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
The amendment filed February 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 13 and 17-19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 20 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objection to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 17th, 2025.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 "the rate of increase" in line 16 without first reciting a rate of increase. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is already a rate of increase in thickness in a first section and a rate of increase in thickness in a second section, and it is unclear if one or both of these is what applicant was attempting to refer to. For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret that the obtuse angle is formed between first section and second section on each of the first side and the second side.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the second axis" in line 22 without first reciting a second axis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is already a central axis, and in light of the specification it is assumed that applicant meant to refer to this central axis rather than a second axis. For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret that the second angle is formed between the second section and the central axis.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states that the rates of increase in thickness of the first section and second section forms an obtuse angle. However, a rate of increase is not a physical attribute capable of forming an angle, rather a numerical value derived from the general rise over run of the slope of a side of the substrate. This limitation should be rephrased to reflect that the obtuse angle is formed between the first section and the second section on both the first side and of the second side.
Claims 1 is objected to as it recites “…the plurality of second facets have a third surface roughness…”, when the second facet region, not the second facets, is what has the third surface roughness. Claim 1 should be reworded to reflect this.
Claims 2-5 refer to “one surface”, which the examiner believes is the same item as “the first side” already introduced in claim 1. For clarity, examiner recommends rephrasing claims 2-5 to refer to the first side instead of the one surface. Claims 2-5 additionally refer to “an angle… in the first section” and “an angle… in the second section”, which are believed to be the same as the items already referenced as “the first angle” and “the second angle” in claim 1, respectively. For clarity, examiner recommends rephrasing claims 2-5 to refer to the first angle and the second angle instead. Claim 5 further introduces “an obtuse angle”, which has already been introduced in claim 1. Examiner recommends changing this to read “the obtuse angle”, so it is clear that they are referring to the same obtuse angle.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun Ju Lee et al. (US 20210094199 A1 – hereinafter Lee) in view of Ioannis Papatriantafyllou et al. (EP 3372361 A1 – hereinafter Papatriantafyllou), Peter Gluche et al. (EP 3895861 A1 – hereinafter Gluche), and Vadim Daskal et al. (US 7396484 B2 – hereinafter Daskal).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a razor blade comprising: a substrate (Fig. 1, Substrate
10) comprising a cutting edge (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 11) formed at a tip (Fig. 1, Tip 12), the cutting edge having a first side (Fig. 1, side of Substrate 10 to the left of Tip 12) and a second side (Fig. 1, side of Substrate 10 to the right of Tip 12) each extending from the tip, wherein: the first side and the second side of the substrate are substantially symmetric about a central axis (Fig. 1, axis extending vertically straight down from Tip 12), a thickness T4 (Fig. 1, T4) of the substrate measured at a distance of 4 μm from the tip is between 1.00 μm and 1.70 μm (T4 is 1.53 μm in Table 1), a rate of increase in thickness in a first section (Fig. 1, section from T32 to T64) of the cutting edge on both the first side and the second side in a region distanced 32 μm to 64 μm from the tip is less than a rate of increase in thickness in a second section (Fig. 1, section from T64 to T100) of the cutting edge on both the first side and the second side in a region distanced 64 μm to 100 μm from the tip (Table 1 – a lower number resulting from dividing the change in height over the change in thickness in a section corresponds to a greater rate of increase in thickness. At T32 the thickness is 6.11 μm and at T64 the thickness is 10.45 μm, for a rise over run value of 7.37 in the first section. At T100 the thickness is 16.53 μm, for a rise over run value of 5.72 in the second section. Therefore, the rate of increase in thickness in the first section is less than the rate of increase of thickness in the second section), the rate of increase forms an obtuse angle on each of the first side and the second side of the substrate (Fig. 1, it can be seen between the first and second sections at the outside of the first and second sides an obtuse angle is formed), the rate of increase is configured to reduce a cutting force of hair while improving a bending durability of the substrate (the specification of the claimed invention states that the cause of this benefit is the rate of increase in thickness in the first section being less than the rate of increase of thickness in the second section. As shown above, the rate of increase in thickness in the first section is less than the rate of increase of thickness in the second section, and therefore the benefit of reduced cutting force and improved bending durability is obtained), a first angle (Fig. 1, angle formed between either of the first and second side in the first section and the central axis as identified above) is formed between the first section of the cutting edge and the central axis, the first angle is between 4.62 degrees and 6.65 degrees, and a second angle (Fig. 1, angle formed between either of the first and second side in the second section and the central axis as identified above) is formed between the second section of the cutting edge and the second axis, the second angle is between 5.24 degrees and 6.95 degrees, the first angle and the second angle are configured to continuously spread hair during shaving (the specification of the claimed invention states that the cause of this benefit is the second angle being greater than the first angle. The second angle is seen to be greater than the first angle due to the decreased slope in the second section, and therefore the benefit of continuously spreading hair during shaving is obtained), wherein the substrate includes: a plurality of first facets ([0025]; there is a first facet on both sides of the tip, therefore there is a plurality of first facets); a plurality of second facets formed between the tip and the plurality of first facets ([0025]; there is a second facet on both sides of the tip, therefore there is a plurality of first facets); a facet brake region having facet brake spots where the plurality of first facets and the plurality of second facets intersect ([0025]; the region where the first and second facets overlap is the facet brake region. The facets are formed by an abrading wheel which would inherently create scratches in the material, the facet brake spots being where those scratches intersect); and a first facet region including the plurality of first facets and not including the plurality of second facets ([0025]; the second facets overlap a portion of the first facets, so there is a region which includes only the first facets). Lee does not teach that the first section is distanced 40 μm to 100 μm from the tip, that the second section is located 100 μm or more from the tip, that the first angle is between 4.62 and 6.65 degrees, and that the second angle is between 5.24 and 6.95 degrees. It would have been obvious to have the first and second sections be distanced at this range, and to have the first and second angles be of the aforementioned range, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges (see pp. [0066] and [0055] indicating the ratio “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lee does not teach a thickness T250 of the substrate measured at a distance of 250 μm
from the tip is between 44 μm and 60.56 μm, a ratio of the T4 to the T250 is 0.032 or less, wherein the first facet region has a first surface roughness between 300 nm to 400 nm, the facet brake region has a second surface roughness between 150 nm to 280 nm, and the plurality of second facets have a third surface roughness between 1 nm to 50 nm, wherein the first surface roughness, the second surface roughness, and the third surface roughness are configured to improve adhesion of a metal coating layer deposited on the substrate.
However, Papatriantafyllou teaches a thickness of a substrate of a blade of 41.69 μm to
68.96 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip (Table 1) and a surface roughness of 5 nm to 40
nm ([0056] – this anticipates a range of 1 nm to 50 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 44 μm and 60.56
μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to between 44 μm and 60.56
μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou. When the thickness is be
between 44 μm and 60.56 μm at a distance of 250 μm (as taught by Papatriantafyllou) and the
thickness is between 1.53 μm (as taught by Lee) at a distance of 4 μm, the resulting ratio
T4/T200 is between 0.025 and 0.035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date to modify this ratio to be less than 0.032 as applicant appears
to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0054] indicating the ratio “may” be
within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges
‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16
USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of second facets to have a third surface roughness between 1 nm to 50 nm as taught by Papatriantafyllou. Doing so is beneficial as it ensures that there is not excess surface roughness ([0056]).
The combination of Lee and Papatriantafyllou fails to teach the razor blade of claim 1,
wherein the first facet region has a first surface roughness between 300 nm to 400 nm, the facet
brake region has a second surface roughness between 150 nm to 280 nm. However, Gluche
teaches a blade with a region with a surface roughness of less than 100 nm ([0047]), and Daskal
teaches a blade with a region with a surface roughness of 352 nm (Table V). Additionally,
Daskal teaches a razor blade with a region having a surface roughness ranging between 316 nm
and 492 nm (Table V). While Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal do not explicitly mention
that the first surface roughness, the second surface roughness, and the third surface roughness are
configured to improve adhesion of a metal coating layer deposited on the substrate, it is well
known in the art that surface roughness greatly influences coating adhesion, with a higher
surface roughness generally leading to improved coating adhesion. The third surface roughness
of the substrate is the lowest, and is shown in Papatriantafyllou to support a coating over the
substrate (Fig. 9c), and therefore all three surface roughnesses are configured to improve
adhesion of a coating layer as they are equal to or greater than the surface roughness taught by
Papatriantafyllou.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the facet brake region to have a surface roughness of 300 nm or
less as taught by Gluche, and to modify the first facet region to have a surface roughness of
between 300 nm and 400 nm as taught by Daskal as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Daskal identifies surface roughness as a
result effective variable as it needs to be optimized so that the blade does not snag or snare the
skin (Daskal; Col 23 lines 61-67). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet brake region to have a surface
roughness of between 316 nm and 492 nm as taught by Daskal, and to further modify the facet
brake region to instead have a surface roughness of between 150 nm and 280 nm as a matter of
routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Daskal identifies surface roughness as a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized so
that the blade does not snag or snare the skin (Daskal; Col 23 lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the first angle between the first side of the substrate and a central axis of the substrate in the first section is smaller than the second angle between the first side of the substrate and the central axis in the second section (Fig. 1 of Lee - See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal already teaches the razor blade of claim 2, wherein, in the first section, the first angle between the first side of the substrate and the central axis is between 4.76 degrees and 6.65 degrees (See the rejection of claim 1 above – a first angle between 4.62 degrees and 6.65 degrees is taught, which anticipates this range).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal already teaches the razor blade of claim 2, wherein, in the first section, the second angle between the first side of the substrate and the central axis is between 5.9 degrees and 6.95 degrees (See the rejection of claim 1 above – a second angle between 5.24 degrees and 6.95 degrees is taught, which anticipates this range).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal already teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the first side of the substrate in the first section and the first side of the substrate in the second section form an obtuse angle (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the T4 to the T250 is between 0.017 and 0.032. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal to have an ratio of the T4 to the T250 is between 0.017 and 0.032 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, further comprising a
coating layer stacked on the substrate (Fig. 3, First Coating Layer 20).
The combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal already teaches wherein a rate of increase in thickness in a third section in a region 40 μm to 100 μm away from a tip of the
coating layer is lower than a rate of increase in thickness in a fourth section in a region 100 μm
or more from the tip of the coating layer (See the rejection of claim 1 above – Lee teaches the
rate of increase in thickness relationship between a third and fourth section (equivalent to the
first and second sections above, respectively), and Lee teaches a constant thickness coating layer,
which would not alter the rate of increase in thickness relationship between a third and fourth
section).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 7, wherein, in a fifth
section (Fig. 1, section within 40 μm of the tip) closer to the tip of the coating layer than the third
section, a ratio of the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer to the thickness of
the substrate is 1.075 or more (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, where a thickness T4 is 1.53 μm, and First
Coating Layer 20 is a minimum of 150 nanometers thick, the ratio is 1.83:1.53, or 1.19:1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 8, wherein a ratio of the
thickness including the substrate and the coating layer to the thickness of the substrate in the
third section and the fourth section are less than that in the fifth section (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, the
thickness of the substrate increases in the third and fourth sections from the fifth section while
the thickness of the coating remains constant, so the ratio will decrease as one moves away from
the tip from the fifth section and into the third and fourth section).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 7, wherein, at a
distance of 4 μm from the tip of the coating layer, the thickness including the substrate and the
coating layer is between 1.36 μm and 2.28 μm (Fig. 1, T4 is 1.53 μm. Fig. 3, First Coating Layer
20 is 150 to 300 nanometers, for an overall thickness of 1.83 μm to 2.13 μm).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal does not teach the razor blade of claim 7, wherein, at a distance of 250 μm from the tip of the coating layer, the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer is between 44.49 μm
and 61.24 μm.
However, Papatriantafyllou further teaches a razor blade wherein, at a distance of 250 μm
from the tip of the coating layer, the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer is
between 41.71 μm and 69.46 μm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 44.49 μm and
61.24 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to between 44.49 μm and 61.24
μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal already teaches the razor blade of claim 7, wherein a ratio of the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer at a distance of 4 μm from the tip of the coating layer to the thickness including the substrate and the coating layer at a distance of 250 μm from the tip of the coating layer is between 0.03 and 0.048 (Using a thickness of 1.83 μm to 2.13 μm at a distance of 4 μm (See the rejection of claim 10 above) and a thickness of 44.49 to 61.24 μm at a distance of 250 μm (See the rejection of claim 11 above), the ratio ranges from 0.03 to 0.048). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify this ratio to be between 0.022 and 0.047 as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0069] indicating the ratio “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the facet
brake region is formed within a distance of 500 μm from the tip ([0027]; the first facet is formed
within 500 μm, so the facet brake region must also be within 500 μm). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet
brake region to be formed instead within a distance of 420 μm as applicant appears to have
placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0083]) and
since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges
disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d
257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Regarding claim 15, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the facet
brake region is formed within a distance of 500 μm from the tip ([0027]; the first facet is formed
within 500 μm, so the facet brake region must also be within 500 μm). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the facet
brake region to be formed instead at a distance of 16 μm from the tip as applicant appears to have
placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification of the claimed invention, [0060]) and
since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges
disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d
257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Regarding claim 16, Lee further teaches the razor blade of claim 1, comprising a second
facet region including the plurality of second facets but not including the plurality of first facets
([0025]; the second facets overlap a portion of the first facets, so there is a region which includes
only the second facets).
Regarding claim 20, the existing combination of Lee, Papatriantafyllou, Gluche, and Daskal does not teach the razor blade of claim 1, wherein the thickness T250 is between 47.5 μm and 60.56 μm.
However, Papatriantafyllou teaches a thickness of a substrate of a blade of 41.69 μm to
68.96 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the thickness of Papatriantafyllou to be between 47.5 μm and
60.56 μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as a matter of routine optimization since it has
been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The thickness of the blade is disclosed to
be a result effective variable as it needs to be optimized to obtain suitable shaving effects
(Papatriantafyllou, [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of Lee to between 47.5 μm and 60.56
μm at a distance of 250 μm from the tip as taught by Papatriantafyllou.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights