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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of the Claims
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 are currently pending.
Claims 13-18 have been withdrawn.
Claims 8- 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 are currently rejected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakao et al., European Patent Publication EP 0 341 313 B1.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., International Patent Publication WO 2018/051793.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao et al., European Patent Publication EP 0 341 313 B1 in view of over Ono et al., International Patent Publication WO 2018/051793.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 January 2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 23 May 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application No. 17/492,941 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 11 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 11 recites “A substrate for a high-frequency device in which high-frequency signals having a frequency of 3.0 GHz are handled”. It is not clear how a substrate handles the high-frequency signals, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakao et al., European Patent Publication EP 0 341 313 B1.
Nakao et al. disclose a glass substrate for various displays particularly those having thin metal films. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, page 2, lines 1-14. Nakao et al. disclose a glass substrate composition having the following composition in terms of mole%: 55-70% of SiO2, 5-15% of Al2O3, 10-225% of B2O3, 1-6% of MgO, 0-6% of CaO, 3-12% of SrO, and 3-12% of BaO. See page 2, line 47 to page 3, line 15. The compositional ranges of Nakao et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass plate composition as recited in claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11 and 12. See MPEP 2131.03.
As to claim 1, Nakao et al. disclose Example 2 (Table 1), which read on a glass plate comprising in terms of mol% 57-70% of SiO2, 5-15% of Al2O3, 15-24% of B2O3, 25-40% of Al2O3+B2O3, 0.1-0.45 Al2O3/(Al2O3+B2O3), 0-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0-10% of SrO, 0.1-10% of BaO, 0-5% of Li2O, 0-5% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, where R2O of 0-5%, as recited in claim 1.
Since the glass plate composition of the Nakao et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakao et al. would inherently possess the (tand100-tandA)≥0.0004 property recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 2, since the glass plate composition of the Nakao et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakao et al. would inherently possess the 0.95≤(er/11/erA)≤1.05 property recited in claim 2. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 4, since the glass plate composition of the Nakao et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakao et al. would inherently possess the dielectric dissipation factor at 10 GHz of at most 0.009 property recited in claim 4. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 5, since the glass plate composition of the Nakao et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakao et al. would inherently possess the relative permittivity at 10 GHz of at most 6.8 property recited in claim 5. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 6, since the glass plate composition of the Nakao et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakao et al. would inherently possess the difference in dielectric dissipation factor at 10 GHz of at most 0.0005 property as recited in claim 6. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 7, since the glass plate composition of the Nakao et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakao et al. would inherently possess the difference in relative permittivity at 10 GHz of at most 0. 05 property as recited in claim 7. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 11, since the glass plate composition of the Nakao et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakao et al. would inherently possess the handling of high frequency signals having a frequency of 3.0 GHz or higher as recited in claim 11. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 12, Nakao et al. teach that the glass substrate can be used in various configurations which include substrates for various displays and photo masks (see page 2, lines 1-3), which reads on a window material comprising the glass plate as recited in instant claim 12.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., International Patent Publication WO 2018/051793.
This rejection is over the International Patent Publication because this reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, for convenience, the column and line numbers of the English language equivalent US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0210911 A1 will be cited below.
Ono et al. teach a glass substrate for high frequency devices. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001]-[0007]. Ono et al. teach a glass substrate composition having the following composition in terms of mole%: 40-75% of SiO2, 0-15% of Al2O3, 9-30% of B2O3, 0-13% of MgO, 0-13% of CaO, 0-13% of SrO, 0-10% of BaO, 0.001-5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, where the MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO is 0-13%. See paragraphs [0023]-[0040].
As to claim 1, Ono et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of a glass plate comprising in terms of mol% 57-70% of SiO2, 5-15% of Al2O3, 15-24% of B2O3, 20-40% of Al2O3+B2O3, 0.1-0.45 Al2O3/(Al2O3+B2O3), 0-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0-10% of SrO, 0-10% of BaO, 0-5% of Li2O, 0-5% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, where R2O of 0-5%, as recited in claim 1.
However, the mole percent ranges taught by Ono et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 1. See paragraphs [0023]-[0040]. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Ono et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Since the glass plate composition of the Ono et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the (tand100-tandA)≥0.0004 property recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 2, since the glass plate composition of the Ono et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the 0.95≤(er/11/erA)≤1.05 property recited in claim 2. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 3, Ono et al. teach a glass substrate having a main surface area of 225-10,000 cm2 (paragraph [0050]), which reads on a principal surface with an area of at least 350 cm2, as recited in claim 3.
As to claim 4, since the glass plate composition of the Ono et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the dielectric dissipation factor at 10 GHz of at most 0.009 property recited in claim 4. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 5, since the glass plate composition of the Ono et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the relative permittivity at 10 GHz of at most 6.8 property recited in claim 5. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 6, since the glass plate composition of the Ono et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the difference in dielectric dissipation factor at 10 GHz of at most 0.0005 property as recited in claim 6. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 7, since the glass plate composition of the Ono et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the difference in relative permittivity at 10 GHz of at most 0. 05 property as recited in claim 7. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 11, since the glass plate composition of the Ono et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the handling of high frequency signals having a frequency of 3.0 GHz or higher as recited in claim 11. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 12, Ono et al. teach that the glass substrate can be used in various configurations which include surface acoustic wave devices, radar components, and antenna components (see paragraph [0002]), which reads on a window material comprising the glass plate as recited in instant claim 12.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao et al., European Patent Publication EP 0 341 313 B1 in view of over Ono et al., International Patent Publication WO 2018/051793.
This rejection is over the International Patent Publication because this reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, for convenience, the column and line numbers of the English language equivalent US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0210911 A1 will be cited below.
Nakao et al. teach a glass substrate for various displays particularly those having thin metal films. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, page 2, lines 1-14. Nakao et al. disclose a glass substrate composition having the following composition in terms of mole%: 55-70% of SiO2, 5-15% of Al2O3, 10-225% of B2O3, 1-6% of MgO, 0-6% of CaO, 3-12% of SrO, and 3-12% of BaO. See page 2, line 47 to page 3, line 15. The compositional ranges of Nakao et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass plate composition as recited in claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11 and 12. See MPEP 2131.03. And specifically, Nakao et al. disclose Example 2 (Table 1).
Nakao et al. fail to teach that glass plate has a principal surface having an area of 350 cm2 or larger as recited in claim 3.
Ono et al. teach a similar glass composition comprising in terms of mole%: 40-75% of SiO2, 0-15% of Al2O3, 9-30% of B2O3, 0-13% of MgO, 0-13% of CaO, 0-13% of SrO, 0-10% of BaO, 0.001-5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, where the MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO is 0-13%. See paragraphs [0023]-[0040]. Ono et al. teach a glass substrate having a main surface area of 225-10,000 cm2 (paragraph [0050]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a glass plate of Nakao et al. as suggested by Ono et al. because the resultant glass plate would have the recited size of Ono et al. Furthermore, when general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by changing the size, the proportion, the shape, and/or the sequence of added ingredients through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-6, filed 2 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to Applicants’ arguments that the glass of Ono et al. would not inherently satisfy the claimed element of (tand100-tandA)≥0.0004. Applicants argue that Ono et al. would not inherently result in the recited (tand100-tandA) relationship since Ono et al. does not disclose a reason to treat the glass to extended hold times to achieve the element of (tand100-tandA)≥0.0004. This is not found persuasive since each of the compositions in Tables 2-8 result in meeting the (tand100-tandA)≥0.0004 limitation when the heat treatment hold time is at least 75 minutes. Therefore, under similar circumstances the glasses of Ono et al. would inherently have the same (tand100-tandA)≥0.0004 as recited in instant claim 1.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the current or previous 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above.
Specifically, Nakaguchi et al., JP 04-325436 A, cited on the 892 mailed 27 November 2024, disclose Example 3, which reads on the compositional limitations of claim 1.
Nomura et al. WO 2019/181707 A1 (US 2021/0013598 A1) disclose Example 4, which reads on the compositional limitations of claim 1. This might be overcome by perfection of the foreign priority documents of the instant application.
Ono et al. WO 2020/100834 A1 (US 2021/0261456 A1) disclose Examples 2-9, 13-19, 22, and 23, which read on the compositional limitations of claim 1. This might be overcome by perfection of the foreign priority documents of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
9 March 2026
Prosecution Insights