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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of April 30, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest all of the limitations of the present claims. Specifically, Applicant argues that primary reference West does not disclose or suggest the newly-claimed wherein the predetermined thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is greater than 100 nm and said silicon dioxide layer is deposited directly on and in contact with the hard coating because West discloses a two-stage method of depositing silicon dioxide [SiO2; silica], the first stage of which results in a first layer of only 10 nm to 100 nm (see pages 5-8 of the Remarks of April 30, 2026 and see Abstract and paragraph [0108] of West).
However, it has been held that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316; 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Furthermore, it has been held that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP § 2145, Section VI, citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the present case, with respect to cited reference West, after formation of the hard coating [abrasion resistant coating], West’s first and second inorganic layers [SiO2 layers] are sequentially deposited (see Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0037]-[0040], [0057], [0058], [0191], [0193] of West). West’s first and second inorganic layers [SiO2 layers] are formed adjacent to each other (see paragraph [0117] of West), and thus the combination of these two layers may be identified as the claimed “silicon dioxide layer”. The first and second inorganic layers [SiO2 layers] may have thicknesses of 10 to 100 nm and 70 to 300 nm, respectively, for a total thickness of 80 nm to 400 nm, thus satisfying the claimed “greater than 100 nm” thickness (see paragraphs [0039], [0040], [0108], [0118] of West).
Applicant argues that the present claim language distinguishes from West based upon claiming a “single silica [SiO2] layer” deposited “at a single pressure” (see page 7 of the Remarks of April 30, 2026). However, the present claims do not appear so limited. Specifically, the present claims do not recite a single silica [SiO2] layer deposited at a single pressure, as Applicant appears to assert. Applicant appears to argue that the dual-layer (or bi-layer) of West cannot correspond to the claimed SiO2 layer because the two layers (or sub-layers) of SiO2 are deposited at different vacuum chamber pressures (Ibid). However, the present claims do not require a single homogenous layer, e.g., a single layer which has a same density throughout (see paragraph [0113], [0122] of West, explaining that the lower vacuum chamber pressure used for the second SiO2 layer is believed to result in higher density).
The Examiner acknowledges that independent Claims 1 and 10 recite that during the evaporation/deposition [formation] of the silicon dioxide [SiO2] layer, oxygen gas is introduced having a pressure of 1.2 e-2 Pa to 5 e-2 Pa (note that 1 millibar [mbar] = 100 Pascal [Pa]). The Examiner further acknowledges that only the first SiO2 layer [first sub-layer] of West is formed at such pressure, wherein the second SiO2 layer [second sub-layer] of West is formed at a significantly lower pressure of 0.2 e-2 Pa to 0.5 e-2 Pa (see paragraphs [0112], [0120] of West). However, the present claim language does not affirmatively require a uniform pressure (or singular amount of pressure) for the entirety of the silicon dioxide layer. The present claim language merely requires that a range of pressure of 1.2 e-2 Pa to 5 e-2 Pa is used—a requirement which is satisfied by West’s use of such pressure range during the formation of at least a portion of the dual-layer silicon dioxide that exists between West’s hard coating layer and anti-fouling coating layer (see paragraphs [0037]-[0041], [0112], [0120] of West).
Thus, West does disclose the claimed wherein the predetermined thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is greater than 100 nm and said silicon dioxide layer is deposited directly on and in contact with the hard coating, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected based upon the West reference.
Applicant further argues that the teachings of secondary reference Fukui are inapplicable to the disclosures of primary reference West (see page 8 of the Remarks of April 30, 2026). Specifically, Applicant argues that because the focus of Fukui is anti-reflective performance through a multi-layer anti-reflective coating, a person of skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Fukui, relating to a 120 second (2 minute) ion beam pre-cleaning duration, with the disclosures of West, disclosing a 60 second (1 minute) ion beam pre-cleaning duration (Ibid).
However, Fukui is not relied upon for its teachings of the specific attributes of anti-reflective layers which are subsequently deposited on the cleaned surface of a lens. Fukui is relied upon to show that in a same type of device as West, i.e., a lens for spectacles having a hard coat thereon, it was known to perform an ion cleaning step for a longer duration (2 minutes) for the same type of purpose, i.e., enhanced adhesion of subsequently deposited layer(s), wherein such layer(s) may be silicon dioxide (see, e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0066]-[0068] and FIG. 1 of Fukui).
Therefore, the teachings of Fukui are considered applicable to the disclosures of West, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified West based on Fukui to provide the longer ion cleaning duration, and therefore the claims are rejected based upon either West alone, or West in view of Fukui.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to based on informalities.
Claim 11 recites the phrase: “…and the lens substrate is an ion beam pre-cleaned lens substrate”. However, it appears that this limitation is already recited based upon the newly-added language of independent Claim 10: “wherein the convex surface of the lens substrate is exposed to ion beam pre-cleaning”.
For clarity and conciseness, it is believed that the above phrase should be deleted from Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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 claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites: “further comprising: exposing the convex surface of the lens substrate to ion beam pre-cleaning for a predetermined time period”. However, Claim 1, from which Claim 2 depends, already recites this limitation as its second clause. Therefore, Claim 2 does not appear to further limit the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, US 2014/0125945 A1, previously-cited, or as being unpatentable over West in view of Fukui et al., US 2010/0103523 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, West discloses: A method of improving abrasion resistance of a lens, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional steps or features):
providing a lens substrate having a convex surface (positioning an optical article [lens] in a vacuum deposition chamber, the optical article [lens] having at least one main face, which may be convex; Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0037]-[0040], [0057], [0058], [0191] of West);
exposing the convex surface of the lens substrate to ion beam pre-cleaning for a predetermined time period (the surface of the article [lens] bearing the abrasion resistant coating [hard coating] may be subjected to a physical or chemical pre-treatment step intended to improve adhesion, for example an ion beam treatment [IPC: ion pre cleaning]; paragraphs [0106], [0116], [0197] of West);
depositing an inorganic layer of a predetermined thickness on the convex surface of the lens substrate within a vacuum deposition chamber (after positioning an optical article [lens] in a vacuum deposition chamber, depositing first and second inorganic layers comprising SiO2, the first and second inorganic layers having thicknesses of 10 to 100 nm and 70 to 300 nm, respectively; Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0037]-[0040], [0057], [0058], [0191] of West);
applying an anti-fouling coating as a top most layer of the lens to an exposed surface of the deposited inorganic layer (applying a hydrophilic or hydrophobic layer onto the inorganic layers, such that the hydrophilic or hydrophobic layer will become the outermost layer of the stack, in contact with air; paragraphs [0041]-[0043], [0193]-[0215] of West);
wherein the lens substrate includes a hard coating on a convex surface of a base substrate (the optical article [lens] having at least one main face, which may be convex, bearing an abrasion resistant coating [hard coating]; Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0037]-[0040], [0057], [0058], [0191], [0193] of West);
and wherein the deposited inorganic layer is a silicon dioxide layer, said silicon dioxide layer being deposited by evaporation, during the evaporation of the silicon dioxide layer, oxygen gas being introduced inside the vacuum deposition chamber, said oxygen gas having a partial pressure between 1.2e-2 Pa and 5e-2 Pa (first and second inorganic layers comprise SiO2, wherein deposition may occur by evaporation with oxygen gas at a pressure of 1.2×10−4 mbar to 5×10−4 mbar, equivalent to 1.2×10−2 Pa to 5×10−2 Pa [1 millibar = 100 Pascal], which may be written in alternative scientific notation as 1.2e-2 Pa to 5e-2 Pa; paragraphs [0039], [0109], [0112], [0120] of West);
wherein the predetermined thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is greater than 100 nm and said silicon dioxide layer is deposited directly on and in contact with the hard coating (first and second inorganic layers comprising SiO2 may be identified as the claimed “silicon dioxide layer”, and have thicknesses of 10 to 100 nm and 70 to 300 nm, respectively, for a total thickness of 80 nm to 400 nm; paragraphs [0038]-[0040], [0108], [0118] of West).
West discloses an ion pre-treatment of about 60 seconds (see paragraph [0197] of West).
West does not appear to explicitly disclose a greater duration of pre-cleaning such that: wherein the predetermined time period that the convex surface of the lens substrate is exposed to the ion beam pre-cleaning is between 90 seconds and 150 seconds.
However, it has been held that where 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. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because West discloses that the ion beam treatment is a cleaning step which serves to improve adhesion of subsequent layers (see, e.g., paragraphs [0106], [0116] of West).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a somewhat longer duration of ion treatment (i.e., 90 to 150 seconds instead of 60 seconds), because such increased duration would provide a cleaner surface and/or provide more certainty that such surface was in fact thoroughly cleaned.
Furthermore, Fukui is related to West with respect to ion cleaning of lens surfaces.
Fukui teaches: further comprising: exposing the convex surface of the lens substrate to ion beam pre-cleaning for 90 seconds and 150 seconds AND the lens substrate is an ion beam pre-cleaned lens substrate (lens subjected to ion cleaning for 2 minutes [120 seconds]; see paragraph [0067] of Fukui, and the Office notes that 2 minutes [120 seconds] is the exact mid-point of the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed duration of ion beam cleaning, as in Fukui, for the lens of West because such duration of ion cleaning of lens was in fact known in the art and considered effective for cleaning the surface and thereby enhancing the adhesion to subsequent layers, as evidenced by paragraphs [0067], [0068] of Fukui.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, West (or West-Fukui) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: further comprising: exposing the convex surface of the lens substrate to ion beam pre-cleaning for a predetermined time period (the surface of the article [lens] bearing the abrasion resistant coating [hard coating] may be subjected to a physical or chemical pre-treatment step intended to improve adhesion, for example an ion beam treatment [IPC: ion pre cleaning]; paragraphs [0106], [0116], [0197] of West).
Regarding Claim 8, West (or West-Fukui) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the depositing includes depositing an inorganic material on the convex surface of the lens substrate at a rate of between 0.2 nm/s and 1.5 nm/s (the deposition rates of the first and second inorganic layers are preferably from 0.2 to 0.5 nm/s and 0.7 to 1.3 nm/s, respectively; paragraphs [0114], [0121], [0203], [0209] of West).
Regarding Claim 9, West (or West-Fukui) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the applied anti-fouling coating is a fluorinated material (preferred anti-fouling top coat may comprise at least one fluorinated compound; paragraphs [0157]-[0169] of West).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, West discloses: A lens having abrasion resistance, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a lens substrate including a hard coating on a convex surface of a base substrate (providing an optical article [lens] having at least one main face, which may be convex, bearing an abrasion resistant coating [hard coating]; Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0037], [0057], [0058], [0191], [0193] of West);
an inorganic layer that is deposited, within a vacuum deposition chamber, on the hard coating of the lens substrate, the inorganic layer having a predetermined thickness (positioning said optical article [lens] in a vacuum deposition chamber, and depositing first and second inorganic layers comprising SiO2 on the abrasion resistant coating [hard coating], the first and second inorganic layers having thicknesses of 10 to 100 nm and 70 to 300 nm, respectively; paragraphs [0038]-[0040] of West);
wherein the inorganic layer is a silicon dioxide layer, said silicon dioxide layer being deposited by evaporation with oxygen gas having a partial pressure between 1.2e-2 Pa and 5e-2 Pa (first and second inorganic layers comprise SiO2, wherein deposition may occur by evaporation with oxygen gas at a pressure of 1.2×10−4 mbar to 5×10−4 mbar, equivalent to 1.2×10−2 Pa to 5×10−2 Pa [1 millibar = 100 Pascal], which may be written in alternative scientific notation as 1.2e-2 Pa to 5e-2 Pa; paragraphs [0039], [0109], [0112], [0120] of West; the Office notes that the claim language “deposited within a vacuum deposition chamber” and “applied within the vacuum deposition chamber” and “exposed to atmosphere following retrieval” and “deposited by evaporation” appears to imply processing steps which would render this claim a “product-by-process” claim, whereby even though the claim may be limited by and defined by the process, a determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and thus, even if a prior art product is made by a different process, if the resulting prior art product is substantially identical, the prior art product will anticipate the claimed product. See MPEP § 2113, Section I, citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698; 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); and
an anti-fouling coating that is applied, within the vacuum deposition chamber, as a top most layer of the lens, to an exposed surface of the inorganic layer, a surface of the anti-fouling coating being exposed to atmosphere following retrieval of the lens from the vacuum deposition chamber (applying a hydrophilic or hydrophobic layer onto the inorganic layers, such that the hydrophilic or hydrophobic layer will become the outermost layer of the stack, in contact with air; paragraphs [0041]-[0043], [0193]-[0215] of West);
wherein the convex surface of the lens substrate is exposed to ion beam pre-cleaning for a predetermined time period (the surface of the article [lens] bearing the abrasion resistant coating [hard coating] may be subjected to a physical or chemical pre-treatment step intended to improve adhesion, for example an ion beam treatment [IPC: ion pre cleaning]; paragraphs [0106], [0116], [0197] of West);
wherein the predetermined thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is greater than 100 nm and said silicon dioxide layer is deposited directly on and in contact with the hard coating (first and second inorganic layers comprising SiO2 may be identified as the claimed “silicon dioxide layer”, and have thicknesses of 10 to 100 nm and 70 to 300 nm, respectively, for a total thickness of 80 nm to 400 nm; paragraphs [0038]-[0040], [0108], [0118] of West).
West discloses an ion pre-treatment of about 60 seconds (see paragraph [0197] of West).
West does not appear to explicitly disclose a greater duration of pre-cleaning such that: wherein the predetermined time period is between 90 seconds and 150 seconds.
However, it has been held that where 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. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because West discloses that the ion beam treatment is a cleaning step which serves to improve adhesion of subsequent layers (see, e.g., paragraphs [0106], [0116] of West).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a somewhat longer duration of ion treatment (i.e., 90 to 150 seconds instead of 60 seconds), because such increased duration would provide a cleaner surface and/or provide more certainty that such surface was in fact thoroughly cleaned.
Furthermore, Fukui is related to West with respect to ion cleaning of lens surfaces.
Fukui teaches: wherein the predetermined time period is between 90 seconds and 150 seconds (lens subjected to ion cleaning for 2 minutes [120 seconds]; see paragraph [0067] of Fukui, and the Office notes that 2 minutes [120 seconds] is the exact mid-point of the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed duration of ion beam cleaning, as in Fukui, for the lens of West because such duration of ion cleaning of lens was in fact known in the art and considered effective for cleaning the surface and thereby enhancing the adhesion to subsequent layers, as evidenced by paragraphs [0067], [0068] of Fukui.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, West (or West-Fukui) discloses the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses: wherein the base substrate is polycarbonate (lens substrate may comprise polycarbonate; paragraphs [0097], [0098] of West) and the lens substrate is an ion beam pre-cleaned lens substrate (the surface of the article [lens] bearing the abrasion resistant coating [hard coating] may be subjected to a physical or chemical pre-treatment step intended to improve adhesion, for example an ion beam treatment [IPC: ion pre cleaning]; paragraphs [0106], [0116], [0197] of West).
Regarding Claims 17 and 20, West (or West-Fukui) discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 and further discloses: wherein the ion beam pre-cleaning treatment comprising a species having an energy of between 1 eV and 150 eV (ion beam treatment, wherein ions may be identified as an energetic species, such energetic species having an energy ranging from 1 to 150 eV; paragraphs [0106], [0107], [0109]-[0111], [0116] of West).
Regarding Claims 18 and 21, West (or West-Fukui) discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 and further discloses: wherein the anti-fouling coating has a thickness lower than 15 nm (hydrophilic or antifouling hydrophobic layer, preferably having a thickness ranging from 1 to 15 nm; Abstract and paragraphs [0041], [0126], [0174] of West).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West in view of Fukui and further in view of Ono, US 2018/0148609 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 15, West (or West as modified by Fukui) discloses the limitations of Claim 10, but does not appear to disclose: wherein a contact angle of the exposed surface of the anti-fouling coating is between 110° and 115°.
Ono is related to West (or West-Fukui) with respect to silane-based anti-fouling layers.
Ono teaches: wherein a contact angle of the exposed surface of the anti-fouling coating is between 110° and 115° (antifouling layer 50, for example, a coating layer of an alkoxysilane compound having a perfluoropolyether group to thereby impart water repellency with a water contact angle of 110 degrees or more; paragraph [0043] of Ono).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the contact angle of Ono for the anti-fouling coating of West (or West-Fukui) because such contact angle improves the anti-fouling properties, as taught in paragraph [0043] of Ono.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West in view of Fukui and further in view of Igier et al., US 2015/0277152 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claims 16 and 19, West, or West as modified by Fukui, discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 but does not appear to disclose: applying a layer of magnesium sulfide or magnesium oxide to the convex surface of the lens.
Igier is related to West (or West-Fukui) with respect to manufacture of abrasion-resistant optical articles such as lenses.
Igier teaches: applying a layer of magnesium sulfide or magnesium oxide to the convex surface of the lens (temporary layer comprising preferably magnesium oxides of 95% by weight; see Abstract and paragraphs [0013], [0033]-[0035], [0082]-[0085], [0097], [0101], [0103], [0114] of Igier, but see especially paragraphs [0082], [0084], [0085] of Igier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the magnesium oxide of Igier for the optical article of West (or West-Fukui) because such magnesium oxide facilitates the wiping away of excess organosilane precursor compound [“compound A”], as taught in paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0013], [0052], [0097] of Igier (and see paragraphs [0031], 0063], [0149], [0150] of West disclosing organosilane precursor).
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights