DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 3-13-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 11, and 13 were amended. Claim 2 was cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0304483 to Lev in view of EP 3453500 A1.
In re Claim 1, Lev teaches a razor cartridge comprising:
at least one blade having a cutting edge (see Fig. 3A, blades #26);
a blade housing accommodating the at least one blade in a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 3A, #26/#28 housed in #30); and
a guard frame (see Fig. 3A, #36)
the blade housing being movable forwards and backwards (see Fig. 3A, #30 moves between #3a/32b), the guard frame comprising a first front supporter (see annotated Fig. 3A, below) provided in front of the blade housing and configured to contact skin during a shaving process,
the blade housing comprising a second front supporter (see annotated Fig. 3A, below) provided between the at least one blade and the first front supporter and configured to contact skin during the shaving process.
LEV is silent as to:
a topmost portion of the first front supporter being higher than a topmost portion of the second front supporter to cause the first front supporter to contacts skin in a state that the blade housing is at a foremost position relative to the guard frame, and to cause the second front supporter to contact skin in a state that the blade housing is at a rearmost position relative to the guard frame, during shaving the shaving process,
wherein the blade housing or the guard frame further comprises a rear supporter provided in back of the at least one blade and configured to contact skin during the shaving process,
wherein a first contact plane connecting the first front supporter and the rear supporter is defined as a shaving plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame,
wherein a second contact plane connecting the second front supporter and the rear supporter is defined as the shaving plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame,
and wherein the second contact plane is different from the first contact plane.
However, EP 3453500 A1 teaches that it is known in the art of shaving razors to provide a skin contact plane (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6, “y”) wherein a top a topmost portion of the first front supporter (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6, #30) being higher than a topmost portion of the second front supporter (see Annotated Fig. 6, below);
wherein the blade housing or the guard frame further comprises a rear supporter (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6, #54) provided in back of the at least one blade and configured to contact skin during the shaving process (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6, #54 contacts the skin during the shaving process),
wherein the first contact plane (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6, “y”) connecting the first front supporter (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6, “y” at #30) and the rear supporter is defined as a shaving plane,
wherein a second contact plane connecting the second front supporter and the rear supporter is defined as the shaving plane (annotated Fig. 6, below)
and wherein the second contact plane is different from the first contact plane (see annotated Fig. 6, below showing that “y” and the second contact plan are in non-coplanar).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, provide a top most portion of the first front supporter higher than a top most portion of the second front supporter, on the device of LEV, as taught by EP 3453500 A1. In other words, adding #30, of EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6, to #32A of Fig. 3A of LEV and adding second front supporter of annotated Fig. 6, above, to #30 of Fig. 3 of LEV. Doing so provides a razor that transitions from negative exposure to positive exposure across the blade array (see EP 3453500 A1, Para. 0026-0029) in order to provide a varied load distribution across the blades of a cartridge to provide a clean shave with minimal side effects (see EP 3553500 A1, Para. 0004)
Adding a top most portion of the first front supporter higher than a top most portion of the second front supporter, on the device of LEV, would provide for
a topmost portion of the first front supporter being higher than a topmost portion of the second front supporter to cause the first front supporter to contact skin in a state that the blade housing is at a foremost position relative to the guard frame, and to cause the second front supporter to contact skin in a state that the blade housing is at a rearmost position relative to the guard frame, during shaving the shaving process. In other words, the razor of LEV move forward and backward and adding the structure of EP 3553500 to the razor of LEV would read on this clause.
Additionally, the combination of LEV and EP 3553500 teaches the first contact plane is defined as a shaving plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame, and the second contact plane is defined as the shaving plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame.
In re Claim 5, modified LEV, in re Claim 4, teaches wherein the cutting edge is positioned below the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame (see EP 3453500 A1, Para. 0026-0029, teaching the cutting edge of #40 having a negative exposure).
Claims 4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0304483 to Lev in view of EP 3453500 A1, and further in view of US 2003/0204955 to Gilder
In re Claim 4, modified LEV, in re Claim 2, does not teach wherein a protrusion value of the cutting edge with respect to the second contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame is greater than a protrusion value of the cutting edge with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art to provide a blade array that includes a blade edge nearest the guard having a negative exposure and the last blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
Such a blade arrangement would provide for a protrusion value of the cutting edge with respect to the second contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame is greater than a protrusion value of the cutting edge with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame (see e.g., EP 3453500 A1 Fig, 6, #40 vs #44 in view of Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
In re Claim 6, modified LEV, in re Claim 4, is silent as to wherein the protrusion value of the cutting edge with respect to the first contact plane ranges from -0.21 mm to -0.07 mm in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to provide a negative value of not less than -0.2mm and a positive value of not greater than +0.2mm (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003) and includes a blade edge nearest the guard having a negative exposure and the last blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
In re Claim 7, modified LEV, in re Claim 4, does not teach wherein the protrusion value of the cutting edge with respect to the second contact plane ranges from -0.06 mm to -0.015 mm in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to provide a negative value of not less than -0.2mm and a positive value of not greater than +0.2mm (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003) and includes a blade edge nearest the guard having a negative exposure and the last blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
In re Claim 8, modified LEV, in re Claim 2 is silent as to wherein a shaving angle of the cutting edge with respect to the second contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame is larger than a shaving angle of the cutting edge with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art to provide a blade array that includes a blade edge nearest the guard having a negative exposure and the last blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
Such a blade arrangement would provide for a shaving angle of the cutting edge with respect to the second contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame is larger than a shaving angle of the cutting edge with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame.
In re Claim 9, modified LEV, in re Claim 8, does not teach wherein the shaving angle of the cutting edge with respect to the first contact plane ranges from 12.2 degrees to 29 degrees in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in razor art to provide blade shaving angles between 19-28 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use the blade angles taught by Gilder at Para. 0009. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003). This is particularly true because Gilder teaches that “he blade shaving angles are not critical.” (See Gilder, Para. 0009).
In re Claim 10, modified LEV, in re Claim 8, does not teach wherein the shaving angle of the cutting edge with respect to the second contact plane ranges from 12.6 degrees to 30 degrees in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in razor art to provide blade shaving angles between 19-28 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use the blade angles taught by Gilder at Para. 0009. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003). This is particularly true because Gilder teaches that “he blade shaving angles are not critical.” (See Gilder, Para. 0009).
In re Claim 11, modified LEV, in re Claim 2, is silent as to wherein: the at least one blade comprises a first blade positioned adjacent to the second front supporter, and a second blade positioned in back of the first blade, and a protrusion value of a cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the first contact plane is greater than a protrusion value of a cutting edge of the first blade with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to provide a negative value of not less than -0.2mm and a positive value of not greater than +0.2mm (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003) and includes a first blade nearest the guard having a negative exposure and a second blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
Such an arrangement would provide for the blade comprises a first blade positioned adjacent to the second front supporter, and a second blade positioned in back of the first blade, and a protrusion value of a cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the first contact plane is greater than a protrusion value of a cutting edge of the first blade with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame. Gilder teaches a first blade nearest the guard having a negative exposure and a second blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract).
In re Claim 12, modified LEV, in re Claim 11, teaches wherein a protrusion value of a cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the second contact plane is greater than a protrusion value of a cutting edge of the first blade with respect to the second contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame. Gilder teaches a first blade nearest the guard having a negative exposure and a second blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract).
In re Claim 13, modified LEV, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein: the at least one blade comprises a first blade positioned adjacent to the second front supporter, and a second blade positioned in back of the first blade, and a difference in a protrusion value between a cutting edge of the first blade and a cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame is larger than difference in a protrusion value between a cutting edge of the first blade and a cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the second contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to provide a negative value of not less than -0.2mm and a positive value of not greater than +0.2mm (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003) and includes a first blade nearest the guard having a negative exposure and a second blade having a positive exposure (see Gilder, Abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
Such an arrangement would provide for a first blade positioned adjacent to the second front supporter, and a second blade positioned in back of the first blade, and a difference in a protrusion value between a cutting edge of the first blade and a cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the first contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame is larger than difference in a protrusion value between a cutting edge of the first blade and a cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the second contact plane in the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame.
In re Claim 14, modified LEV, in re Claim 1 is silent as to wherein a difference in a protrusion value of the cutting edge with respect to a shaving plane between the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame and the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame ranges from 66 μm to 154 μm.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to provide a blade exposure of negative value of not less than -0.2mm and a positive value of not greater than +0.2mm (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003 and abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
Here, Gilder teaches that it is desirable to have a blade array of with a negative exposure to a blade with a positive exposure within a range of -0.2mm to 0.2mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide a range of 66 μm to 154 μm, as required by Claim 14 since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Such a result would be an optimal efficient blade.
In re Claim 15, modified LEV, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein: the at least one blade comprises a first blade positioned adjacent to the second front supporter (see EP 3453500 A1, #40), and a second blade positioned in back of the first blade (see EP 3453500 A1, #44), a difference in a protrusion value of the cutting edge of the first blade with respect to the shaving plane between the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame and the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6 in view of LEV Fig. 2A/B); and a difference in a protrusion value of the cutting edge of the second blade with respect to the shaving plane between the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame and the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame (see EP 3453500 A1, Fig. 6 in view of LEV Fig. 2A/B).
Modified Lev is silent as to the range from 66 μm to 154 μm and from 58 μm to 135 μm.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to provide a blade exposure of negative value of not less than -0.2mm and a positive value of not greater than +0.2mm (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003 and abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
Here Gilder teaches that it is desirable to have a blade array of with a negative exposure to a blade with a positive exposure within a range of -0.2mm to 0.2mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide a range of 66 μm to 154 μm and from 58 μm to 135 μm, as required by Claim 15 since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Such a result would be an optimal efficient blade.
In re Claim 16, modified LEV, in re Claim 1 is silent as to wherein a difference in a shaving angle of the cutting edge with respect to a shaving plane between the state that the blade housing is at the foremost position relative to the guard frame and the state that the blade housing is at the rearmost position relative to the guard frame ranges from 0.45 degrees to 1.05 degrees.
However, Gilder teaches that it is known in the art of razor blade to provide a blade exposure of negative value of not less than -0.2mm and a positive value of not greater than +0.2mm (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003 and abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use the range of positive and negative values taught by Gilder. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Doing so equalizes the work done by the blades while making an efficient cut (see Gilder, Para. 0009/0012/0003).
Here Gilder teaches that it is desirable to have a blade array of with a negative exposure to a blade with a positive exposure within a range of -0.2mm to 0.2mm which includes an angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide 0.45 degrees to 1.05 degrees, as required by Claim 16 since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Such a result would be an optimal efficient blade.
Claims 3 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0304483 to Lev in view of EP 3453500 A1, and further in view of JP 2009189589 A.
In re Claim 3, modified LEV, in re Claim 1, silent as to wherein an angle between the first contact plane and the second contact plane ranges from 0.2 degrees to 1.5 degrees.
However, JP 2009189589 A teaches that it is known in the art of razor blades to provide a difference between a top most portion of a first front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #10) and a top most portion of a second front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #4) of between 0 an 3mm. The Examiner notes that changing the height changes the angle between these two structures. 0.0 mm would be 0 degrees and 3mm difference would be a larger angle.
In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date, to make the distance between the topmost portion of the first front supporter and the topmost portion of the second front supporter of modified LEV, in any dimension taught by JP 2009189589 A. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C).
In re Claim 17, modified LEV, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein a height difference between a topmost portion of the first front supporter and a topmost portion of the second front supporter ranges from 10 μm to 500 μm.
However, JP 2009189589 A teaches that it is known in the art of razor blades to provide a difference between a top most portion of a first front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #10) and a top most portion of a second front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #4) of between 0 an 3mm.
In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date, to make the distance between the topmost portion of the first front supporter and the topmost portion of the second front supporter of modified LEV, in any dimension taught by JP 2009189589 A. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C).
In re Claim 18, modified LEV, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein a gap between the first front supporter and the second front supporter ranges from 0.8 mm to 2.0 mm in a state that the blade housing is at a foremost position relative to the guard frame.
However, JP 2009189589 A teaches a gap between a first front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #10) and a second front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #4 – gap is “G”) of between 0.5 mm to 15mm).
In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date, to make the distance between the first front supporter and the second front supporter of modified LEV, in any dimension taught by JP 2009189589 A. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C).
In re Claim 18, modified LEV, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein a gap between the first front supporter and the second front supporter ranges from 1.3 mm to 3.1 mm in a state that the blade housing is at a rearmost position relative to the guard frame.
However, JP 2009189589 A teaches a gap between a first front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #10) and a second front supporter (see JP 2009189589 A, Fig. 6, #4 – gap is “G”) of between 0.5 mm to 15mm).
In the same field of invention, razors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date, to make the distance between the first front supporter and the second front supporter of modified LEV, in any dimension taught by JP 2009189589 A. Doing so is the use of a known value to improve a similar device, a razor cartridge (see MPEP 2143, I. C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s drawing amendments were accepted. The drawing objection are moot.
Applicant’s corresponding specification amendments were accepted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that “in Hodgson, the surface that contacts the skin is the skin-contact plane y, whereas the blade plane x merely serves as a reference plane for defining the blade angle. Accordingly, the blade plane x cannot reasonably be interpreted as corresponding to the second contact plane. For this reason, Applicant respectfully submits that Hodgson fails to disclose at least the foregoing features of Claim 1 and does not remedy the deficiencies of Lev.”
The annotated Fig. 6 of EP 3453500 A1 illustrates a second contact plane. This plane contacts the skin of the user and is considered a second contact plan. As best understood, a skin contact plane is a plane based on surfaces of the razor that contact the user’s skin. Because the razor is pressed against the skin of the user, all the “top” surfaces surrounding the razor blades contact the skin of the user during use. These different structures have different theoretical plans, and are considered contact planes. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, LEV in view of EP 3453500 A1 reads on the claims.
No further arguments were presented and therefore no further arguments are responded to in this correspondence.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724