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 Status
Claims 2, 5-10, 12, 14, 17, 20-21, and 23-28 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13, 15-16, 18-19, and 22 have been canceled.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 7 and 17 require two types of bristles, “wherein the two types of bristles comprise a first bristle type with a first predetermined height and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height, wherein the number of bristles of the first bristle type is greater than the number of bristles of the second bristle type and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height.”
Claim 8 requires two types of bristles “wherein the two types of bristles comprise bristles with rounded tips and bristles without rounded tips”.
Claims 9 and 27 each require that the bristles are “configured to align the hair with the first or second plurality of channels.”
Claims 21 and 23 recite “channel width”, however the specification does not specifically refer or provide antecedent basis for a width dimension of a channel. The specification in paragraphs [0008]-[0014] describes both a channel length and distance between channels.
Claim 24 requires that “the channel opposing sides are substantially parallel”.
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims, however support can be found in the drawings. Please note that MPEP 608.01(o) states that: “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 5-10, 12, 14, 17, 20-21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The preliminary amendment of 25 November 2025 introduces limitations not described in the originally filed disclosure. Independent claim 21 recites: “each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance, each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides, wherein the channel width is about equal to the first distance…” There is not support for a channel width being about equal to the first distance. Independent claim 23 recites: “each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance, each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides, wherein the channel width is greater than the first distance…” The applicant provides dimensions to some channels (length or length/distance that the channels are separated; see paragraphs [0008]-[0014], [0033], [0035]), but in any of these disclosed ranges, there is not support for a channel width being about equal to a first distance or support for a channel width that is greater than a first distance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 12, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leung, US D541,050.
Regarding claim 21, Leung discloses a hair brush comprising: a brush head (see Figures, portion of the hair brush having bristles) comprising a top surface (surface facing upward in Figure 4 from which the bristles extend), a bottom surface (in Figure 4 the surface opposite the top surface along the bottom of the brush), a first side extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (the leftmost side in Figure 1), and a second side extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (the rightmost side in Figure 1), the brush head comprising a plurality of bristles on a central portion of the top surface (Figure 1, where bristles extend), a first plurality of channels disposed along the first side of the brush head and extending outwardly from the central portion (see Figures, channels on the leftmost side in Figure 1), the first plurality of channels having opposing sides configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)), each of the plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance (see Figures), each of the first plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides (see Figures), wherein the channel width is about equal to the first distance (best shown in Figure 2), and a second plurality of channels disposed along a second side of the brush head and extending outwardly from the central portion (channels on the right side, Figure 1), wherein the first and second plurality of channels are capable of separating and enhancing waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Regarding claim 2, the first and second plurality of channels are substantially U-shaped (see Figures, best shown in Figure 2). Regarding claim 9, the plurality of bristles are configured to align the hair with the first or second plurality of channels (a user is capable of operating the brush head so that the bristles aid in aligning hair with the first or second channels, see Figure 1; see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 12, the width of the first plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (in that it is capable of use in this manner, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 14, the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curves, or coils in hair (the channels and bristles are capable of this use, see MPEP 2115).
Claim(s) 17, 20, 23, 25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Servilla, US 2,633,591.
Regarding claim 23, Servilla discloses a hair brush comprising a brush head (12) comprising a top surface (surface facing downward in Figures 2 and 4), a bottom surface (surface facing upward in Figures 2 and 4), a first side extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (uppermost surface as oriented in Figure 1), and a second side extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (lowermost surface as oriented in Figure 1), the brush head comprising a plurality of bristles on a central portion of the top surface (14, see Figures), a first plurality of channels disposed along the first side of the brush head and extending outwardly from the central portion (undulations 26 on upper side as oriented in Figure 1, extend from a center of the head), the first plurality of channels having opposing sides and configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)), each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance (Figure 1), each of the first plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between sides (Figure 1), wherein the channel width is greater than the first distance (Figure 1), and a second plurality of channels disposed along a second side of the brush head and extending outwardly from the central portion (undulations 26 on lower side as oriented in Figure 1), wherein the first and second plurality of channels are capable of separating and enhancing waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)). Regarding claim 17, the plurality of tufts comprise a first bristle type with a first predetermined height (bristles of the shorter tufts 20, 21, 22, see Figures 1-2 and 4) and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height (bristles of the taller tufts 19, see Figures 1-2 and 4), wherein the number of bristles of the first type is greater than the number of bristles of the second type (Figures 1-2 and 4) and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height (best shown in Figures 2 and 4, column 3 lines 52-68). Regarding claim 20, the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curves, or coils in hair (the channels and bristles are capable of this use, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claims 25 and 27, at least one channel of the first or second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with the plurality of bristles (the channels at 26 are aligned with the bristles as shown in Figure 1) and would be capable of aligning hair with the channels (during use it is capable of acting in this manner, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 28, the width of the first or second plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (in that it is capable of use in this manner, see MPEP 2115).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung, US D541,050 in view of Reusche et al., US 2015/0135455.
Leung discloses all elements previously discussed above including a type of bristles having rounded tips (see Figure 1). Leung does not disclose that the plurality of bristles comprises at least two types of bristles, wherein the bristles protrude from holes arranged in a plurality of rows and are configured to reduce frizz in hair.
Regarding claim 6, Reusche et al. teach a hair brush having a brush head (22) and a plurality of bristles, including two types of bristles, (32, 34; two distinct types best shown in Figure 4) that protrude from holes arranged in rows in the brush head (52, Figure 4) and are configured to reduce frizz in hair (MPEP 2115; capable of smoothing hair, paragraph [0053]) and to provide stability and support for various bristles attached to the brush head (paragraph 0061). Regarding claim 7, the two types of bristles comprise a first bristle type with a first predetermined height (34, tufts of non-rounded tip bristles) and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height (32, individual rounded tip bristles), wherein the number of bristles of the first type is greater than the number of bristles of the second type (Figure 4, there are more individual bristles in tufts 34 than of bristles 32) and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height (Figure 4). Regarding claim 8, Reuche et al. also teach that two types of bristles includes bristles with rounded tips (bristles 32 with tips 62) and bristles without rounded tips (bristles 34, see Figure 4 and paragraph [0062]). A brush having different types of bristles allows for a combination of functions being performed while brushing (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bristles of Leung to include first and second different types of bristles of different heights and rounded tips and also so that they protrude from holes, as taught by Reusche et al., in order to provide support and stability for the bristles in addition to a variety of types of bristles allowing for a combination of brushing functions to take place at once during brushing.
Further regarding claim 5, while Leung does not show the plurality of bristles covering the central portion so that at least one channel of the first or second pluralities of channels is laterally aligned with the plurality of bristles. Reusche et al. provide the two types of bristles throughout the central portion providing additional surface area of the brush head performing brushing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the brush head of Leung so that the bristles cover the majority of the top surface of the central portion, as Reusche et al. teach, so that at least on channel is laterally aligned with the bristles to provide more surface area of bristles that contribute to brushing a user’s hair.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servilla, US 2,633,591 in view of Reusche et al., US 2015/0135455.
Servilla discloses all elements previously discussed above including bristles arranged in a plurality of rows and capable of reducing frizz in hair (Figures 1-2, MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 26, Servilla discusses that the bristles are mounted to the head, but does not disclose that the plurality of bristles comprises at least two types of bristles configured to reduce frizz in hair.
Regarding claim 26, Reusche et al. teach a hair brush having a brush head (22) and a plurality of bristles (32, 34) that protrude from holes arranged in rows in the brush head (52, Figure 4) and specifically that there are two types of bristles includes bristles with rounded tips (bristles 32 with tips 62). Reuche describes the two types of bristles as providing different brushing functions in that bristles (34, within tufts) distributes hair care products and bristles (32) simultaneously align strands of hair and aid in detangling the hair (paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bristles of Servilla so that there are two different types of bristles, as taught by Reusche et al., so that the bristles can provide a desired brushing effect in that during brushing the bristles both can distribute product evenly while detangling hair.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The lettering of paragraphs corresponds to the sections of arguments made by the applicant.
The applicant provides a detailed explanation relating to the present invention and the examiner has considered the information described.
The applicant presents arguments relating to objections of the Specification. The applicant states that the drawings are part of the disclosure and provide a written description in support of the invention (page 12 of remarks). The applicant points to Figures 1-5 as supporting claims 7-8 and 17, Figures 1-5 as supporting claims 9 and 27, the specification as supporting claims 21 and 23, and the specification as supporting claim 24. The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments as they do not align with the objections being to the specification. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). This objection relates to terms being used in the claims that are not present or consistent with the terms used in the specification. The specification does not state that there are two types of bristles (as recited in claims 7 and 17), bristles with rounded or without rounded tips (claim 8), bristles configured to align the hair with channels (as recited in claims 9 and 27), the term channel width (as recited in claims 21 and 23), or that opposing sides of the channels are parallel (as recited in claim 24). With particular regards to claim 21 and 23, the term “width” is not used in describing the channels, rather the specification repeatedly describes this as a dimension of “length” (see paragraph [0033] for example). Thus the terminology used in the specification adds confusion to the term “width”. With particular regards to claim 24, the specification does include a range of “between zero and 90 degrees”, but is silent as to “substantially parallel.” In each of paragraphs [0035] and paragraph [0037] a different range of “14-17.5 degrees” is recited and there does not appear to be antecedent basis for “substantially parallel”. As stated above, please note that MPEP 608.01(o) states that: “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies.”
The applicant provides arguments related to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) that are not found by the examiner to be persuasive. The examiner maintains that there is not support within the originally filed disclosure for the limitation in claim 21 reciting “each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance, each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides, wherein the channel width is about equal to the first distance…” or for the limitation of claim 23 that recites “each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance, each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides, wherein the channel width is greater than the first distance…” These limitations were introduced in the preliminary amendment of 25 November 2025 . The applicant argues this and provides illustrations showing the dimensions of the channels described in paragraphs [0008]-[0014], [0033], [0035]. The applicant also points to language in paragraph [0033] relating to distances of about 6.16 and about 7.14 as distances where the channels extend inwardly, and also pointing to where the channels have a length of 5.5-8.0mm. Similarly, the language in paragraph [0035] relates to channel lengths, not widths. This was helpful in understanding the applicant’s interpretation, however the originally filed disclosure is silent as to a relationship of channel width and the recited first distance, particularly whether the channel width is about equal to the first distance or where the channel width is greater than the first distance. The applicant’s arguments and illustrations appear to interpret that the channel width may be synonymous with channel length, however the originally filed disclosure discusses only the length and therefore does not support the abovementioned limitations of claims 21 and 23.
The applicant presented arguments relating to Boyd (US 8,656,933) and Rathke (DE 3532734) and these are found to be persuasive.
With regards to Servilla (US 2,633,591), the examiner maintains that Servilla anticipates claims 17, 20, 23, 25, 27-28. First, the applicant argues that Servilla “does not disclose a brush with a plurality of channels on first and second sides of the brush head.” The applicant points to the channels being described as decorative undulations that provide an ornamental effect and serve as finger grips. The applicant alleges that they are wide and short without having opposing sides. Second, the applicant argues that the undulations are not for separating or for enhancing waves, curls, or coils in the hair and would not be capable of doing so. Third, the applicant argues that Boyd does not disclose a channel width that is equal to or greater than the channel depth. The applicant argues that “the width of the undulation is much greater than the depth – the exact opposite of what is claimed with regard to claim 21.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 23 requires “a first plurality of channels disposed along the first side” and “a second plurality of channels disposed along the second side”. The examiner has interpreted undulations (26) as these channels as stated above and are best shown in Figures 1 and 3, see marked up Figure 3 below for the examiner’s interpretation which aids in addressing the applicant’s first and third arguments.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (opposing sides of channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first distance)][AltContent: textbox (channel width)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
143
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in Figure 3, the channels do have opposing sides in the same manner as the applicant’s U-shaped channels. The first and second arguments relate to the intended use of the channels. In response to applicant's argument that the channels are ornamental and are not configured to separate and enhance weaves, curls, or coils in the hair, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See also MPEP 2115: “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). A user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush and the examiner maintains that channels (26) of Servilla would be capable of separating and enhancing weaves, curls, or coils in the hair. With regards to the applicant’s third argument, claim 23 recites that “the channel width is greater than the first distance”. The applicant in the arguments to claim 21 (see last paragraph on page 28) recognizes that “Figure 1 depicts wide and shallow undulations, where the width of the undulation is much greater than the depth”. This aligns with the recitation required in claim 23. MPEP 2125 states that “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).” The applicant recognizes what is clearly shown in Figure 1 when it notes that “Figure 1 depicts wide and shallow undulations, where the width of the undulation is much greater than the depth”. MPEP 2125 also states that “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” The examiner maintains that Figures 1 and 3 of Servilla clearly show and reasonably suggest channels where the width is greater than a first distance in the direction that the channel extends.
The applicant notes that Reusche includes two bristle types, but does not describe how the design is “configured to reduce frizz in hair” as required in the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the two bristle types are not configured to reduce frizz in hair, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See also MPEP 2115. Reuche describes the two types of bristles as providing different brushing functions in how it distributes hair care products and simultaneously aligning strands of hair and detangling the hair (paragraph [0081]).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 5-6, 9, 12, 14, 20-21, 23-25, 27-28 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to Boyd and Rathke have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Leung, US D541,050.
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 Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights