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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “skin interconnect member”, in claims 1-10.
With regard to the term “skin interconnect member”, in claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7:
first, the term “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “skin interconnect”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “skin interconnect” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the skin interconnect member.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitations of Claims 2-6 reading: “wherein a distance…from a point C…to…(the structure claimed in each of claims 2-6)…is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm.” is indefinite. It is not clear what distance is being measured. For instance, looking at claim 6 in particular, the claim appears to require that a distance from point C (fig 11A) to a tallest point on the cap 81 to the last blade edge (seen as point D5 in fig 11, per page 24 of the specification), be held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm. It is not clear how a distance can be measured from these points since the last blade edge is between the point C and the point 81. It is also not clear how the point 81 is a “tallest” point on the cap, since parts of the cap appear to extend beyond the point 81, see fig 11A. Also, the terminology of the distance being held constant within a range makes it unclear if the claim requires that the play between the parts and thus the corresponding distance be kept within plus or minus 1mm, or that the distances between the structures are required to be within a range of plus or minus 1 mm from each other/ one another.
For purposes of advancing prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as requiring that either the distances between the structures be within the claimed range or that a movement/play between the parts defined by the defined/claimed structures be within + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm, as best understood in light of the specification. (see page 4 of the specification where it is noted that “Yet still further, the distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane is substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of the skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of the skin interconnect member to the tallest point on the cap to the last blade edge is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm.”).
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the closest point on the guard to the first blade edge" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a closest point on the guard to the first blade edge has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first blade edge" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a first blade has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the closest point on the cap to the last blade edge" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a closest point on the cap to the last blade edge has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the last blade edge" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a last blade has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the last blade edge" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a last blade has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the tallest point" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a tallest point on the cap has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
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 of this title, 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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20080307660, Clarke in view of USPGPUB 20030200660, Pennella, and in view of recognized legal precedent.
Regarding Claim 1, Clarke discloses a shaving razor system array comprising: one or more razor cartridges (40), at least one of said razor cartridges comprising a housing (housing of razor 40 which contains the blades 45, fig. 2) having a front side (front side annotated below) and a front blade (blade 45 closest to front side of cartridge as annotated below) mounted to said housing (fig 2), said front blade most proximal to said front side of said housing (fig 2 annotated below);
at least one opening (opening through which part 55 extends, annotated fig 2 below) in said housing disposed in front of said front blade having a blade edge (annotated fig 2 below), said at least one opening extending through said housing from a top surface of said housing (top surface annotated below, e.g. surface facing out of page) to a bottom surface of said housing (bottom surface annotated below, e.g. surface facing into page);
one or more handles (handle 10), at least one of said handles comprising a proximal end portion (portion connected to cartridge), a distal end portion (portion furthest from cartridge), and at least one skin interconnect member (21, 55, and 20), said skin interconnect member in pivotal relation to the proximal end portion of said handle (pivotal adapter neck 20, which allows the combination of the cartridge and parts 21 and 55 to pivot, par 0019-20);
wherein said at least one skin interconnect member is joined within said at least one opening of said housing to provide a pivot point P for said razor cartridge relative to said handle (even though the axis is not shown in the figures, the neck 20 is disclosed to allow pivoting of the cartridge [and thus the parts 21 and 55 which are integrally connected to the cartridge, see fig 1] to pivot relative to the handle 10, since the neck, which is disposed between these parts is pivotable, to actuate the pump 25, see par 0019-0020, thus, the axis about which the neck pivots must extend through the pivot mechanism 20),
and wherein said at least one skin interconnect member is not pivotal relative to said housing (since the part 55 is integrally connected to the cartridge housing, see fig’s 1-3 and par 0021; particularly the part 55 extends through the cartridge and is integral therewith, thus at least this portion of the skin interconnect member pivots with the neck 20 and the cartridge 40 at least in the direction that the neck pivots, see par 0020-0022; [it is further noted that in par. 0032 that a yoke 30 having arms 35 allows for pivotal support of the yoke against the cartridge]; however, this pivotal support does not negate the fact that the portion 50 is non-movably attached to the cartridge, and thus, in at least the pivotal movement direction of the neck 20 the skin interconnect member is not pivotal relative to the housing of the cartridge); and
wherein any one of said at least one cartridges engages with any one of said at least one handles (par. 0033).
Clarke lacks said pivot point P is located up to about 3.5mm in front of the front blade edge, up to about 11 mm behind the front blade edge, up to about 1mm above the shave plane S, and up to about 2.5 mm below the shave plane S.
The decision of where to locate and arrange a pivot point P of a cartridge relative to a handle is a well-known design factor to those of ordinary skill in the art of razor making, as evidenced by Pennella (see par. 0078 in Pennella), in order to better suit a particular operation (par 0058). Also, it has been held that where the only difference between prior art and the claims of an invention is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device that such a difference is not patentably distinct (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke to have the pivot point thereof be located at a particular location relative to the razor, and specifically located up to about 3.5mm in front of the front blade edge, up to about 11 mm behind the front blade edge, up to about 1mm above the shave plane S, and up to about 2.5 mm below the shave plane S, in order to better suit a particular operation as determined by a user, as taught by Pennella, and since arranging the location of the parts of a razor relative to one another assembly is well known to those of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
Regarding Claim 10, in Clarke, a wall of said housing that defines said opening only partially encloses said skin interconnect member (since the member part 55 is open to the outside of the cartridge as seen in fig 2, and is surrounded by wall portions) and wherein at least a portion of said wall is in front of a portion of said skin interconnect member (See annotated fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Pennella, and in view of recognized legal precedent, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20130081275, Wain.
Regarding Claims 2 and 7, Clarke as modified above discloses a shaving razor system array comprising all of the limitations of Claim 1; as discussed above.
Modified Clarke lacks wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to one of the blade edges is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm (emphasis added), per (Claim 2), and wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the first blade edge is about .5 mm to about 2mm (emphasis added), per (Claim 7).
Wain discloses a razor and cartridge assembly in the same field of endeavor as the razor cartridge of the present invention and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to include a skin interconnect member 24, and discloses that a distance from a top surface 40 of the skin interconnect member (24) to a blade edge (rear edge) of a blade 30 most adjacent thereto is between “about 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, or 0.3 mm to about 0.8 mm, 0.9 mm, or 1.0 mm”; see par 0031. A point on the top part 40 of the member 24 may be considered a point C as defined in the claim (See annotated fig 4 of Wain below). Thus, the distance from such a point C to one of the blade edges in Wain is defined to be within 0.1mm-1mm, in order to facilitate the flow of skin over the cap 24 during a shaving stroke (par 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by making a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to one of the blade edges is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm (Claim 2) and wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the first blade edge is about .5 mm to about 2mm, per (Claim 7). in order to facilitate the flow of skin over the cap 24 during a shaving stroke as taught in Wain.
PNG
media_image2.png
686
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, in Clarke as modified above, a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the tallest point on the cap to the last blade edge is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm. (see 35 USC 112 interpretation above, since there is no play present between the parts, and thus the play/movement therebetween is between 1 and -1mm).
Claims 3-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Pennella, and in view of recognized legal precedent, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wain, and in view of 20100281694, Royle.
Regarding Claims 3-5 and 8-9, Clarke as modified above discloses a shaving razor system array comprising all of the limitations of Claim 1; as discussed above.
Clarke lacks wherein the average distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to all the blade edges is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm (emphasis added), per (Claim 3), wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the closest point on the guard to the first blade edge that is within 2 mm of shave plane S is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about - 1.0 mm (emphasis added), per (Claim 4), and wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the closest point on the cap to the last blade edge that is within 2 mm of shave plane S is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm (emphasis added), per (Claim 5), wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the second blade edge is about 0.9 mm to about 2.4 mm. (Claim 8), and wherein the average distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to all the blade edges is about 1.3 mm to 3mm. (emphasis added) (Claim 9).
Wain discloses a razor and cartridge assembly in the same field of endeavor as the razor cartridge of the present invention and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to include a skin interconnect member 24, and discloses that a distance from a top surface 40 of the skin interconnect member (24) to a blade edge (rear edge) of a blade 30 most adjacent thereto is between “about 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, or 0.3 mm to about 0.8 mm, 0.9 mm, or 1.0 mm”; see par 0031. A point on the top part 40 of the member 24 may be considered a point C as defined in the claim (See annotated fig 4 of Wain below). Thus, the distance from such a point C to one of the blade edges in Wain is defined to be within 0.1mm-1mm, in order to facilitate the flow of skin over the cap 24 during a shaving stroke (par 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by making a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to one of the blade edges is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm in order to facilitate the flow of skin over the cap 24 during a shaving stroke as taught in Wain.
Also, Royle discloses a razor and cartridge assembly in the same field of endeavor as the razor cartridge of the present invention and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to include the spacing between the blades being 0.2-1.5mm (par 0011) in order to provide an effective shaving geometry for a razor with three blades between the guard and the cap of the razor (par 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by making a distance between adjacent blades be 0.2 mm in order to provide an effective shaving geometry for a razor with three blades between the guard and the cap of the razor as taught in/via Royle.
In making the modification above to space the blades as in Royle, the structure of the cartridge as already modified in view of Wain would then include wherein the average distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to all the blade edges is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm (emphasis added) Claim 3, wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the closest point on the guard to the first blade edge that is within 2 mm of shave plane S is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about - 1.0 mm (emphasis added), per (Claim 4), and wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the closest point on the cap to the last blade edge that is within 2 mm of shave plane S is held constant within about + 1.0mm to about -1.0 mm (emphasis added), per (Claim 5), wherein a distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to the second blade edge is about 0.9 mm to about 2.4 mm. (Claim 8), and wherein the average distance parallel to shave plane S from a point C defined by the intersection of a plane substantially parallel to shave plane S at the topmost point of the application surface of said skin interconnect member and a perpendicular plane at a rearward most point within 2mm of shave plane S on a rearward surface of said skin interconnect member to all the blade edges is about 1.3 mm to 3mm. (emphasis added) (Claim 9), (since the spacing of the blades being 0.2mm would then include the space between the point C to all of the blades being between in a range of plus or minus 1 millimeter, which includes the distance from the point C to the second blade member and from the point C to a closest point on the guard to the first blade edge, and to the closest point on the cap to the last blade edge that is within 2 mm of shave plane S, and to all the blade edges is about 1.3 mm to 3mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20110146080 20080307660 20060283025 5678311 7331107 20030200660 6301786 5661907 5029391 20070151107 0009 20120260509 20120096722 20100281694 0006 20070137045 0010 20100205808 20040177519 20170136636 20170043492 20130081275 and 20130081275 disclose state of the art pivoting razors, while USPBGPUB 20100205808 discloses that the distance between a pivot axis of a cartridge and the front edges of the blades thereof is a result effective variable for determining the amount of pressure to be applied during shaving (par 0059), while USPGPUB 20070151107 discloses that a pivot axis of a cartridge should be within 3mm of the fronts of blade edges (par. 0009). Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 on 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights