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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 05/19/2026.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejections as stated in the Non-final rejection filed 03/10/2026 are withdrawn in view of the above amendment/remarks.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites “the chemically cured or radiation cured resin comprises ultraviolet (UV) cured acrylate”. However, claim 1 recites “the chemically cured or radiation cured resin comprises ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate”. It is unclear whether the UV cured acrylate in claim 12 is the same UV cured aliphatic urethane acrylate in claim 1, or is a different type of UV cured acrylate. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this limitation of claim 12 is interpreted as “the chemically cured or radiation cured resin further comprises ultraviolet (UV) cured acrylate”.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites “the chemically cured or radiation cured resin comprises chemically cured silicone”. However, claim 1 recites “the chemically cured or radiation cured resin comprises ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate”. It is unclear how the radiation cured resin comprising ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate, can further comprise chemically cured silicone.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige), Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon), and Chen (US 2018/0320003 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 1-3, 14, and 16, the preamble term “heat-removing” is an intended use and does not add structural difference, thus the intended use is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Landin teaches (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1) a flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprising:
about 0.5 weight % to about 25 weight % of a structural phase; and
about 75 weight % to about 99.5 weight % of inorganic heat absorbing compounds dispersed throughout the structural phase, based on a total weight of the fire barrier material;
wherein the structural phase comprises about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight % binder and 0.01 weight % to about 15 weight % fibers, based on the total weight of the fire barrier material;
the inorganic heat absorbing compounds comprise an intumescent compound and an endothermic compound, wherein the intumescent compound and the endothermic compound are both particles (col. 6, ll. 37-41; col. 7, ll. 1-2; col. 9, ll. 20-25).
Landin teaches that the binder can be an acrylate polymer or methacrylate polymer (col. 3, ll. 45-47; col. 4, ll. 12-13; claims 4-6).
Landin teaches that the endothermic compound is in an amount of from about 14.5 weight % to about 94.5 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 9, ll. 16-19), and the endothermic compound can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “greater than 80 weight percent” and “greater than 85 weight percent”. The endothermic compound of Landin reads on the claimed plurality of endothermic particles.
Landin teaches that the intumescent compound can be intumescent graphite (col. 7, ll. 16-17). Landin also teaches that the intumescent compound is present in an amount sufficient to obtain useful intumescent properties in the composition (i.e. fire barrier material), the nature of the intumescent properties and the density of the compound are critical in determining the actual percentage useful in the composition, for example, intumescent graphite has excellent intumescent properties and relatively low density, thereby the weight ratio of intumescent graphite to the composition is lower than those intumescent compounds which have less intumescent properties and high density (col. 7, ll. 47-50, ll. 36-39).
Landin does not teach that the total amount of the binder and the endothermic compound is no less than 99 percent by weight in the fire barrier material.
However, Hiroshige teaches (abstract; claim 1) a thermally conductive sheet made of a composition comprising:
(A) a (meth)acrylic polymer, which reads on the acrylate polymer as the binder in Landin;
(B) a halogen-free flame retardant which can be an expanded graphite, and
(C) a hydrated metal compound, and the hydrated metal compound causes an endothermic reaction, which releases water upon combustion ([0009]), which reads on the endothermic compound in Landin;
wherein the composition includes the hydrated metal compound in an amount of 40-90 vol % of the total volume of the composition,
the thermally conductive sheet is a free-standing film ([0035]).
Hiroshige also teaches that the expanded graphite restricts supply of oxygen to combustion parts and intercepts heat due to expansion upon combustion, and thus exhibits flame retardancy ([0020]). Thus, the expanded graphite of Hiroshige reads on the intumescent compound such as the intumescent graphite in Landin.
Hiroshige also teaches that the expanded graphite is desirably added in an amount in the range of 1-100 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic monomer in order to obtain good flame retardancy and good flexibility of the sheet ([0020]), equaling to 1-100 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic polymer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the expanded graphite in an amount of 1-100 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic polymer as taught by Hiroshige as the amount of the intumescent compound such as intumescent graphite in Landin, in order to obtain good flame retardancy and good flexibility of the fire barrier material with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, Landin teaches that the binder (e.g. an acrylate polymer) is in an amount of about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1). Thus, in the fire barrier material as taught by the combination of Landin and Hiroshige, the intumescent compound such as the expanded graphite can be in an amount of about 0.005 weight % to about 10 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material.
Landin also teaches that the fire barrier material comprises a binder, fibers, an intumescent compound, and an endothermic compound (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1), wherein the binder is in an amount of about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight %, the fibers are in an amount of about 0.01 weight % to about 15 weight %, the endothermic compound is in an amount of from about 14.5 weight % to about 94.5 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 9, ll. 16-19).
Thus, in the fire barrier material as taught by the combination of Landin and Hiroshige, the total amount of the binder (the claimed chemically cured or radiation cured resin) and the endothermic compound (the claimed plurality of endothermic particles) can be in a range of more than about 99.5 weight % and about 99.98 weight % or less based on the total weight of the fire barrier material, which falls within the claimed ranges of “no less than 99 percent by weight” and “no less than 99.5 percent by weight”.
Furthermore, Landin teaches that the endothermic compound is a compound that absorbs heat by releasing water (col. 2, ll. 41-45), and the endothermic compound (the claimed plurality of endothermic particles) can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51).
Landin does not teach that the endothermic compound can be sodium metasilicate pentahydrate.
However, Simon teaches a composition having an ablative effect, comprising a constituent E, which contains at least one fire-protection additive having an ablative effect (claim 1, [0092]),wherein the fire-protection additive having an ablative effect can be inorganic hydrates that give off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat ([0095]), which reads on the endothermic compound in Landin.
Simon also teaches that the fire-protection additive having an ablative effect can be Na2SiO3·5H2O ([0096], claim 13), which is sodium metasilicate pentahydrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fire-protection additive having an ablative effect such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) as taught by Simon as the endothermic compound (i.e. a hydrated metal compound) in Landin, in order to absorb heat by releasing water with a reasonable expectation of success, because the fire-protection additive having an ablative effect such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) gives off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat as recognized by Simon.
Furthermore, Landin teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30), wherein the binder can be either a thermoplastic polymer or a thermosetting polymer, including an acrylate polymer (col. 3, 36-37, 46-47).
Landin does not teach that the binder comprises ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate.
However, Chen teaches a flame retardant coating comprising a flame retardant filler and a curable acrylate medium, wherein the flame retardant filler is dispersed in the curable acrylate medium (abstract, claim 8).
Chen also teaches that the curable acrylate medium comprises aliphatic urethane acrylate (claims 10 and 14; Table 1, coatings A3 and A4), and the curable acrylate medium is cured using ultraviolet (UV) radiation ([0028], [0035]), which reads on the claimed ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate. The cured product of the curable acrylate medium by ultraviolet (UV) radiation as taught by Chen reads on the binder (e.g. an acrylate polymer) of Landin, and reads on the claimed radiation cured resin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ultraviolet (UV) cured product of the curable acrylate medium comprising aliphatic urethane acrylate as taught by Chen as the binder (e.g. an acrylate polymer) in Landin, in order to make fire barrier material with a reasonable expectation of success, because the curable acrylate medium disperses flame retardant filler(s) and is cured by ultraviolet (UV) radiation to form a flame retardant material, and the curable acrylate medium comprises aliphatic urethane acrylate as recognized by Chen.
Furthermore, Landin also teaches that "self-supporting" means that fire barrier material has sufficient cohesive strength to support its own weight to be a self-supporting flexible sheet or a free standing article (col. 3, ll. 9-16), the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet (col. 11, 39-48). Landin also teaches that the fire barrier material dissipates heat from the article protected by the material (col. 1, ll. 5-7; col. 11, ll. 4-7). Thus, the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material of Landin is a heat-removing sheet, and reads on the claimed single free-standing layer.
The instant invention discloses that the thickness of the heat-removing sheet has an average thickness in a range of 1 to 10 mm (instant US Pub. [0013]).
Landin teaches that when the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet, the sheet has a thickness of at least about 0.5 mm (col. 11, ll. 39-42). Landin specifically teaches that the thickness of the sheet of the fire barrier material can be 0.62 cm (col. 11, ll. 27-29), equaling to 6.2 mm, which falls within the range of “1 to 10 mm” of the thickness of the heat-removing sheet in the instant invention.
Landin does not teach that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material has a flexural modulus of less than 3000 MPa, a flexural strength of greater than 0.15 MPa, a heat absorption rate of at least 1.8 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 60 °C to 170 °C.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed flexural modulus, the flexural strength, the heat absorption rate of at least 1.8 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 60 °C to 170 °C, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen, because the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen provide substantially the same heat-removing sheet comprising the same plurality of endothermic particles such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, and the same chemically cured or radiation cured resin comprising ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate, the resin binding the endothermic particles together, wherein the heat-removing sheet comprises the same amount of the endothermic particles, and the same total amount of the resin and the endothermic particles as claimed, and also because the fire barrier material of Landin is a flexible self-supporting heat-removing sheet, and the fire barrier material as a sheet has the same thickness as the claimed heat-removing sheet as recognized by Landin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 5-7, 10, and 11, Landin does not teach flexural modulus, flexural strength, a heat absorption rate of at least 2 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 70 °C to 150 °C, and the heat-removing sheet absorbing at least 700 J/g when heated from 20 °C to 240 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed flexural modulus, the flexural strength, a heat absorption rate of at least 2 W/g for at least one temperature in a range of 70 °C to 150 °C, and the heat-removing sheet absorbing at least 700 J/g when heated from 20 °C to 240 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen, because the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen provide substantially the same heat-removing sheet comprising the same plurality of endothermic particles such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, and the same chemically cured or radiation cured resin comprising ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate, the resin binding the endothermic particles together, wherein the heat-removing sheet comprises the same amount of the endothermic particles, and the same total amount of the resin and the endothermic particles as claimed, and also because the fire barrier material of Landin is a flexible self-supporting heat-removing sheet, and the fire barrier material as a sheet has the same thickness as the claimed heat-removing sheet as recognized by Landin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Landin teaches that the fire barrier material in the form of a sheet can be wrapped around a pipe 5.08 cm in diameter without cracking (col. 11, ll. 27-29), which reads on the claimed heat-removing sheet being bent to an inner radius of curvature of less than 10 cm without yielding or cracking.
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches a flame retardant coating comprising a flame retardant filler and a curable acrylate medium (abstract, claim 8), wherein the curable acrylate medium comprises aliphatic urethane acrylate (claims 10 and 14), and the curable acrylate medium further comprises an acrylate (claims 10 and 13), and the curable acrylate medium is cured using ultraviolet (UV) radiation ([0028], [0035]), which reads on the claimed ultraviolet (UV) cured acrylate.
Regarding claim 20, Landin teaches that when the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet, the sheet has a thickness of at least about 0.5 mm depending on the end use application (col. 11, ll. 39-42), which overlaps with the claimed range of “1 to 4 mm”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the heat-removing sheet being bent to an inner radius of curvature of less than 1 cm without yielding or cracking, would flow naturally from the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen, because the teachings of the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen provide substantially the same heat-removing sheet with the same thickness comprising the same plurality of endothermic particles such as sodium metasilicate pentahydrate, and the same chemically cured or radiation cured resin comprising ultraviolet (UV) cured aliphatic urethane acrylate, the resin binding the endothermic particles together, wherein the heat-removing sheet comprises the same amount of the endothermic particles, and the same total amount of the resin and the endothermic particles as claimed, and also because the fire barrier material of Landin as a sheet has the same thickness as the claimed heat-removing sheet as recognized by Landin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige), Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon), and Chen (US 2018/0320003 A1, hereinafter Chen) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further as evidenced by “Density of Polymers” (“Density of Polymers (by density) from scipoly.com”, 2026, hereinafter “Density of Polymers”) and “Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information” (“Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information from Level 7 Chemical”, 2026, hereinafter “Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information”).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Landin teaches that the binder is in an amount of about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 2, ll. 19-30; claim 1), and the binder can be an acrylate polymer (col. 3, ll. 45-47; col. 4, ll. 12-13; claims 4-6); the endothermic compound (the claimed plurality of endothermic particles) is in an amount of from about 14.5 weight % to about 94.5 weight % based on the total weight of the fire barrier material (col. 9, ll. 16-19), and the endothermic compound can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51).
Simon also teaches that the fire-protection additive has an ablative effect and gives off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat ([0095]), the fire-protection additive can be sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) ([0096], claim 13).
“Density of Polymers” as an evidentiary reference shows that an acrylate polymer can have a density of 0.9-1.2 g/cc (pp. 2-7).
“Sodium Metasilicate Pentahydrate Information” as an evidentiary reference shows that sodium metasilicate pentahydrate has a bulk density of 865.0 to 961.1 kg/m3 (p. 2), equaling to 0.865 to 0.961 g/cm3.
Thus, in the fire barrier material as taught by the combination of Landin, Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen, the endothermic compound can be in an amount of about 14.5-94.5 volume % based on the total volume of the fire barrier material, which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than 60 volume percent”.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige), Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon), and Chen (US 2018/0320003 A1, hereinafter Chen) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further as evidenced by Felsche (“Thermal studies on sodium silicate hydrates. IV. Thermal stability of sodium silicate hydrates Na2[SiO2(OH)2]·nH2O(n = 4, 5, 7, 8). Phase relations and decomposition characteristics under open-system conditions”, Felsche et al., Thermochimica Acta 88(2): 443-451, 1985, hereinafter Felsche).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Landin teaches that the endothermic compound can be a hydrated metal compound (col. 8, ll. 46-51).
Simon also teaches that the fire-protection additive has an ablative effect and gives off water in an endothermic reaction under the effect of heat ([0095]), the fire-protection additive can be sodium metasilicate pentahydrate (Na2SiO3·5H2O) ([0096], claim 13).
Felsche as an evidentiary reference shows that sodium metasilicate hydrate Na2[SiO2(OH)2]·4H2O (i.e. Na2SiO3·5H2O) has endothermic peaks at temperatures of 352 K and 380-420 K (p. 445, § RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, 5th paragraph; p. 446, Fig. 1), equaling to 79 °C and 107-147 °C, which fall within the claimed range of “60 oC to 170 oC”.
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige), Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon), and Chen (US 2018/0320003 A1, hereinafter Chen) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further in view of Alexander (US 2006/0155039 A1, hereinafter Alexander).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Landin teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30), wherein the binder can be an acrylate polymer, and/or silicone polymer (col. 4, ll. 12-16).
Landin does not teach that the silicone polymer is chemically cured silicone.
However, Alexander teaches a fire resistant composition comprising a silicone polymer (abstract, claim 1), wherein the silicone polymer is a platinum catalysed silicone by an addition reaction ([0036]), which reads on the claimed chemically cured silicone.
Alexander also teaches that the fire resistant composition has fire barrier property ([0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the platinum catalysed silicone as taught by Alexander as the silicone polymer in Landin, in order to form a fire barrier material with a reasonable expectation of success, because the platinum catalysed silicone works as a silicone polymer in a fire resistant composition for fire barrier as recognized by Alexander. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A, hereinafter Landin) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1, hereinafter Hiroshige), Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1, hereinafter Simon), and Chen (US 2018/0320003 A1, hereinafter Chen) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 20 above, and further in view of Matsuide (JP 2010053196 A, hereinafter Matsuide).
The disclosure of Landin in view of Hiroshige, Simon, and Chen is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Landin teaches that a flexible self-supporting fire barrier material comprises a binder and inorganic heat absorbing compounds (col. 2, ll. 19-30).
Landin teaches that the fire barrier material is in the form of a sheet (col. 11, 39-48). Landin also teaches that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material dissipates heat from the electrical item which is wrapped by the fire barrier material (col. 11, ll. 1-3). Thus, the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material of Landin is a heat-removing sheet.
Landin does not teach that the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) is disposed adjacent the battery cell.
However, Matsuide teaches a heat-absorbing sheet comprising a heat absorbing substance, and a binder for adhering the heat absorbing substance (para [0006], [0008]). Matsuide also teaches that the heat absorbing sheet is attached around the periphery of the exterior can of a battery by absorbing heat to mitigate temperature increases (para [0051]), which reads on the claimed heat-removing sheet disposed adjacent the battery cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) as taught by Landin attached around the periphery of the exterior can of a battery as taught by Matsuide, in order to dissipate heat from the battery to mitigate temperature increase with a reasonable expectation of success, because the flexible self-supporting fire barrier material (i.e. a heat-removing sheet) of Landin dissipates heat from the electrical item which is wrapped by the material as recognized by Landin, and the heat absorbing sheet of Matsuide is attached around the periphery of the exterior can of a battery by absorbing heat to mitigate temperature increases as recognized by Matsuide. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the current rejection does not use prior art reference Lee (KR 101921066 B1, see US 2021/0293368 A1). Instead, the current rejection uses a new reference, Chen (US 2018/0320003 A1), in addition to the previous references Landin, Hiroshige, and Simon under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landin (US 6,153,674 A) in view of Hiroshige (US 2007/0179223 A1), Simon (US 2017/0210914 A1), and Chen (US 2018/0320003 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights