in the one direction (as modified, actuator 12 is configured to adjust a functional property of the hair removal apparatus, for example the distance between non-cutting elements; see paragraphs [0026-0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst in view of Füllgrabe to include a skin guard part. Füllgrabe discloses an actuator which is capable of adjusting the height of cutting and/or non-cutting elements (see paragraph [0161]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting a guard in the same manner as previously described by Fuerst (in relation to the outer blades) provides multiple benefits. For example, including an adjustable guard/comb in the device of Fuerst would yield a device which is capable of protecting a user’s skin in addition to allowing the length of hair cut to be varied. Therefore, in order to provide a more versatile tool that is capable of cutting multiple lengths of hair in a way that protects the user from injury, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the second controller controls a movement amount of the second reception part in the one direction (as modified to include a second controller, electronic control unit 80 directs adjustment actuator AA to adjust biasing element 10b, which urges working head frame 12 (which includes the second reception part) into a neutral position; see paragraphs [0066-0067]) so that the load applied to the skin guard part is different from the load applied to the plurality of outer blades (as modified, adjustment actuator AA can cause biasing device 10 to urge hair removal tools 4 into a different position than the skin guard part in response to forces/torques applied to hair removal tools 4 and the skin guard part; see paragraphs [0063-0065]).
Regarding claim 12, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses wherein the second controller controls a movement amount of the second reception part in the one direction (as modified to include a second controller, electronic control unit 80 directs adjustment actuator AA to adjust biasing element 10b, which urges working head frame 12 (which includes the second reception part) into a neutral position; see paragraphs [0066-0067]) so that the load applied to the skin guard part and the load applied to the plurality of outer blades are substantially the same as each other (as modified, adjustment actuator AA causes biasing device 10 to urge hair removal tools 4 and the skin guard part into a neutral position in response to forces/torques applied to hair removal tools 4; see paragraphs [0063-0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Füllgrabe further discloses wherein the first movable mechanism includes a first slide motor (actuator 12 may be a servomotor that drives an adjustment mechanism for adjusting distance between functional elements; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst in view of Füllgrabe to make the first movable mechanism a slide motor. Füllgrabe discloses that the first movable mechanism (actuator 12) may be a servomotor, and further, that actuator 12 is configured to adjust a characteristic of different functional elements (see paragraphs [0026-0027]). Füllgrabe further discloses that actuator 12 is capable of acting on spring 35 in order to change its preload (see paragraph [0098]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to adjust the preload on spring 35, there must be some sliding movement of actuator 12. Providing a feature such as actuator 12 is beneficial because it allows a user to adjust various properties of the device (see paragraphs [0026-0029]). In order to provide a more versatile device with a wider variety of functional options, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Füllgrabe further discloses wherein the second movable mechanism includes a second slide motor (actuator 12 may be a servomotor that drives an adjustment mechanism for adjusting distance between functional elements; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst in view of Füllgrabe to make the second movable mechanism a slide motor. Füllgrabe discloses that the second movable mechanism (actuator 12) may be a servomotor, and further, that actuator 12 is configured to adjust a characteristic of different functional elements (see paragraphs [0026-0027]). Füllgrabe further discloses that actuator 12 is capable of acting on spring 35 in order to change its preload (see paragraph [0098]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to adjust the preload on spring 35, there must be some sliding movement of actuator 12. Providing a feature such as actuator 12 is beneficial because it allows a user to adjust various properties of the device (see paragraphs [0026-0029]). In order to provide a more versatile device with a wider variety of functional options, such a modification would be obvious.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 20190299434) in view of Füllgrabe (EP 3546152), and further in view of Izumi (US 20040055158).
Regarding claim 9, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses a shaver body (handle 3 and working head 2; see fig. 1); wherein the movable mechanism, the first sensor, and the first controller of the first load adjustment mechanism are disposed in the shaver body (biasing element 10b, hall sensor 104, and electronic control unit 80 are disposed within handle 3 and working head 2; see fig. 6).
Fuerst as modified does not explicitly disclose a holding member detachably attached to the shaver body in a state of holding the plurality of outer blades.
Izumi discloses a holding member (cutter frame 8; see fig. 13a) detachably attached to the shaver body in a state of holding the plurality of outer blades (cutter frame 8 supports a plurality of outer cutters 4a, 7a and is detachable from cutter head 2; see paragraph [0046] and fig. 13a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Fuerst in view of Izumi to make the holding member detachable from the shaver body. Izumi discloses a holding member (cutter frame 8) which is capable of supporting a plurality of blades, and the cutting frame is capable of being detached from the shaver body (see paragraph [0046]). Further, the cutter frame is detachable so that a user may replace blades or more easily clean the interior (see paragraph [0070]). Therefore, in order to make the blades replaceable and easier to clean, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Fuerst as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Fuerst as modified further discloses an outer blade block comprising: an outer blade (hair removal tool 4 comprises hair cutters 5, 6; see fig. 2); wherein the load applied to the outer blade is configured to be adjusted by the first load adjustment mechanism when the holding member is attached to the shaver body in a state where the outer blade is held (as modified to include a holding member, adjustment actuator AA adjusts the settings of biasing device 10 so as to increase/decrease biasing force/torque in response to skin contact pressure while the holding member supports the blades; see paragraphs [0066-0067]).
Fuerst as modified does not explicitly disclose a holding member detachably attached to a shaver body in a state of holding the at least one outer blade.
Izumi discloses a holding member (cutter frame 8; see fig. 31a) detachably attached to a shaver body in a state of holding the at least one outer blade (cutter frame 8 supports a plurality of outer cutters 4a, 7a and is detachable from cutter head 2; see paragraph [0046] and fig. 13a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fuerst in view of Izumi to include a holding member that is detachable from the shaver body. Izumi discloses a holding member (cutter frame 8) which is capable of supporting a plurality of blades, and the cutting frame is capable of being detached from the shaver body (see paragraph [0046]). Further, the cutter frame is detachable so that a user may replace blades or more easily clean the interior (see paragraph [0070]). Therefore, in order to make the blades replaceable and easier to clean, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the adjustment actuator AA of Fuerst only controls stiffness of the entire head portion, Examiner respectfully points to paragraphs [0060, 0066]. In paragraph [0060], Fuerst states that each hair removal tool 4 may float or dive individually. Further, paragraph [0066] describes how adjustment actuator AA adjusts one or both of biasing elements 10a, 10b so that the working tools may be biased relative to the working head frame and the working head frame may be biased relative to the handle respectively. Since Fuerst discloses that adjustment actuator AA may individually adjust each hair removal tool 4 in addition to controlling the stiffness of the working head as a whole, the arguments are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20190306259 to Burghardt, drawn to a personal care device and method of operation thereof.
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 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