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 .
Status
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed 01/20/2026 which amended claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10 and 17-18 and cancelled claims 2, 11-16 and 24. Claims 1, 3-10, 17-23 and 25-27 are currently pending in the application for patent.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishi et al (US 2014/0126064; hereinafter referred to as Kishi).
Regarding Claim 1, Kishi teaches an antiglare film-attached transparent substrate (Figure 10B) comprising:
a transparent substrate (see Figure 10B and Paragraph [0042]; wherein it is disclosed that the translucent base may be a transparent plastic film base); and
an antiglare film (Figures 9A and 9B; Anti-Glare Layer 11) disposed on the transparent substrate (see Figure 10B; Paragraphs [0042] and [0068]; wherein it is disclosed that the translucent base may be a transparent plastic film base and wherein it is further disclosed that the anti-glare layer-forming material is coated to the translucent base), wherein
the antiglare film (Figures 9A/9B and 10B; Anti-Glare Layer 11) contains particles and a matrix (see Figures 9A/9B; 10B; Particles 12-13 with respect to figures 9A and 9B and Particles 1-6 with respect to figure 10B), and
the matrix contains silicon oxide (see Paragraph [0049]; wherein it is disclosed that the particles for forming the anti-glare layer include inorganic particles such as silicon oxide particles) and
the antiglare film (Figures 9A/9B and 10B; Anti-Glare Layer 11) incudes a first region (see Annotated Figures 9A and 9B below) in which the particles (see Figures 9A and 9B below; Particles 12-13) are stacked in a thickness direction of the film (see Annotated Figures 9A and 9B; Below), and a valley-shaped second region that surrounds the first region in a plan view or that is surrounded by the first region in plan view (see Figure 4B and Annotated Figures 9A and 9B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
316
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi further teaches the first region is a plateau-shaped region (see Annotated Figures 9A and 9B above).
Regarding Claim 4, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi further teaches the second region includes a portion in which the particles are not stacked, or the particles do not exist (see Annotated Figure 9B above).
Regarding Claim 17, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi further teaches a material of the particles (see Figures 9A/9B; 10B; Particles 12-13 with respect to figures 9A and 9B and Particles 1-6 with respect to figure 10B) contains silicon oxide (see Paragraph [0049]; wherein it is disclosed that the particles for forming the anti-glare layer include inorganic particles such as silicon oxide particles).
Regarding Claim 18, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi further teaches the particles (see Figures 9A/9B; 10B; Particles 12-13 with respect to figures 9A and 9B and Particles 1-6 with respect to figure 10B) are substantially formed of spherical particles (see Paragraph [0051]; wherein it is disclosed that the shape of each of the particles is an approximately spherical shape in the form of a bead or an indefinite shape such as a powder and is preferably an approximately spherical shape).
Regarding Claim 20, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi further teaches Ra of a surface of the antiglare film is in a range of 20 nm to 120 nm when the Ra represents an arithmetic average roughness of a roughness profile as defined in JIS B0601:2001 (see Paragraph [0081]; wherein it is disclosed that the arithmetic average surface roughness Ra defined in JIS B 0601 (1994 version) of the surface asperities of the anti-glare layer of the anti-glare film according to the present invention is preferably in the range from 0.02 to 0.3 .mu.m).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (US 2014/0126064; hereinafter referred to as Kishi) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi further discloses average convex-to-convex distance Sm (mm) of the surface asperities, measured according to JIS B 0601 (1994 version) is preferably in the range from 0.05 to 0.4, more preferably from 0.05 to 0.3, yet more preferably from 0.08 to 0.3, most preferably from 0.8 to 0.25 (see Paragraph [0082]).
Kishi does not expressly disclose that a width of the first region is greater than or equal to 7.7 μm, and a width of the second region is greater than or equal to 7 μm. However, optimizing the width of the first and second region is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. (see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kishi addresses the significance of the width of the first and second regions, stating in paragraph [0082] when the average convex to convex distance of the surface asperities is within the desired range the anti-glare film can have further superior anti-glare properties and can prevent white blur from occurring. As such Kishi recognizes the width of the first and second regions as result effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the widths of the first and second regions such that a width of the first region is greater than or equal to 7.7 μm, and a width of the second region is greater than or equal to 7 μm, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 6, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 5 as detailed above.
Kishi further discloses average convex-to-convex distance Sm (mm) of the surface asperities, measured according to JIS B 0601 (1994 version) is preferably in the range from 0.05 to 0.4, more preferably from 0.05 to 0.3, yet more preferably from 0.08 to 0.3, most preferably from 0.8 to 0.25 (see Paragraph [0082]).
Kishi does not expressly disclose that a width of the first region is greater than or equal to 10 μm, and a width of the second region is greater than or equal to 10 μm. However, optimizing the width of the first and second region is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. (see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kishi addresses the significance of the width of the first and second regions, stating in paragraph [0082] when the average convex to convex distance of the surface asperities is within the desired range the anti-glare film can have further superior anti-glare properties and can prevent white blur from occurring. As such Kishi recognizes the width of the first and second regions as result effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the widths of the first and second regions such that a width of the first region is greater than or equal to 10 μm, and a width of the second region is greater than or equal to 10 μm, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (US 2014/0126064; hereinafter referred to as Kishi) in view of Kiyoto et al (US 2015/0002928; hereinafter referred to as Kiyoto).
Regarding Claim 7, Kishi teaches an antiglare film-attached transparent substrate (Figure 10B) comprising:
a transparent substrate (see Figure 10B and Paragraph [0042]; wherein it is disclosed that the translucent base may be a transparent plastic film base); and
an antiglare film (Figures 9A and 9B; Anti-Glare Layer 11) disposed on the transparent substrate (see Figure 10B; Paragraphs [0042] and [0068]; wherein it is disclosed that the translucent base may be a transparent plastic film base and wherein it is further disclosed that the anti-glare layer-forming material is coated to the translucent base), wherein
the antiglare film (Figures 9A/9B and 10B; Anti-Glare Layer 11) contains particles and a matrix (see Figures 9A/9B; 10B; Particles 12-13 with respect to figures 9A and 9B and Particles 1-6 with respect to figure 10B), and
the matrix contains silicon oxide (see Paragraph [0049]; wherein it is disclosed that the particles for forming the anti-glare layer include inorganic particles such as silicon oxide particles).
Kishi does not expressly disclose that the particles are substantially formed of flat-plate-shaped particles, a thickness of each of the flat-plate-shaped particles is in a range of 0.3 nm to 3 nm, and an average diameter of principal surfaces of the flat-plate-shaped particles is in a range of 10 nm to 1000 nm, and the principal surfaces of the flat-plate-shaped particles are disposed substantially parallel to a principal surface of the transparent substrate.
Kiyoto discloses an antiglare-film (Figure 2A) comprising particles (Figure 2A; Particles 3), wherein the particles (Figure 2A; Particles 3) are substantially formed of flat-plate-shaped particles (see Figure 2A), a thickness of each of the flat-plate-shaped particles (Figure 2A; Particles 3) is in a range of 5 nm to 20 nm (see Paragraph [0137]), and an average diameter of principal surfaces of the flat-plate-shaped particles (Figure 2A; Particles 3) is in a range of 10 nm to 1000 nm (see Paragraph [0045]), and the principal surfaces of the flat-plate-shaped particles (Figure 2A; Particles 3) are disposed substantially parallel to a principal surface of the transparent substrate (see Figure 2A).
Although Kishi as modified by Kiyoto does not expressly disclose that the thickness of each of the flat-plate-shaped particles is in a range of 0.3 nm to 3 nm it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi such that the particles are substantially formed of flat-plate-shaped particles, a thickness of each of the flat-plate-shaped particles is in a range of 0.3 nm to 3 nm, and an average diameter of principal surfaces of the flat-plate-shaped particles is in a range of 10 nm to 1000 nm, and the principal surfaces of the flat-plate-shaped particles are disposed substantially parallel to a principal surface of the transparent substrate, based upon the teachings of Kiyoto, because doing so would provide an infrared ray shielding film which reflects infrared rays in a wide range, and has little absorption (see Kiyoto Paragraph [0023]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (US 2014/0126064; hereinafter referred to as Kishi) as modified by Kiyoto et al (US 2015/0002928; hereinafter referred to as Kiyoto) as applied to claim 7, in view of Yosomiya et al (US 2012/0114873; hereinafter referred to as Yosomiya).
Regarding Claim 8, Kishi as modified by Kiyoto discloses the limitations of claim 7 as detailed above.
Kishi as modified by Kiyoto does not expressly disclose that the flat-plate-shaped particles are phyllosilicate mineral particles.
Yosomiya discloses an antiglare-film (Figure 1; Optical Film 4) comprising particles (see Paragraph [0035]), wherein the particles are substantially formed of phyllosilicate mineral particles (see Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi as modified by Kiyoto such that the flat-plate-shaped particles are phyllosilicate mineral particles, based upon the teachings of Yosomiya, because doing so would help scatter incoming light in a controlled manner such that specular reflection is reduced and image sharpness is preserved
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (US 2014/0126064; hereinafter referred to as Kishi) in view of Yosomiya et al (US 2012/0114873; hereinafter referred to as Yosomiya).
Regarding Claim 9, Kishi teaches an antiglare film-attached transparent substrate (Figure 10B) comprising:
a transparent substrate (see Figure 10B and Paragraph [0042]; wherein it is disclosed that the translucent base may be a transparent plastic film base); and
an antiglare film (Figures 9A and 9B; Anti-Glare Layer 11) disposed on the transparent substrate (see Figure 10B; Paragraphs [0042] and [0068]; wherein it is disclosed that the translucent base may be a transparent plastic film base and wherein it is further disclosed that the anti-glare layer-forming material is coated to the translucent base), wherein
the antiglare film (Figures 9A/9B and 10B; Anti-Glare Layer 11) contains particles and a matrix (see Figures 9A/9B; 10B; Particles 12-13 with respect to figures 9A and 9B and Particles 1-6 with respect to figure 10B), and
the matrix contains silicon oxide (see Paragraph [0049]; wherein it is disclosed that the particles for forming the anti-glare layer include inorganic particles such as silicon oxide particles).
Kishi does not expressly disclose that the particles are substantially formed of phyllosilicate mineral particles, and in phyllosilicate mineral contained in the phyllosilicate mineral particles, a crystal plane oriented along a principal surface of the transparent substrate is a (001) plane.
Yosomiya discloses an antiglare-film (Figure 1; Optical Film 4) comprising particles (see Paragraph [0035]), wherein the particles are substantially formed of phyllosilicate mineral particles (see Paragraph [0035]), and in phyllosilicate mineral contained in the phyllosilicate mineral particles, a crystal plane oriented along a principal surface of the transparent substrate is a (001) plane (see Paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare-film of Kishi such that the particles are substantially formed of phyllosilicate mineral particles, and in phyllosilicate mineral contained in the phyllosilicate mineral particles, a crystal plane oriented along a principal surface of the transparent substrate is a (001) plane, as taught by Yosomiya, because doing so would help scatter incoming light in a controlled manner such that specular reflection is reduced and image sharpness is preserved.
Regarding Claim 10, Kishi as modified by Yosomiya discloses the limitations of claim 9 as detailed above.
Yosomiya further discloses the phyllosilicate mineral particles contain at least one mineral selected from the group consisting of smectite, kaolin, and talc (see Paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (US 2014/0126064; hereinafter referred to as Kishi) as applied to claim 1, in view of Isshiki et al (US 2020/0363571; hereinafter referred to as Isshiki).
Regarding Claim 19, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi does not expressly disclose that a surface of the antiglare film has Rsm of greater than 0 μm and less than or equal to 35 μm when the Rsm represents an average length of roughness profile elements as defined in JIS B0601:2001.
Isshiki discloses an antiglare film (Figure 2; Antiglare Film 24), wherein a surface of the antiglare film (Figure 2; Antiglare Film 24) has Rsm of greater than 0 μm and less than or equal to 35 μm when the Rsm represents an average length of roughness profile elements as defined in JIS B0601:2001 (see Paragraph [0136]; wherein it is disclosed that the RSm of the surface of the antiglare layer 24 is 50 μm or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi such that a surface of the antiglare film has Rsm of greater than 0 μm and less than or equal to 35 μm when the Rsm represents an average length of roughness profile elements as defined in JIS B0601:2001, as taught by Isshiki, because doing so would achieve high antiglare property, high visibility and low sparkle (see Isshiki Paragraph [0105]).
Claim 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (US 2014/0126064; hereinafter referred to as Kishi) as applied to claim 1, in view of Takeda et al (US 2018/0162091; hereinafter referred to as Takeda).
Regarding Claim 21, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi does not expressly disclose that a principal surface of the transparent substrate has Ra of less than or equal to 10 nm when the Ra represents an arithmetic average roughness of a roughness profile as defined in JIS B0601:2001.
Takeda discloses an anti-glare film (Figure 6; Anti-Glare Layer 5) attached transparent substrate (Figure 6; Substrate 3), wherein a principal surface (Figure 6; First Surface 3A) of the transparent substrate (Figure 6; Substrate 3) has Ra of less than or equal to 10 nm when the Ra represents an arithmetic average roughness of a roughness profile as defined in JIS B0601:2001 (see Paragraph [0054]; wherein it is disclosed that the arithmetic average roughness Ra of the first surface 3A is preferably at most 10 nm, more preferably at most 5 nm, further preferably at most 2 nm, particularly preferably at most 1 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the substrate of Kishi such that a principal surface of the transparent substrate has Ra of less than or equal to 10 nm when the Ra represents an arithmetic average roughness of a roughness profile as defined in JIS B0601:2001, as taught by Takeda, because doing so would have predictably provided a smooth surface capable of ensuring a secure bond between the antiglare layer and the first surface of the substrate.
Regarding Claim 22, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi does not expressly disclose 60 ̊ specular glossiness is 60 to 130%.
Takeda discloses an anti-glare film wherein 60 ̊ specular glossiness is 60 to 130% (see Paragraph [0113]; wherein it is disclosed that the 60° specular gloss at the surface (the surface of the antiglare layer 5) having a uneven structure of the translucent structure 1 is preferably at most 140%, more preferably at most 135%, further preferably at most 130%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi such that 60 ̊ specular glossiness is 60 to 130%, as taught by Takeda, because doing so would ensure sufficient antiglare effects are exhibited. (see Takeda Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 23, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi does not expressly disclose that a haze ratio is less than or equal to 20 %.
Takeda discloses an anti-glare film wherein a haze ratio is less than or equal to 20 % (see Paragraph [0111]; wherein it is disclosed that the haze factor of the translucent structure 1 is preferably from 0.1 to 15.0%, more preferably from 0.2 to 10.0%, particularly preferably from 0.5 to 5.0%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi such that a haze ratio is less than or equal to 20 %, as taught by Takeda, because doing so would ensure the antiglare properties are made more excellent (see Takeda Paragraph [0111]).
Regarding Claim 25, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kishi does not expressly disclose that 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.2G+25.
Takeda discloses an antiglare film wherein 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.2G+25 (see Paragraphs [0111] and [0113]; wherein it is disclosed that the haze factor of the translucent structure 1 is preferably from 0.1 to 15.0%, more preferably from 0.2 to 10.0%, particularly preferably from 0.5 to 5.0% and that the 60° specular gloss at the surface (the surface of the antiglare layer 5) having a uneven structure of the translucent structure 1 is preferably at most 140%, more preferably at most 135%, further preferably at most 130%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi such that 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.2G+25, as taught by Takeda, because doing so would ensure sufficient antiglare effects are exhibited and ensure that the antiglare properties are made more excellent (see Takeda Paragraphs [0111] and [0113]).
Regarding Claim 26, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 25 as detailed above.
Kishi does not expressly disclose that 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.2G+24.
Takeda discloses an antiglare film wherein 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.2G+24 (see Paragraphs [0111] and [0113]; wherein it is disclosed that the haze factor of the translucent structure 1 is preferably from 0.1 to 15.0%, more preferably from 0.2 to 10.0%, particularly preferably from 0.5 to 5.0% and that the 60° specular gloss at the surface (the surface of the antiglare layer 5) having a uneven structure of the translucent structure 1 is preferably at most 140%, more preferably at most 135%, further preferably at most 130%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi such that 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.2G+24, as taught by Takeda, because doing so would ensure sufficient antiglare effects are exhibited and ensure that the antiglare properties are made more excellent (see Takeda Paragraphs [0111] and [0113]).
Regarding Claim 27, Kishi teaches the limitations of claim 26 as detailed above.
Kishi does not expressly disclose that 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.15G+18.
Takeda discloses an antiglare film wherein 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.15G+18 (see Paragraphs [0111] and [0113]; wherein it is disclosed that the haze factor of the translucent structure 1 is preferably from 0.1 to 15.0%, more preferably from 0.2 to 10.0%, particularly preferably from 0.5 to 5.0% and that the 60° specular gloss at the surface (the surface of the antiglare layer 5) having a uneven structure of the translucent structure 1 is preferably at most 140%, more preferably at most 135%, further preferably at most 130%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the antiglare film of Kishi such that 60 ̊ specular glossiness G and a haze ratio H(%) satisfy a relationship described below,
H ≤-0.15G+18, as taught by Takeda, because doing so would ensure sufficient antiglare effects are exhibited and ensure that the antiglare properties are made more excellent (see Takeda Paragraphs [0111] and [0113]).
Response to Arguments
The applicant alleges on page 6 that the prior art of record fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require “the antiglare film includes a first region…and a valley-shaped second region that surrounds the first region in plan view, or that is surrounded by the first region in plan view”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments presented by the applicant.
In response to argument A, the examiner maintains that the Kishi reference does teach the limitation “the antiglare film includes a first region…and a valley-shaped second region that surrounds the first region in plan view, or that is surrounded by the first region in plan view”. Specifically, Figure 4B depicts a schematic view showing a distribution of particles within the anti-glare film, and as can be seen in the figure the location of the particles coincides with the first region and the region that surrounds said particles is the second region. Therefore, while Kishi may not specifically depict a plan view, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the views provided in figures 4B and 9A/9B that the antiglare film includes a first region…and a valley-shaped second region that surrounds the first region in plan view, or that is surrounded by the first region in plan view.
All of the arguments presented by the applicant have been considered in their entirety but they are not persuasive.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm EST.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights