DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on August 22, 2023 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because too many words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cross-section of the support pillars is a trapezoid…a slope angle” (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). While Applicant’s specification appears to suggest these features are shown in Figure 14, such features are too small to show the details. No new matter should be entered.
Figure 14 is objected to under CFR 1.84(q). Figure 14 shows a lead line (arrow on left side), however no corresponding reference character is associated with the line.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, page 7, line 14, Examiner suggests -- the method --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
As to claims 1 and 18, the claim recite “a light modulation structure” which, in light of Applicant’s specification, is unclear what is intended by “modulation” (MPEP 2173.05(a); 2173.05(g)). As best as Examiner understands, there are no details on what/how the modulation is manifested. Is this changing a direction? Is this passive? Active? Changing a phase? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, such modulation function is presumed present.
As to claims 1 and 18, the claims recite “a height of the support pillars is greater than a height of the nano-pillars in a direction perpendicular to the substrate”, which is unclear as a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the substrate exists as a three dimensional element having height, width, length. In cartesian coordinates, this would mean the substrate exists in x-, y-, z- axes. Thus it is unclear what constitutes “a direction perpendicular to the substrate” since the substrate extends in x, y, z.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the direction the support pillars extend and the direction the nano-pillars extends to be the same direction from an upper/top surface of the substrate (1).
As to claims 1 and 18, the claims recite “close to the cover layer” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What qualifies as “close to” appears entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention. So long as the prior art teaches a cover layer, Examiner will understand the metasurface to be “close to” such layer.
Claims 2-17, 19-20 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “a light emitting surface of the display panel main body is located on a focal plane of the metasurface structure” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, Applicant’s claims and specification do not provide any details on how the metasurface achieves a focal plane. Is the metasurface a lens? If it is a lens, what structure does the metasurface have for providing a focal length? Those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a focal length is not implicit to a generic metasurface with nano-pillars.
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches the light-emitting surface and metasurface, such features will be presumed taught.
Claim 5 is rejected as dependent upon claim 4.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “a slope angle of the support pillars is less than a slope angle of the nano-pillars” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, it is unclear what the slope angle is between. The pillar surface and the vertical? The pillar surface and the horizontal? Other? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as the pillars are trapezoidal, then such slope features are necessarily present.
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 1-6, 8, 11, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Riley Jr. et al. (US 2019/0064532 - Riley).
As to claim 1, Riley teaches a display panel comprising a display panel main body (Riley Fig. 7 - 72, 74; Fig. 11 - 102, 104, p1, p2; para. [0244]) and a light modulation structure located on a light emitting side of the display main body (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Fig. 11 - 100; para. [0244], [0233]), wherein
the display panel main body comprises a plurality of pixels arranged in an array (Riley Fig. 11 - p1, p2; Fig. 7 - 74; para. [0233], [0244]);
the light modulation structure comprises a substrate (Riley Fig. 7 - 66), a first medium (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; para. [0233] - metasurface elements), and a second medium (Riley Fig. 7 - 70; para. [0233] - air), and a cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 64), the first medium and the second medium being disposed between the substrate and the cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60, 70, 66, 64);
the first medium comprises a metasurface structure (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; para. [0233]), the metasurface comprises a plurality of metasurface structural units arranged in an array on a surface of the substrate close to the cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Fig. 11 - MS1, MS2…MSN), the plurality of metasurface structural units are in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of pixels (Riley Fig. 7 - 60, 62, 74; [0233]; Fig. 11 - MS1, MS2, p1, p2…MSN, pn), at least one of the metasurface structural units comprises a plurality of nano-pillars spaced apart (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Figs. 4A-C; para. [0184], [0228], [0229]);
the second medium comprises a gas layer filling between the substrate and the cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 70; para. [0233] - air);
the substrate and the cover layer are spaced from each other by support pillars (Riley Fig. 7 - 68; para. [0233]), and a height of the support pillars is greater than a height of the nano-pillars in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Riley Fig. 7 - 68, 60, 62).
As to claim 2, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches a refractive index of the nano-pillars is greater than a refractive index of the gas layer (Riley para. [0020], [0233] - nano-pillars of silicon nitride (n ≈ 2.0) vs. air (n ≈ 1.0)).
As to claim 3, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Riley further teaches the difference between the refractive index of the nano-pillars and the refractive index of the gas layer is greater than 0.7 (Riley para. [0020], [0233] - nano-pillars of silicon nitride (n ≈ 2.0) vs. air (n ≈ 1.0)).
As to claim 4, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches a light emitting surface of the display panel main body is located on a focal plane of the metasurface structure (Riley Fig. 11 - p1, p2, MS1, MS2; para. [0245]).
As to claim 5, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Riley further teaches a thickness of the substrate is greater than a thickness of the metasurface in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (Riley Fig. 7 - 66, 62; para. [0003], [0224], [0267]-[0269]).
As to claim 6, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches a distance between two adjacent metasurface structural units of the metasurface surface structural units is greater than a distance between two adjacent nano-pillars in each of the metasurface structural units (Riley Fig. 7 - 69, 62; Fig. 11 - MS1, p1; para. [0244]-[0245]).
As to claim 8, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches a crosse-section shape of the nano-pillars in the direction perpendicular to the substrate comprises one or more of a rectangle, circular arc, and a trapezoid (Riley Fig. 2B - 20; Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Fig. 12A; para. [0251]).
As to claim 11, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches each of the pixels comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (Riley Fig. 11; para. [0244] - three colors (e.g. red, green, blue) that are then repeated periodically within the array), each of the metasurface structural units comprises a plurality of substructural units (Riley Fig. 11; para. [0244] - Because each illuminator comprising array may have unique properties, it may also be advantageous to have an array of metasurface elements, each with uniquely designed properties), at least one of the sub-structural units comprises a plurality of nano-pillars spaced apart (Riley Fig. 7 - 60, 62; Fig. 11 - 100), and the plurality of sub-structural units are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of sub-pixels (Riley Fig. 11).
As to claim 14, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Riley further teaches at least one of the support pillars is disposed on a peripheral edge of at least one of the sub-structural units (Riley Fig. 7 - 68; Fig. 11 - 108).
As to claim 15, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Riley further teaches the substrate comprises a central area where multiple metasurface structural units of the metasurface structural units are disposed (Riley Fig. 11 - MS1, MS2…MSN, 104), and an edge portion at the periphery of the central area (Riley Fig. 11 - 108), and multiple support pillars of the support pillars are uniformly disposed in the edge area (Riley Fig. 11 - 108).
As to claim 16, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches the nano-pillars are made of silicon nitride and the gas layer is an air layer (Riley para. [0020], [0233] - nano-pillars of silicon nitride (n ≈ 2.0) vs. air (n ≈ 1.0)).
As to claim 17, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and Riley further teaches the support pillars are made of a same material as the nano-pillars (Riley para. [0219], [0234] - both pillars include Si or silicon dioxide).
As to claim 20, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Riley further teaches the multiple support pillars are connected to an integral structure to form a supporting dam at the periphery of the metasurface structural units (Riley Fig. 7 - 64, 66, 68; Fig. 11 - 108, 104).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (cited above).
As to claim 10, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches a width of the support pillar is wider than the width the nano-pillar (Riley Fig. 7 - 60, 62, 68), but doesn’t provide additional dimensional information to determine which pillar has the greater area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the support pillar (68) with greater area than the nano-pillar (60, 62), since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976). As discussed by Riley, the nano-pillars are to have small areas/sizes (Riley Figs. 4A-C) for the purpose of achieving the desired light control (Riley para. [0003]).
As to claim 19, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches at least one support pillars is disposed on a periphery of each of first metasurface structural units located at an edge of the substrate (Riley Fig. 7 - 68; Fig. 11 - 108), and while Riley shows each metasurface structural unit includes support pillars, Riley doesn’t explicitly show the support pillars between the adjacent units - i.e. pillars between units MS1, MS2….
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the supports between units since, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Such pillars allow for separating the units MS1, MS2…MSN.
Claims 7, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0020963 - Lee).
As to claim 7, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches and while the nano-pillars in each metasurface structural unit appear symmetrically arranged about a center of the corresponding structural unit (Riley Figs. 2A,B - 20), Riley’s specification does explicitly say whether the pillars are symmetric about the center.
In the same field of endeavor Lee teaches metasurfaces with nano-pillars being symmetrical about a center (Lee Fig. 3 - 41; Fig. 5 - mn1, mn2; para. [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such symmetry since, as taught by Lee, such symmetry allows for polarization independence (Lee para. [0094]).
As to claim 12, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Riley further teaches the pixel comprises a plurality of different colored sub-pixels (Riley Fig. 11; para. [0244]), and the nano-pillars within the metasurface structural unit correspond to different colored sub-pixels (Riley para. [0244]). While Riley states the metasurface structural units are uniquely designed for the different colors (Riley para. [0244]), Riley doesn’t specify the unique design is having different arrangement spacings.
In the same field of endeavor Lee teaches metasurfaces with nano-pillars for colored display sub-pixels (Lee Fig. 1; Fig. 5; Fig. 8), the nano-pillars having different arrangement spacings for the sub-pixels (Lee Fig. 5 - mn1, mn2; Fig. 8 - 30p, 30q, 30r; para. [0075], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide different spacings since, as taught by Lee, such spacings allow for controlling which wavelength(s) is controlled by the metasurface (Lee Fig. 8; para. [0075], [0076], [0102]-[0103]).
As to claim 13, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Riley further teaches the pixel comprises a red sub-pixel, a green sub-pixel, and a blue sub-pixel (Riley para. [0244]);
the metasurface structural unit comprises a first sub-structural unit corresponding to the red sub-pixel, and the arrangement spacing of the plurality of nano-pillars in the first sub-structural unit is 300-700 nm (Riley Figs. 4B,C);
the metasurface structural unit comprises a second sub-structural unit corresponding to the green sub-pixel, and the arrangement spacing of the plurality of nano-pillars in the second sub- structural unit is 270-550 nm (Riley Figs. 4B, C);
the metasurface structural unit comprises a third sub-structural unit corresponding to the blue sub-pixel, and the arrangement spacing of the plurality of nano-pillars in the third sub- structural unit is 230-450 nm (Riley Figs. 4B, C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gu (US 2018/0067369).
As to claim 9, Riley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Riley further teaches in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, a cross-section of the nano-pillars is a rectangle (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Fig. 11 - 100, 106), but doesn’t specify a cross-section of the support pillars is a trapezoid, a slope angle of the support pillars is less than a slope angle of the nano-pillars.
In the same field of endeavor Gu teaches providing support pillars with trapezoid cross-section, and thus a support pillar slope angle less than the nano-pillar slope angle (Gu Fig. 1 - 108; para. [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide trapezoid support pillars since, as taught by Gu, such trapezoid shapes are well known in the art for separating pixel units (Gu Fig. 1 - 108; para. [0028]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (cited above) in view of Schwartz et al. (US 2016/0087246 - Schwartz).
As to claim 18, Riley teaches a method for manufacturing a display panel (Riley Fig. 3), wherein the display pane comprises a display panel main body (Riley Fig. 7 - 72, 74; Fig. 11 - 102, 104, p1, p2; para. [0244]) and a light modulation structure located on a light emitting side of the display main body (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Fig. 11 - 100; para. [0244], [0233]);
the display panel main body comprises a plurality of pixels arranged in an array (Riley Fig. 11 - p1, p2; Fig. 7 - 74; para. [0233], [0244]);
the light modulation structure comprises a substrate (Riley Fig. 7 - 66), a first medium (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; para. [0233] - metasurface elements), and a second medium (Riley Fig. 7 - 70; para. [0233] - air), and a cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 64), the first medium and the second medium being disposed between the substrate and the cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60, 70, 66, 64);
the first medium comprises a metasurface structure (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; para. [0233]), the metasurface comprises a plurality of metasurface structural units arranged in an array on a surface of the substrate close to the cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Fig. 11 - MS1, MS2…MSN), the plurality of metasurface structural units are in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of pixels (Riley Fig. 7 - 60, 62, 74; [0233]; Fig. 11 - MS1, MS2, p1, p2…MSN, pn), at least one of the metasurface structural units comprises a plurality of nano-pillars spaced apart (Riley Fig. 7 - 62, 60; Figs. 4A-C; para. [0184], [0228], [0229]);
the second medium comprises a gas layer filling between the substrate and the cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 70; para. [0233] - air);
the substrate and the cover layer are spaced from each other by support pillars (Riley Fig. 7 - 68; para. [0233]), and a height of the support pillars is greater than a height of the nano-pillars in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Riley Fig. 7 - 68, 60, 62);
the method comprising
providing the display panel main body and the light modulation structure (Riley Figs. 1A-3; Fig. 7; Fig. 11);
attaching the light modulation structure to the light-emitting side of the display panel main body (Riley Figs. 1A-3; Fig. 7; Fig. 11); or
forming the substrate on the display panel main body (Riley Figs. 1A-3; Fig. 7; Fig. 11);
forming the metasurface structure on the substrate, wherein the metasurface structure comprises the plurality of metasurface structural units arranged in an array, the plurality of metasurface structural units are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of pixels on the display panel main body, and at least one of the metasurface structural units comprises the plurality of nano-pillars (Riley Figs. 1A-3; Fig. 7; Fig. 11);
forming the support pillars on the substrate (Riley Figs. 1A-3; Fig. 7; Fig. 11);
forming on the substrate a filling layer filling between the adjacent nano-pillars, between the adjacent support pillars (Riley Figs. 1A-3; Fig. 7; Fig. 11), and/or between the adjacent nano-pillar and support pillar (Riley Figs. 1A-3; Fig. 7; Fig. 11), a side surface of the filling layer away from the substrate being flush with an end surface of the support pillars away from the substrate (Riley Fig. 7 - 68, 66, 64; Fig. 11 - 108, 104), wherein the filling layer is formed using a pore-forming agent material (Riley para. [0234]);
forming a cover layer on the filling layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 64; Fig. 11);
forming a frame sealing adhesive around the substrate and the cover layer (Riley Fig. 7 - 68; Fig. 11 - 108; para. [0037], [0208]).
Riley doesn’t specify heating to a preset temperature, causing the filling layer to gasify and escape through the cover layer while outside air enters between the substrate and the cover layer.
In the same field of endeavor Schwartz teaches manufacturing nano pillar optics (Schwartz para. [0002]) including a filling layer (Schwartz Fig. 2 - 12; Fig. 3; Fig. 4 - 12; para. [0053]), a cover layer on the filling layer (Schwartz Fig. 2 - 65; Fig. 4 - 5, 65), heating to a preset temperature (Schwartz para. [0012], [0013], [0039], [0040], [0064]), causing the filling layer to gasify and escape through the cover layer while outside air enters between the substrate and the cover layer (Schwartz Fig. 2 - 12; Fig. 3; Fig. 4 - 12; para. [0057], [0063], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such manufactuging steps since, as taught by Schwatrz, such “bake-out” processes are well known in the art for removing sacrificial layers and forming voids within nano optical elements (Schwartz para. [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (US 12,016,346; 2023/0176391); Lee et al. (US 11,980,052); Devlin et al. (US 11,978,752; 2021/0028215); Riley Jr (US 10,795,168); Gu (US 10,209,599); Schwartz et al. (US 9,419,250) are cited as additional examples of metasurface displays and/or additional examples of the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 5, 2025