DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments filed March 19, 2026. Claims 1, 13, and 24 have been amended. Claim 26 has been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 13-20 and 22 stand withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12, and 23-26 are pending.
Applicant’s Amendments to claim 24 overcome the 112(b) rejection outlined in the previous Office Action. The 112(b) rejection of claims 24-25 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Kang et al. (US 20180212060 A1) herein after “Kang”, Yim et al. (US 20170069871 A1) herein after “Yim” and Ockenfuss et al. (US 20210247555 A1) herein after “Ockenfuss” fails to disclose all the limitations of newly amended claim 1.
Specifically, that none of the applied references teach or suggest the combination of “(i) alternating SiO2/Si3N4 insulator layers, (ii) layers that electrically isolate display components, (iii) a model-based numerical optimization using material-specific optical data to achieve > 80 % transmission at ~940 nm, and (iv) a thickness of the at least four layers are numerically optimized to maximize transmission of infrared radiation at around 940 nm and visible radiation in the range of 450-650 nm”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion firstly because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see MPEP 2145 IV).
Further, as outlined on pages 8-9 and 12 of the Office Action, Kang discloses the display further comprises at least four layers of insulator material (Fig. 5, a first insulating layer 571, a second insulating layer 572, a third insulating layer 573, a fourth insulating layer 574, ¶ [0179-0182]), and wherein thicknesses of the layers are optimized to allow transmission (The insulating layers are designed to include a “light-transmissive material”, ¶ [0179] and [0184]) of infrared radiation at around 940 nm through the layers and onto the one or more sensors (440) (“The light receiving unit 441 may detect light in a wavelength band for proximity detection (e.g., a maximum sensitivity wavelength 940 nm or 950 nm)”, ¶ [0148]), and visible radiation in the range of 450-650nm (Since “the light receiving unit 441 may be designed to detect, in an erythema detection mode, light in a wavelength band having a maximum sensitivity wavelength of 568 nm”, ¶ [0150], the layers must allow transmission of light in this range).
As outlined on pages 9-10 of the previous Office Action, Yim discloses layers of insulator material (Fig. 3, gate insulation layer 130, insulating interlayer 140, ¶ [0057] and [0070]) comprising alternating layers of SiO2 and Si3N4 (Both 130 and 140 “may have a multi-layered structure including a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer”, ¶ [0065] and [0070]), the alternating layers (130, 140) serving to electrically insulate components (Fig. 3, active pattern 120, gate electrode 135, source electrode 150, the drain electrode 155, ¶ [0065], [0067], [0072]) of the display (Fig. 2, transparent display device, ¶ [0048]) and to keep the components isolated from one another (Yim discloses that the insulations layers 130, 140 are composed of the same materials as the alternating layers in the instant application. Therefore, they would inherently have the same function of keeping the components isolated from one another (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Finally, as outlined on pages 10-11 of the previous Office Action, Ockenfuss discloses wherein thicknesses of the layers (Fig. 3, layers 330 and 340, ¶ [0042]) are numerically optimized (Fig. 5D, “each layer may be associated with a configured thickness to provide optical performance”, ¶ [0058]) to yield transmission of radiation in excess of 80% of infrared radiation at around 940 nm through the layers (Fig. 5A, “the transmissivity… is greater than 95% at approximately 940 nm”, ¶ [0055]) and onto the one or more sensors (“multiple sensor elements”, ¶ [0027]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that none of the prior art discloses “a model-based numerical optimization using material-specific optical data to achieve > 80 % transmission at ~940 nm”, claim 1 is drawn to a device, thus the method of forming the device does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of record. The limitation “the layers are numerically optimized, using a numerical optimization process with inputs comprising measured refractive indices and measured extinction coefficients of the materials” describes the method of obtaining the layer thicknesses and does not provide any structural information about the device. Ockenfuss discloses optimizing the thickness of each layer to provide desired performance. Therefore, the limitation “the layers are numerically optimized, using a numerical optimization process with inputs comprising measured refractive indices and measured extinction coefficients of the materials” does not provide a patentable distinction between the structures (see MPEP 2113).
The Applicant further asserts that the combination is improper because the combination of elements is not a result-effective variable. The Examiner did not assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed structure through routine optimization, rather that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Yim and Ockenfuss with Kang to prevent leakage current and to allow optimal transmission at the desired wavelength. Therefore, the combination of elements does not need to be recognized as a result-effective variable to be obvious since the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process (see MPEP 2144.05IIIC).
Therefore, the Examiner asserts that all the limitations of newly amended claim 1 are disclosed by the combination of Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss and the rejection is maintained as appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-4, 8, 10, 12, and 23-26 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “maximize transmission of infrared radiation at around 940 nm and visible radiation in the range of 450-650 nm”, in lines 14-16, which is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth. It is unclear whether transmission “in excess of 80%” as recited in claim 1, line 10, constitutes maximized transmission or if some other transmission value is being recited.
Claims 2-4, 8, 10, 12, and 23-26 depend upon claim 1 and do not rectify the problem. Therefore, they are rejected on at least the same basis as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the at least four layers of insulator material are optimized to allow transmission of radiation across a wavelength range of 450-650nm”, in lines 1-2, which does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a thickness of the at least four layers are numerically optimized to maximize transmission of… visible radiation in the range of 450-650 nm”, in lines 14-16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20180212060 A1) herein after “Kang” in view of Yim et al. (US 20170069871 A1) herein after “Yim” and Ockenfuss et al. (US 20210247555 A1) herein after “Ockenfuss”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 5 of Kang discloses a system comprising a display (Fig. 5, display 430, ¶ [0118]) and one or more sensors (Fig. 5, light sensor 440, ¶ [0118]), the one or more sensors (Fig. 5, “The at least one light sensor 440 includes a light receiving unit 441 and a light emitting unit 442”, ¶ [0144]) being located beneath the display (430), wherein the display (430) comprises an array of light emitting diodes (Fig. 5, “the display 430 may be an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display”, ¶ [0162]) and associated transistors (Fig. 5, “The switch 540 may be a transistor”, ¶ [0165]) supported by a substrate (Fig. 5, substrate 581, ¶ [0188]), wherein the display (430) further comprises at least four layers of insulator material (Fig. 5, first-fourth insulating layers 571-574, ¶ [0179-0182]), and wherein thicknesses of the layers are optimized to allow transmission (The insulating layers are designed to include a “light-transmissive material”, ¶ [0179] and [0184]) of infrared radiation at around 940 nm through the layers and onto the one or more sensors (440) (“The light receiving unit 441 may detect light in a wavelength band for proximity detection (e.g., a maximum sensitivity wavelength 940 nm or 950 nm)”, ¶ [0148]), and wherein a sensor of the one or more sensors forms a part of a proximity sensing system comprising a radiation emitter (Fig. 5, light emitting unit 442, ¶ [0193]) (Since the light receiving unit is designed to detect infrared and visible radiation, the layers must be designed to allow transmission of light in these ranges.), and
wherein a thickness of the at least four layers are numerically optimized to maximize transmission of infrared radiation at around 940 nm (Since “the light receiving unit 441 may detect light in a wavelength band for proximity detection (e.g., a maximum sensitivity wavelength 940 nm or 950 nm)”, ¶ [0148], the layers must allow transmission of light in this range) and visible radiation in the range of 450-650 nm (Since “the light receiving unit 441 may be designed to detect, in an erythema detection mode, light in a wavelength band having a maximum sensitivity wavelength of 568 nm”, ¶ [0150], the layers must allow transmission of light in this range.).
Kang discloses wherein the insulator material layers (571-574) may consist of “a variety of materials”, ¶ [0178], but fails to explicitly disclose layers of insulator material comprising alternating layers of SiO2 and Si3N4, and wherein thicknesses of the layers are numerically optimized, based on refractive indices and extinction coefficients of the materials, to transmit in excess of 80% of infrared radiation at around 940 nm through the layers and onto the one or more sensors.
In the similar field of endeavor of display devices, Fig. 3 of Yim discloses layers of insulator material (Fig. 3, gate insulation layer 130, insulating interlayer 140, ¶ [0057] and [0070]) comprising alternating layers of SiO2 and Si3N4 (Both 130 and 140 “may have a multi-layered structure including a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer”, ¶ [0065] and [0070]), the alternating layers (130, 140) serving to electrically insulate components (Fig. 3, active pattern 120, gate electrode 135, source electrode 150, the drain electrode 155, ¶ [0065], [0067], [0072]) of the display (Fig. 2, transparent display device, ¶ [0048]) and to keep the components isolated from one another (Yim discloses that the insulations layers 130, 140 are composed of the same materials as the alternating layers in the instant application. Therefore, they would inherently have the same function of keeping the components isolated from one another (see MPEP 2112.01)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Kang by including the insulator material disclosed by Yim as part of the variety of insulating materials disclosed by Kang, to prevent leakage current (see Kang, ¶ [0178]) and/or because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Yim fails to disclose and wherein thicknesses of the layers are numerically optimized, based on refractive indices and extinction coefficients of the materials, to transmit in excess of 80% of infrared radiation at around 940 nm through the layers and onto the one or more sensors.
In the similar field of endeavor of optical sensors, Figs. 3, 5A and 5D of Ockenfuss disclose wherein thicknesses of the layers (Fig. 3, layers 330 and 340, ¶ [0042]) are numerically optimized (Fig. 5D, “each layer may be associated with a configured thickness to provide optical performance”, ¶ [0058]) to yield transmission of radiation in excess of 80% of infrared radiation at around 940 nm through the layers (Fig. 5A, “the transmissivity… is greater than 95% at approximately 940 nm”, ¶ [0055]) and onto the one or more sensors (“multiple sensor elements”, ¶ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Kang to optimize transmission at 940 nm as disclosed by Ockenfuss, to allow optimal transmission at the desired wavelength (see Kang, ¶ [0149]).
Furthermore, claim 1 is drawn to a device, thus the method of forming the device does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of record. Specifically, Ockenfuss discloses optimizing the thickness of each layer to provide desired transmission in “excess of 80% of infrared radiation at around 940 nm through the layers”. Therefore, the limitation “the layers are numerically optimized using a numerical optimization process with inputs comprising measured refractive indices and measured extinction coefficients of the materials” does not provide a patentable distinction between the structures. See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 5 of Kang further discloses wherein the display (430) further comprises at least one conductor layer (Fig. 5, first electrode 510, ¶ [0162]).
Regarding claim 4, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 2 of Kang further discloses wherein the sensor of the one or more sensors (Fig. 2, sensor module 240, ¶ [0063]) is an ambient light sensor (Fig. 2, illumination sensor 240K, ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 5 of Kang further discloses wherein the at least four layers of insulator material (571-574) are optimized to allow transmission of radiation at a wavelength or wavelengths between 800nm and 1000nm (Since “the light receiving unit 441 may detect light in a wavelength band for proximity detection (e.g., a maximum sensitivity wavelength 940 nm or 950 nm)”, ¶ [0148], the layers must allow transmission of light in this range).
Regarding claim 10, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 5 of Kang further discloses wherein the at least four layers of insulator material (571-574) are optimized to allow transmission of radiation across a wavelength range of 450-650nm (Since “the light receiving unit 441 may be designed to detect, in an erythema detection mode, light in a wavelength band having a maximum sensitivity wavelength of 568 nm”, ¶ [0150], the layers must allow transmission of light in this range.).
Regarding claim 12, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 4A of Kang further discloses a mobile phone comprising the system of claim 1 (Fig. 4A, “An electronic device according to embodiments of the present disclosure, may include at least one of, for example, a smartphone, a tablet PC, a mobile phone”, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 26, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, but Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss fail to disclose wherein a further input is a range of angles of incidence of the radiation onto the display, wherein the range of angles of incidence is ±40° or a smaller range of angles.
However, claim 26 is drawn to a device, thus the method of forming the device does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of record. Therefore, the limitation “a further input is a range of angles of incidence of the radiation onto the display, wherein the range of angles of incidence is ±40° or a smaller range of angles” does not provide a patentable distinction between the structures. See also MPEP 2113.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20180212060 A1), Yim (US 20170069871 A1) and Ockenfuss (US 20210247555 A1) in further view of Evans et al. (US 20170123454 A1) herein after “Evans”.
Regarding claim 3, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, but Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss fail to disclose wherein the sensor of the one or more sensors also forms part of a ranging sensing system.
In the similar field of endeavor of display devices, Fig. 6B of Evans discloses the sensor of the one or more sensors (Fig. 6B, “one of the subregions 650, 660, 670, 680 corresponds to a white pixel, an IR sensor, a touch sensor, an ambient light sensor, etc”, ¶ [0064]) also forms part of a ranging sensing system (Fig. 6B, “A processor is configured to gather a plurality of images… to produce an image comprising depth information”, ¶ [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Kang to include a ranging sensing system as disclosed by Evans, to increase the device functionality (see Evans, ¶ [0034]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20180212060 A1), Yim (US 20170069871 A1) and Ockenfuss (US 20210247555 A1) in further view of Lius et al. (US 20180120612 A1) herein after “Lius”.
Regarding claim 23, Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss together disclose the system of claim 1 as applied above, but the combination fails to disclose wherein the display further comprises a fifth layer and a sixth layer of insulator material comprising alternating layers of SiO2 and Si3N4.
In the similar field of endeavor of display devices, Fig. 7 of Lius discloses wherein the display (Fig. 7, display device, ¶ [0051]) further comprises a fifth layer (Fig. 7, first passivation layer 115, ¶ [0032]) and a sixth layer (Fig. 7, second passivation layer 117, ¶ [0033]) of insulator material comprising alternating layers of SiO2 (Fig. 7, “the first passivation layer 115 is a silicon oxide layer”, ¶ [0032]) and Si3N4 (Fig. 7, “the second passivation layer 117 may comprise… silicon nitride”, ¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Kang with the fifth and sixth layers as disclosed by Lius, to increase the device durability (see Lius, ¶ [0054]).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20180212060 A1), Yim (US 20170069871 A1), Ockenfuss (US 20210247555 A1) and Lius (US 20180120612 A1) in further view of Lee et al. (US 20150243688 A1) herein after “Lee”.
Regarding claim 24, Kang, Yim, Ockenfuss and Lius together disclose the system of claim 23 as applied above, but Kang, Yim and Ockenfuss fail to disclose wherein a first layer of the display that is adjacent to a substrate media comprises SiO2 with an optimized thickness of 190 nm, a second layer arranged on top of the first layer of the display comprises Si3N4 with an optimized thickness of 275 nm, a third layer arranged on top of the second layer of the display comprises SiO2 with an optimized thickness of 186 nm, a fourth layer arranged on top of the third layer of the display comprises Si3N4 with an optimized thickness of 250 nm, the fifth layer arranged on top of the fourth layer of the display comprises SiO2 with an optimized thickness of 139 nm, the sixth layer arranged on top of the fifth layer of the display comprises Si3N4 with an optimized thickness of 215 nm.
In the similar field of endeavor of display devices, Fig. 7 of Lius discloses wherein a first layer (Fig. 7, first buffer layer 1111, ¶ [0052]) of the display that is adjacent to a substrate media (Fig. 7, first substrate 1, ¶ [0025]) comprises SiO2 (Fig. 7, “the first insulating layer 111 respectively comprise silicon oxide”, ¶ [0052]), a second layer (Fig. 7, second buffer layer 1112, ¶ [0052]) arranged on top of the first layer (1111) of the display comprises Si3N4 (Fig. 7, “the second buffer layer 1112… comprises silicon nitride”, ¶ [0052]), a third layer (Fig. 7, third buffer layer 1113, ¶ [0052]) arranged on top of the second layer (1112) of the display comprises SiO2 (Fig. 7, “the third buffer layer 1113… comprise silicon oxide”, ¶ [0052]), a fourth layer (Fig. 7, fourth buffer layer 1114, ¶ [0052]) arranged on top of the third layer (1113) of the display comprises Si3N4 (Fig. 7, “the fourth buffer layer 1114 respectively comprises silicon nitride”, ¶ [0052]), the fifth layer (115) arranged on top of the fourth layer of the display comprises SiO2 (Fig. 7, “the first passivation layer 115 is a silicon oxide layer”, ¶ [0032]), the sixth layer (117) arranged on top of the fifth layer of the display comprises Si3N4 (Fig. 7, “the second passivation layer 117 may comprise… silicon nitride”, ¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Kang with the first to sixth layers as disclosed by Lius, to increase the device durability (see Lius, ¶ [0054]).
Lius fails to disclose the first layer with an optimized thickness of 190 nm, the second layer with an optimized thickness of 275 nm, the third layer with an optimized thickness of 186 nm, the fourth layer with an optimized thickness of 250 nm, the fifth layer with an optimized thickness of 139 nm, and the sixth layer with an optimized thickness of 215 nm.
In the similar field of endeavor of display panels, Fig. 1 of Lee discloses the first layer with an optimized thickness of 190 nm (“the oxide layer SIO…may have a thickness of 1,000 .ANG..about.3,000 .ANG.”, ¶ [0066]), the second layer with an optimized thickness of 275 nm (“the nitride layer SIN… may have a thickness of 1,000 .ANG..about.3,000 .ANG.”, ¶ [0066]), the third layer with an optimized thickness of 186 nm (“the oxide layer SIO…may have a thickness of 1,000 .ANG..about.3,000 .ANG.”, ¶ [0066]), the fourth layer with an optimized thickness of 250 nm (“the nitride layer SIN… may have a thickness of 1,000 .ANG..about.3,000 .ANG.”, ¶ [0066]), the fifth layer with an optimized thickness of 139 nm (“the oxide layer SIO…may have a thickness of 1,000 .ANG..about.3,000 .ANG.”, ¶ [0066]), and the sixth layer with an optimized thickness of 215 nm (“the nitride layer SIN… may have a thickness of 1,000 .ANG..about.3,000 .ANG.”, ¶ [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Kang with the thicknesses as disclosed by Lee, to control diffusion in the device (see Lee, ¶ [0050]).
Regarding claim 25, Kang, Yim, Ockenfuss, Lius, and Lee together disclose the system of claim 24 as applied above, but Kang, Yim, Ockenfuss, and Lee fail to disclose comprising an anode formed between the first layer and the sixth layer.
In the similar field of endeavor of display devices, Fig. 7 of Lius discloses comprising an anode (Fig. 7, second conductive layer 42, ¶ [0033]) formed between the first layer (1111) and the sixth layer (117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Kang with the layer arrangement as disclosed by Lius, to electrically connect the device (see Lius, ¶ [0033]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CORALIE NETTLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5374. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Yara J Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/C.A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights