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 Objections
Claims 13 and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 and 17: it is not clear how the button is “slidably mounted to the rail” – as shown in figs. 1A-1B, button 158 appears to be fixed while rail 150 slides
Claims 15 and 16: since it appears the button is fixed to the rail, it is not clear how the button has a forward/rearward position relative to the rail – it would seem that it maintains the same position relative to the rail regardless of what position the rail is in
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reid (US 20150089822).
Regarding claim 13, Reid discloses a retractable razor (embodiment 500 shows a razor with an extendible handle portion; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5A-5B), comprising: a housing (outer handle 510; see figs. 5A-5B); a rail slidably mounted to the housing (inner handle 512 is able to extend and retract from outer handle 510; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5A-5B), the rail defining a circular opening (annulus 311; see fig. 3); a button (lever 130; see fig. 3) slidably mounted to the rail (lever 130 moves from side to side when tabs 132 are depressed; see paragraph [0023]); a shaving razor cartridge having a disc rotationally mounted within the circular opening (pin 321 of gear 322 is mounted within annulus 311 and rotates via interaction with planetary gear 330; see paragraphs [0022-0023] and fig. 3); and a linkage having a first end pivotably coupled to the disc (the second end 319 of the linkage engages slot 325 of gear 322; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 3) and a second end pivotably coupled to the button (first end 315 of the linkage engages with recess 134 of lever 130; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 3), wherein the linkage is configured to rotate the disc relative to the rail (the pivoting of the linkage causes gear 322 to rotate, which causes planetary gear 330 to rotate, which in turn rotates razor 140; see paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Reid discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Reid further discloses wherein the disc (gear 322; see fig. 3) is fixed to the shaving razor cartridge (mounting post 333 of razor 140 engages planetary gear 330, which engages gear 322; see paragraph [0023] and fig. 3).
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, 3-4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 20150089822) in view of La Cas (US 3080651).
Regarding claim 1, Reid discloses a retractable razor (embodiment 500 shows a razor with an extendible handle portion; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5A-5B), comprising: a rail slidably mounted to the housing (inner handle 512 is able to extend and retract from outer handle 510; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5A-5B), the rail having a tab (protruding button 514; see figs. 5A-5B); and a shaving razor cartridge (razor 140; see fig. 3) rotationally mounted to the rail (the pivoting of the linkage causes gear 322 to rotate, which causes planetary gear 330 to rotate, which in turn rotates razor 140; see paragraph [0023]); wherein the shaving razor cartridge is configured to move relative to the housing between a retracted position and an open position (razor 140 moves away from outer handle 510 in an open position, and back towards outer handle 510 in a retracted position; see figs. 5A-5B); and the tab is positioned at a first end of the leaf spring assembly in the retracted position (as modified, protruding button 514 is located at a first end of the leaf spring in a retracted position; see fig. 5A) and at a second end of the leaf spring assembly in the open position (as modified, protruding button 514 is located at a second end on the opposite side of the leaf spring in an open position; see fig. 5B).
Reid does not explicitly disclose a leaf spring assembly having a first leaf spring mounted to a housing.
La Cas discloses a leaf spring assembly having a first leaf spring (bent leaf spring 82; see figs. 3 and 6) mounted to a housing (bent leaf spring 82 is mounted to slidable sheath 80 of handle 7; see col. 3, lines 51-55 and figs. 3, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reid in view of La Cas to include a leaf spring assembly. La Cas discloses that the leaf spring assembly is a simple construction that allows a user to adjust a handle to a desired length (see col. 3, line 48-col. 4, line 10). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this configuration is simply an alternative to the extendible handle as disclosed by Reid, and that the mechanical stops could be replaced with the leaf spring assembly without changing the overall function of the device. Thus, one could perform a simple substitution of parts to replace the mechanical stops of Reid with the leaf spring assembly of La Cas.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose a second leaf spring.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid to include a second leaf spring since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including a second leaf spring and modifying the rail to engage with it would increase the strength of the connection and more securely lock the stem in place against unwanted movement.
Regarding claim 3, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified further discloses wherein second ends of the first and second leaf springs are positioned within elongated recesses (as modified, the second ends of the first and second leaf springs are positioned within a recess formed by outer handle 510; see fig. 5B) at a second end of the housing (as modified, the recess extends throughout the cavity of outer handle 510; see fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 4, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the tab is circular.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid to make the tab circular. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the shape of the tab does not have significant bearing as long as the corresponding parts (i.e., the rail) are still capable of engaging with the tab. Further, it has been held that changing the shape of a structure is “a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed [shape] was significant.” (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 6, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
La Cas further discloses wherein the first leaf spring has a convex surface (bend 85 of bent leaf spring 82; see figs. 3 and 6) facing a convex surface of the second leaf spring (as modified to include a second leaf spring, both bends 85 face one another on opposite sides of the sliding rail; see figs. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, Reid as modified further discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified further discloses a handle (outer handle 510 forms a handle; see figs. 5A-5B) defining a cavity configured to receive the leaf spring assembly and the rail (as modified, outer handle 510 houses the leaf spring assembly and inner handle 512; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 11, Reid as modified further discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified further discloses wherein the shaving razor cartridge includes a disc (gear 322; see fig. 3) positioned within a circular opening defined by the rail (pin 321 of gear 322 is mounted within annulus 311; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Reid as modified further discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified further discloses wherein the tab is configured to push the first and second leaf springs apart when moved between the retracted position and the open position (as modified, protruding button 514 pushes the first and second leaf springs away from each other as it moves toward the open position; see figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 17, Reid discloses a retractable razor (embodiment 500 shows a razor with an extendible handle portion; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5A-5B) comprising: a rail slidably mounted to the housing (inner handle 512 is able to extend and retract from outer handle 510; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5A-5B), the rail having a tab (protruding button 514; see figs. 5A-5B) and a circular opening (annulus 311; see fig. 3); a button (lever 130; see fig. 3) slidably mounted to the rail (lever 130 moves from side to side when tabs 132 are depressed; see paragraph [0023]); a shaving razor cartridge rotationally mounted within the circular opening of the rail (pin 321 of gear 322 is mounted within annulus 311 and rotates via interaction with planetary gear 330; see paragraphs [0022-0023] and fig. 3); and a linkage having a first end pivotably coupled to a disc (the second end 319 of the linkage engages slot 325 of gear 322; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 3) and a second end pivotably coupled to the button (first end 315 of the linkage engages with recess 134 of lever 130; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 3); wherein the linkage is configured to rotate the disc and the shaving razor cartridge (the pivoting of the linkage causes gear 322 to rotate, which causes planetary gear 330 to rotate, which in turn rotates razor 140; see paragraph [0023]); and the tab is positioned at a first end of the leaf spring assembly in a retracted position (as modified, protruding button 514 is located at a first end of the leaf spring in a retracted position; see fig. 5A) and at a second end of the leaf spring assembly in an open position (as modified, protruding button 514 is located at a second end on the opposite side of the leaf spring in an open position; see fig. 5B).
Reid does not explicitly disclose a leaf spring assembly having a first leaf spring mounted to a housing.
La Cas discloses a leaf spring assembly having a first leaf spring (bent leaf spring 82; see figs. 3 and 6) mounted to a housing (bent leaf spring 82 is mounted to slidable sheath 80 of handle 7; see col. 3, lines 51-55 and figs. 3, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reid in view of La Cas to include a leaf spring assembly. La Cas discloses that the leaf spring assembly is a simple construction that allows a user to adjust a handle to a desired length (see col. 3, line 48-col. 4, line 10). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this configuration is simply an alternative to the extendible handle as disclosed by Reid, and that the mechanical stops could be replaced with the leaf spring assembly without changing the overall function of the device. Thus, one could perform a simple substitution of parts to replace the mechanical stops of Reid with the leaf spring assembly of La Cas.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose a second leaf spring.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid to include a second leaf spring since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including a second leaf spring and modifying the rail to engage with it would increase the strength of the connection and more securely lock the stem in place against unwanted movement.
Regarding claim 19, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the tab is circular.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid to make the tab circular. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the shape of the tab does not have significant bearing as long as the corresponding parts (i.e., the rail) are still capable of engaging with the tab. Further, it has been held that changing the shape of a structure is “a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed [shape] was significant.” (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 20, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
La Cas further discloses wherein the first leaf spring has a convex surface (bend 85 of bent leaf spring 82; see figs. 3 and 6) facing a convex surface of the second leaf spring (as modified to include a second leaf spring, both bends 85 face one another on opposite sides of the sliding rail; see figs. 3 and 6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 20150089822) in view of La Cas (US 3080651), and further in view of Righi (US 4837930).
Regarding claim 2, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein second ends of the first and second leaf springs each have an arcuate portion that wraps around a corresponding post extending from the housing.
Righi discloses wherein second ends of the first and second leaf springs each have an arcuate portion (spring 43 has a curved portion at its second end; see fig. 13) that wraps around a corresponding post extending from the housing (the curved portion of spring 43 wraps around pin 42. As modified, both leaf springs would have this configuration; see fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid in view of Righi to include wherein a second end of the leaf springs wraps around a corresponding post. Righi discloses that the post (pin 42) supports the spring which urges the locking bar toward the shaving head (see col. 7, lines 51-58). In doing so, the razor cartridge is locked in a position for shaving and will not shift from this position during a shaving operation. As such, safety for the user is improved, thus the inclusion of a post is therefore an obvious modification to make in view of the teachings of Righi.
Claims 5, 7-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 20150089822) in view of La Cas (US 3080651), and further in view of Gordon (US 3964160).
Regarding claim 5, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified further discloses a top surface of the rail opposite the tab (the surface of inner handle 512 opposite protruding button 514; see figs. 5A-5B).
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a top surface of the rail opposite the tab includes a button configured to receive a digit of a user.
Gordon discloses a button configured to receive a digit of a user (lever 14 is configured to be operated by a user’s finger; see col. 2, lines 17-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid in view of Gordon to include the button on the top surface of the rail. Moving lever 130 to the top surface would not necessarily change its function. Utilizing the same lever movements as taught by Gordon (forward and backward movement; see col. 3, lines 4-11), lever 130 could still control the movement of the linkage. As such, this would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Regarding claim 7, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing defines an elongated slot dimensioned to receive the.
Gordon discloses wherein the housing defines an elongated slot dimensioned to receive the tab (cutout 12k is formed within wall 12b to receive lever 14; see col. 2, lines 17-19 and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid in view of Gordon to include an elongated slot. While Reid suggests that there is a slot for receiving the tab (protruding button 514 is mounted on inner handle 512 and is actuated by a user. Since inner handle 512 is located within outer handle 510 in a retracted position, there must be a slot formed so that the user can access protruding button 514), there is no explicit teaching that this is the case. Gordon discloses a simple cutout which receives a lever (see figs. 2 and 4). Though the lever of Gordon is used for a different purpose, the cutout nonetheless would function the same (that is, allow a user to actuate the button) if applied to the outer handle 510 of Reid as modified.
Regarding claim 8, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified further discloses wherein the tab is secured between a first end of the first leaf spring, a first end of the second leaf spring, and a first end of the elongated slot in the housing, in the retracted position (as modified, protruding button 514 is located between a first end of each leaf spring and the slot in the housing in a retracted position; see fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 9, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified further discloses wherein the tab is secured between a second end of the first leaf spring, a second end of the second leaf spring, and a second end of the elongated slot in the housing, in the open position (as modified, protruding button 514 is located between a second end of each leaf spring and the slot in the housing in a retracted position; see fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 18, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing defines an elongated slot dimensioned to receive the tab.
Gordon discloses wherein the housing defines an elongated slot dimensioned to receive the tab (cutout 12k is formed within wall 12b to receive lever 14; see col. 2, lines 17-19 and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Reid in view of Gordon to include an elongated slot. While Reid suggests that there is a slot for receiving the tab (protruding button 514 is mounted on inner handle 512 and is actuated by a user. Since inner handle 512 is located within outer handle 510 in a retracted position, there must be a slot formed so that the user can access protruding button 514), there is no explicit teaching that this is the case. Gordon discloses a simple cutout which receives a lever (see figs. 2 and 4). Though the lever of Gordon is used for a different purpose, the cutout nonetheless would function the same (that is, allow a user to actuate the button) if applied to the outer handle 510 of Reid as modified.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 20150089822) in view of Righi (US 4837930).
Regarding claim 15, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Reid as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the button has a forward position relative to the rail with the shaving razor cartridge positioned non-parallel to the rail.
Righi discloses wherein the button has a forward position relative to the rail with the shaving razor cartridge positioned non-parallel to the rail (when pin 44 is in a forward position in the direction of the cartridge, shaving head 16 is in a non-parallel position; see fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reid in view of Righi to position the button so that it has a forward position that results in the cartridge being non-parallel to the rail. Righi discloses that actuation of the button (pin 44) to its forward position locks head 16 in a shaving position, and actuation of the button to its rearward position will move head 16 into a rest position (see col. 7, line 66-col. 8, line 9). Righi further discloses that placing the cartridge into the rest position results in a configuration that is more convenient for travel, since it is roughly the size and shape of a fountain pen (see col. 8, lines 29-44).
Regarding claim 16, Reid as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Righi further discloses wherein the button has a rearward position relative to the rail with the shaving razor cartridge positioned parallel to the rail (when pin 44 is in a rearward position in the direction away from the cartridge, shaving head 16 is in a parallel position; see fig. 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant asserts that Reid does not disclose a button slidably mounted to the rail. Examiner notes figs. 5A-5B, which show the button (lever 130) mounted to the rail (inner handle 512). Additionally, lever 130 comprises a pair of tabs 132 which are configured to be depressed by a user (see paragraph [0023]) – Examiner interprets the depression of tabs 132 to be a sliding motion. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that lever 130 pivots, Examiner respectfully points to paragraph [0022] of Reid - lever 130 includes recess 134, which engages first end 315 of the linkage, thus causing the linkage to pivot when tabs 132 are depressed (see also paragraph [0023]). Further, Examiner notes that claim 13 does not require the button to actuate the rotation mechanism – claim 13 only requires a button slidably mounted to the rail and that a second end of a linkage is coupled to the button.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the leaf spring of La Cas into the device of Reid, Examiner respectfully disagrees. La Cas discloses a leaf spring that allows for extension of the handle (see figs. 3 and 6). If mechanical stops 516 of Reid were replaced with leaf spring 82 of La Cas, a similar structure to that of the instant invention would be provided, where the springs engage with button 514 of Reid in order to allow extension of the handle. Further, Examiner maintains that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the spring. In doing so, mechanical stops 516 of Reid would be replaced on both the left and right sides (as shown in figs. 5A-5B) with a spring. Thus, as previously described, the connection between the elements would be more secure and lock inner handle 512 against unwanted movement. In this way, the springs would work in concert as described (see pg. 7 of remarks). Lastly, this arrangement would result in each spring having a convex surface that faces each other. As shown in fig. 3 of La Cas, spring 82 comprises bend 85. Replacing Reid’s mechanical stops with two springs would require each spring facing button 514 in order for the bent portion of the springs to engage button 514 and facilitate extension of the handle.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that it would not be obvious to further modify Reid in view of Righi, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably seek to include a post for securing the springs in order to facilitate locking of the rail and razor cartridge as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above. As disclosed by Righi, locking the spring in place via the post allows for an extension/retraction movement of the handle. As modified in claim 1, Reid includes two leaf springs that are effectively mirrored on opposite sides of the handle. In order for the two springs to function properly as mirror images of one another, each spring requires the same structures.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not further modify Reid in view of Gordon to include a button configured to receive a digit of a user, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rearranging Reid’s lever 130 to be located on a top surface of the rail would not necessarily impact its function. Since it appears that lever 130 already contacts the rail (inner handle 512) based on figs. 3 and 5A-5B, it is understood that moving it such that it is located opposite the tab (button 514) would not change its function.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a slot for receiving the tab. Regardless of what the specific function of the slot is, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing a slot is necessary so that the tab is provided sufficient space to move, thus allowing extension/retraction of the handle. Regarding claims 8-9 and 15-16, Reid as modified above would provide the recited configuration.
Conclusion
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