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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a converging portion wherein the converging portion comprises an opening which narrows toward a center of the first hair contact surface" in lines 11-12. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear if the converging portion is a distinct part of the hair straightener separate from the first arm and the second arm, or if the converging portion is just a part of the first arm or the second arm. In light of Figures 9-12, Examiner will interpret the converging portion as being a part of the first arm and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Story (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0263881 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Story discloses a hair straightener (Figs. 1-12) comprising:
a first arm (4 in Fig. 1, para. 0031) comprising a first hair contact surface (26 in Fig. 1, para. 0037);
a second arm (6 in Fig. 1, para. 0031) comprising a second hair contact surface (28 in Fig. 1, para. 0037), the second arm being coupled for movement towards the first arm (para. 0032-0033);
wherein:
the first and second hair contact surfaces are capable of capturing a tress of hair between them when the first and second arms are moved towards each other in use (para. 0037);
the first hair contact surface defines a series of tress-corralling recesses disposed along its length (para. 0039-0041 and 0047, Figs. 1, 3, 6-9); and
the second hair contact surface does not define a tress-corralling recess (para. 0037, Figs. 1 and 2B); and
a converging portion (converging portion in annotated Fig. 5B, paras. 0041 and 0046) wherein the converging portion comprises an opening (opening in annotated Fig. 5B, referring to the opening that is between the annotated converging portion and another adjacent converging portion on the same arm) which narrows toward a center (center in annotated Fig. 5B) of the first hair contact surface (see width 1 narrower than width 2 in annotated Fig. 5B).
In regard to claim 4, Story discloses the invention of claim 1. Story further discloses wherein the first hair contact surface (26 in Fig. 1, para. 0037) comprises a plurality of teeth in longitudinal section (paras. 0039-0040 and 0047, Figs. 6-8), and a region between each adjacent pair of the teeth defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0041, spaces between the blades).
In regard to claim 5, Story discloses the invention of claim 1. Story further discloses wherein the second hair contact surface (28 in Fig. 1, para. 0037) is flat (para. 0012; 0037, Fig. 1, 5B).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Jenkins (U.S. Patent No. 8,967,159 B1).
In regard to claim 6, Story discloses the invention of claim 1. Story does not disclose wherein the second hair contact surface is, in longitudinal section, convex in a direction of the first hair contact surface (Figs. 1 and 5, col. 7 lines 14-17, arcuate).
Jenkins teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-8, Abstract) comprising a first arm (28 in Fig. 1) comprising a first hair contact surface (38 in Fig 1, col. 5 lines 54-56), and a second arm (18 in Fig. 1) comprising a second hair contact surface (48 in Fig. 4, co. 6 lines 63-66), wherein the first hair contact surface is arcuate (Figs. 1 and 5, col. 7 lines 14-17, arcuate) and the second hair contact surface is, in longitudinal section, convex in a direction of the first hair contact surface (Figs. 1 and 5, col. 7 lines 14-17, arcuate).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heated hair styling devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second hair contact surfaces of Story by specifying the first hair contact surface is arcuate and the second hair contact surface is, in longitudinal section, convex in a direction of the first hair contact surface as taught by Jenkins in order to allow more volume to be added to the hair and minimizing wrist tension when the user grips the device, and enables hair to be treated without undue force being applied to the user’s hands or wrists (Jenkins col. 7 lines 14-25).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Zhang (CN207626748U and translated PDF).
In regard to claim 2, Story discloses the invention of claim 1. Story does not disclose wherein the first hair contact surface is scalloped in longitudinal section, and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses, though Story does disclose that the first hair contact surface can have different cross sectional configurations (para. 0047).
Zhang teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2) for straightening hair (para. 0008) wherein a hair contact surface (101 in Fig. 2, para. 0037) is scalloped in longitudinal section (Fig. 2, para. 0037), and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0034, hair combing guide channel).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first hair contact surface of Story by specifying the hair contact surface is scalloped in longitudinal section, and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses as taught by Zhang in order to allow the structure of the surface to meet the needs of people of different ages and hair textures (Zhang para. 0037).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Altmann et al (DE 102012200963 A1 and translated PDF, hereinafter “Altmann”).
In regard to claim 3, Story discloses the invention of claim 1. Story does not disclose wherein the first hair contact surface comprises a sinuate longitudinal section, and each trough of the sinuate longitudinal section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses, though Story does disclose that the first hair contact surface can have different cross sectional configurations (para. 0047).
Altmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A and 2, Abstract) wherein the first hair contact surface (51a in Fig. 1) comprises a sinuate longitudinal section (Figs. 1A and 2, paras. 0039-0040), and each trough of the sinuate longitudinal section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0043).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first hair contact surface of Story by specifying the hair contact surface comprises a sinuate longitudinal section, and each trough of the sinuate longitudinal section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses as taught by Altmann in order to allow the individual hairs which are to be straightened to be evenly distributed over the heating surface and experience the same pulling force, resulting in uniform and even straightening of the hair strand (Altmann para. 0043).
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (JPS6267501U and translated PDF) in view of Altmann.
PNG
media_image2.png
513
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Ito discloses a hair straightener (Figs. 1-10) comprising: a first arm (1st arm in annotated Fig. 7) comprising a first hair contact surface (1st surface in annotated Fig. 7, see Figs. 9 and 10) ; and a second arm (2nd arm in annotated Fig. 6) comprising a second hair contact surface (2nd surface in annotated Fig. 6, see Figs. 9 and 10); wherein: the first and second hair contact surfaces are capable of capturing a tress of hair between them when the first and second arms are moved towards each other in use (Figs. 9 and 10, p. 3 lines 22-25); the first hair contact surface defines a first series of tress-corralling recesses (1st recesses in annotated Fig. 6) disposed along its length (Fig. 6); and the second hair contact surface defines additional tress-corralling recesses (2nd recesses in annotated Fig. 6) that are shallower than the first series of tress-corralling recesses (Figs. 6-8).
Ito does not disclose the second arm being coupled for movement towards the first arm.
Altmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A and 2, Abstract) wherein a second arm (3b in Fig. 2) is coupled for movement towards the first arm (3a in Fig. 2, para. 0050) by a joint (2 in Fig. 2).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second arms of Ito by adding a joint so that the second arm is coupled for movement towards the first arm as taught by Altmann in order to allow arms to be opened or closed like pincers to allow the user to grip the hair when holding the apparatus (Altmann paras. 0050-0051).
In regard to claim 9, Ito in view of Altmann discloses the invention of claim 7. Ito does not disclose wherein the first hair contact surface comprises a longitudinal sinuate section, and each trough of the longitudinal sinuate section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses.
Altmann further teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A and 2, Abstract) wherein the first hair contact surface (51a in Fig. 1) comprises a longitudinal sinuate section (Figs. 1A and 2, paras. 0039-0040), and each trough of the longitudinal sinuate section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0043).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first hair contact surface of Ito in view of Altmann by specifying the hair contact surface comprises a longitudinal sinuate section, and each trough of the longitudinal sinuate section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses as taught by Altmann in order to allow the individual hairs which are to be straightened to be evenly distributed over the heating surface and experience the same pulling force, resulting in uniform and even straightening of the hair strand (Altmann para. 0043).
In regard to claim 10, Ito in view of Altmann discloses the invention of claim 7. Ito further discloses wherein the first hair contact surface (1st surface in annotated Fig. 7) comprises a plurality of teeth (14 in Fig. 7, p. 3 line 16) in longitudinal section (Fig. 7), and a region between each adjacent pair of the teeth defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (annotated Fig. 7).
In regard to claims 11 and 12, Ito in view of Altmann discloses the invention of claim 7. Ito does not explicitly disclose wherein the second hair contact surface comprises an identical number of tress-corralling recesses as the first hair contact surface, and does not disclose wherein the second hair contact surface comprises fewer tress-corralling recesses than the first hair contact surface. The instant disclosure describes the parameters regarding the number of tress-corralling recesses of the second hair contact surface as being merely preferable, as in the Specification the second hair contact surface “may” comprise the same number of tress-corralling recesses as the first hair contact surface and “alternatively” comprise fewer tress-corralling recesses (Specification p. 11 lines 7-10), and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the straightener. As such, these parameters are deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Altmann and Zhang.
In regard to claim 8, Ito in view of Altmann discloses the invention of claim 7. Ito does not disclose wherein the first hair contact surface is scalloped in longitudinal section, and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses.
Zhang teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2) for straightening hair (para. 0008) wherein a hair contact surface (101 in Fig. 2, para. 0037) is scalloped in longitudinal section (Fig. 2, para. 0037), and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0034, hair combing guide channel).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first hair contact surface of Ito in view of Altmann by specifying the hair contact surface is scalloped in longitudinal section, and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses as taught by Zhang in order to allow the structure of the surface to meet the needs of people of different ages and hair textures (Zhang para. 0037).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Beaumont et al (GB 2582558 A, hereinafter “Beaumont”).
In regard to claim 13, Story discloses a hair straightener (Figs. 1-12) comprising:
a first arm (4 in Fig. 1, para. 0031) comprising a first hair contact surface (26 in Fig. 1, para. 0037); and
a second arm (6 in Fig. 1, para. 0031) comprising a second hair contact surface (28 in Fig. 1, para. 0037), the second arm being coupled for movement towards the first arm (para. 0032-0033);
wherein:
the first and second hair contact surfaces are capable of capturing a tress of hair between them when the first and second arms are moved towards each other in use (para. 0037);
the first hair contact surface defines a series of tress-corralling recesses disposed along its length (para. 0039-0041 and 0047, Figs. 1, 3, 6-9); and
the second hair contact surface does not define a tress-corralling recess (para. 0037, Figs. 1 and 2B).
Story does not disclose wherein the second hair contact surface is, in longitudinal section, convex in a direction away from the first hair contact surface.
Beaumont teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1a-12d) comprising a first arm (12 in Fig. 1a) comprising a first hair contact surface (90 in Fig. 9b) and a second arm (14 in Fig. 1a) comprising a second hair contact surface (92 in Fig. 9b), wherein the second hair contact surface is, in longitudinal section, convex in a direction away from the first hair contact surface (Fig. 9b, p. 14 lines 1-4).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second hair contact surface of Story by specifying the second hair contact surface is, in longitudinal section, convex in a direction away from the first hair contact surface as taught by Beaumont in order to allow for advantageous corralling of the hair between the arms of the device and reduction of “fly away” hairs (Beaumont p. 13 lines 19-22).
In regard to claim 16, Story in view of Beaumont discloses the invention of claim 13. Story further discloses wherein the first hair contact surface (26 in Fig. 1, para. 0037) comprises a plurality of teeth in longitudinal section (paras. 0039-0040 and 0047, Figs. 6-8), and a region between each adjacent pair of the teeth defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0041, spaces between the blades).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Beaumont and Zhang.
In regard to claim 14, Story in view of Beaumont discloses the invention of claim 13. Story does not disclose wherein the first hair contact surface is scalloped in longitudinal section, and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses, though Story does disclose that the first hair contact surface can have different cross sectional configurations (para. 0047).
Zhang teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2) for straightening hair (para. 0008) wherein a hair contact surface (101 in Fig. 2, para. 0037) is scalloped in longitudinal section (Fig. 2, para. 0037), and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0034, hair combing guide channel).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first hair contact surface of Story in view of Beaumont by specifying the hair contact surface is scalloped in longitudinal section, and each scallop defines one of the tress-corralling recesses as taught by Zhang in order to allow the structure of the surface to meet the needs of people of different ages and hair textures (Zhang para. 0037).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Beaumont and Altmann.
In regard to claim 15, Story in view of Beaumont discloses the invention of claim 13. Story does not disclose wherein the first hair contact surface forms a sinuate longitudinal section, and each trough of the sinuate longitudinal section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses, though Story does disclose that the first hair contact surface can have different cross sectional configurations (para. 0047).
Altmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A and 2, Abstract) wherein the first hair contact surface (51a in Fig. 1) forms a sinuate longitudinal section (Figs. 1A and 2, paras. 0039-0040), and each trough of the sinuate longitudinal section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses (para. 0043).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hair straighteners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first hair contact surface of Story in view of Beaumont by specifying the hair contact surface forms a sinuate longitudinal section, and each trough of the sinuate longitudinal section defines one of the tress-corralling recesses as taught by Altmann in order to allow the individual hairs which are to be straightened to be evenly distributed over the heating surface and experience the same pulling force, resulting in uniform and even straightening of the hair strand (Altmann para. 0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Story, and the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins, Applicant argues that Story does not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1 as Story’s recess structures are repeated along the length and do not form the claimed converging opening narrowing toward a center region. Applicant argues that Jenkins also fails to disclose the limitation of amended claim 1.
Examiner notes that Story discloses the limitations of amended claim 1 as claimed, as Story discloses a converging portion (annotated Fig. 5B, paras. 0041 and 0046) wherein the converging portion comprises an opening (annotated Fig. 5B) which narrows toward a center (annotated Fig. 5B) of the first hair contact surface (annotated Fig. 5B). Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Story, and claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Jenkins. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Zhang and the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Zhang, Applicant argues that Story, Zhang and Altman fail to teach or suggest the amended limitation of claim 1.
Examiner notes that as noted above, Story disclose the amended limitation of claim 1. In the above rejection, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Zhang, and claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Altmann. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejection of claims 7 and 9-12 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Altman, Applicant argues that Ito does not disclose tress-corralling recesses, as the recess-like structures of Ito appear to be complementary receiving structures that cooperate with teeth on the opposing arm, rather than recesses shaped and arranged to corral a tress of hair along a hair contact surface. Applicant argues that Altmann does not cure Ito’s deficiency regarding the limitation.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations. Examiner notes that claim 7 does not disclose that the first and second series of tress-corralling recesses are recesses shaped and arranged to corral a tress of hair along a hair contact surface. Instead, claim 7 recites that the first and second hair contact surfaces are capable of capable of capturing a tress of hair between them, and that the first hair contact surface defines a first series of tress-corralling recesses and the second hair contact surface defines additional tress-corralling recesses. Examiner notes that further, in Figures 9 and 10, hair is shown as being captured between the first and second hair contact surfaces and between the first and second series of tress-corralling recesses. Examiner notes that Ito discloses that the first and second hair contact surfaces are capable of capturing a tress of hair between them when the first and second arms are moved towards each other in use (Figs. 9 and 10, p. 3 lines 22-25), and the first hair contact surface defines a first series of tress-corralling recesses (1st recesses in annotated Fig. 6) disposed along its length (Fig. 6); and the second hair contact surface defines additional tress-corralling recesses (2nd recesses in annotated Fig. 6) as claimed. Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito in view of Altmann, and claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Altmann and Zhang. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the new claims 13-16, Applicant argues that Jenkins and Story do not disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Beaumont, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Beaumont and Zhang, and claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Story in view of Beaumont and Altmann. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments. Examiner notes that Beaumont teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1a-12d) wherein the second hair contact surface is, in longitudinal section, convex in a direction away from the first hair contact surface (Fig. 9b, p. 14 lines 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Story by the teachings of Beaumont in order to allow for advantageous corralling of the hair between the arms of the device and reduction of “fly away” hairs (Beaumont p. 13 lines 19-22). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights