DETAILED ACTION
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-16, and 20-21 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 claims 1 and 16, the limitation “an intermediate layer having light transmittance equal to or greater than 90%” is unclear as to what transmittance of what light. Specifically, light transmittance of materials are well-known to be dependent on the wavelength of light being transmitted, and without specification of a wavelength the scope of the transmittance is undefined. It is further noted that applicant’s disclosure provides no wavelength at which the transmittance should be measured. Additionally, applicant’s disclosure provides that the transmittance of “about” 90% or greater, and defines “about” as being “within an acceptable range of deviation,” for example within ±30%, 20%, 10%, 5% of the stated value. It is therefore unclear as to what the proper interpretation of the claimed range.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yang et al. (US 2021/0320150; herein “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses in Fig. 17 and related text a display device comprising:
a display substrate comprising:
a display area (e.g. DA, see [0061]);
a non-display area (e.g. NDA, see [0061])adjacent to the display area; and
light emitting elements (EL, see [0087]) disposed in the display area; and
a light control substrate (300, see [0065]) facing the display substrate and comprising:
a color filter layer (layer comprising CF1/CF2/CF3, see [0099]);
a light conversion layer (layer comprising WLC1/WLC2/LTU, see [0099]); and
an intermediate layer (e.g. CAP1, IBK1, and OBK1) having light transmittance equal to or greater than 90% (e.g. at the areas of TA1/TA2/TA3, see [0107]; further note that the material having high transparency will have 90% or greater transmittance to at least some wavelengths of light, e.g. infrared) disposed between the color filter layer and the light conversion layer,
a capping layer (CAP2, see [0099]); wherein
the intermediate layer has a side surface facing a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the display device the slanted surface in direct contact with CAP2, which faces left in Fig. 17),
in a cross-sectional view, the capping layer extends over and covers an entirety of the side surface of the intermediate layer (see Fig. 17),
the color filter layer extends from the display area to the non-display area and comprises a first surface facing the display substrate,
the first surface comprises a step difference overlapping the non-display area (see Fig. 12);
in the cross-sectional view, the capping layer (CAP2) is in continuous and direct contact with the intermediate layer from a portion overlapping the step difference to the display area (see Fig. 17).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the transmittance of the intermediate layer to be a result effective variable affecting light emitting efficiency of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Yang to have the transmittance within the claimed range in order to improve light emitting efficiency of the device, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Yang further discloses wherein the intermediate layer (CPA1/OBK1/IBK1) covers the step difference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2-5 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Oh et al. (US 2021/0249478; herein “Oh”).
Regarding claim 2, Yang further discloses
a first color filter (CF1), a second color filter (CF2), and a third color filter (CF3) that each comprise a rear surface facing the intermediate layer (note that the first color filter CF1 and third color filter CF3 form a light shielding region extending from the display area to the non-display area, see [0182]).
Yang does not disclose
the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter that each comprise the rear surface extending from the display area to the non-display area and facing the intermediate layer, and
the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap each other in the non-display area.
In the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches in Fig. 2A and related text
the first color filter (123), the second color filter (122), and the third color filter (121, see [0067) each comprise the rear surface extending to areas of light shielding regions;
the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap each other in the light shielding regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang by having the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter each comprise a rear surface extending to areas of light shielding regions and the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap each other in the light shielding regions, as shown by Oh, in order to provide a high quality image and provide improved methods of manufacture (see Oh [0006] and [0152] at least). The limitations “the rear surface extending from the display area to the non-display area and facing the intermediate layer,” and “the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap each other in the non-display area” is therefore taught by the combination of the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter having rear surfaces extending to light shielding regions and overlapping in the light shielding regions, as shown by Oh, and the light shielding region extending from the display area to the non-display area and the light shielding region being in the non-display area, as shown by Yang.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combined device shows wherein an edge of the first color filter is disposed on the rear surface of the second (third) color filter to form the step difference (Oh: edges of the second color filter 122 protrude more than corresponding edges of the first color filter 123 and edges of the third color filter 121 protrude more than corresponding edges of the second color filter 122, see Fig. 1; thus there is a step difference at each edge).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device shows
the step difference comprises a first step difference portion and a second step difference portion,
an edge of the first color filter is disposed on the rear surface of the second color filter to form the first step different portion, and
an edge of the second color filter is disposed on the rear surface of the third color filter to form the second step different portion (Oh: edges of the second color filter 122 protrude more than corresponding edges of the first color filter 123 and edges of the third color filter 121 protrude more than corresponding edges of the second color filter 122, see Fig. 1; thus there is a step difference at each edge).
Regarding claim 9, the combined device shows wherein the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter have different colors relative to each other (Yang: see [0187]-[0189; Oh: see [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang further discloses
a bank portion (IBK2, see [0099]) including openings defined therethrough to correspond to the light emitting elements; and
a light conversion portion (WLC1/WLC2, see [0099]) and a light transmission portion (LTU, see [0099]) that are disposed in the openings, and the light conversion portion comprises a quantum dot converting a wavelength of a source light of the light emitting element (see [0132]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device shows wherein the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter overlap each other in an area in which the bank portion is disposed (Oh: 123/122/121 overlap in regions of banks 130/140).
Regarding claim 12, the combined device shows wherein the intermediate layer has a refractive index less than a refractive index of the light conversion portion (Yang: CAP1 of intermediate layer may include, e.g. aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, see [0109]; SCT1 may contain a titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, tin oxide, see [0130]; thus in at least some disclosed combinations CAP1 is lower than SCT1).
Regarding claim 13, Yang further discloses wherein the light conversion portion comprises:
a first light conversion portion (WLC1) converting the source light to a first color light; and
a second light conversion portion (WLC2) converting the source light to a second color light,
the first color filter (CF1) overlaps the first light conversion portion,
the second color filter (CF2) overlaps the second light conversion portion, and
the third color filter (CF3) overlaps the light transmission portion (CF3) (see Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Jung et al. (US 2021/0384283; herein “Jung”).
Regarding claim 15, Yang does not disclose
a sealing member disposed between the display substrate and the light control substrate to overlap the non-display area, wherein the step difference is disposed closer to an outer side of the light control substrate than the sealing member is in a plan view.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung teaches in Fig. 12 and related text
a sealing member (50, see [0048]) disposed between the display substrate (10) and the light control substrate (30) to overlap the non-display area, wherein the step difference (i.e. the outer end of the color filter layer(s) 310/260) is disposed closer to an outer side of the light control substrate than the sealing member is in a plan view (see Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang by having a sealing member disposed between the display substrate and the light control substrate to overlap the non-display area and the step difference is disposed closer to an outer side of the light control substrate than the sealing member is in a plan view, as shown by Jung, in order to allow for connection pads and the connection of flexible circuit boards to device for driving the device (see Jung [0081]).
Claim(s) 16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 16, Yang discloses in Fig. 17 and related text a display device comprising:
a display substrate comprising:
a display area (e.g. DA, see [0061]);
a non-display area (e.g. NDA, see [0061])adjacent to the display area; and
light emitting elements (EL, see [0087]) disposed in the display area; and
an upper substrate (SUB2) comprising a rear surface facing the display substrate;
a color filter layer (layer comprising CF1/CF2/CF3, see [0099]) disposed on the rear surface of the upper substrate;
a light conversion layer (layer comprising WLC1/WLC2/LTU, see [0099]) disposed between the display substrate and the color filter layer; and
a intermediate layer (e.g. CAP1, IBK1, and OBK1) having light transmittance equal to or greater than 90% (e.g. at the areas of TA1/TA2/TA3, see [0107]; further note that the material having high transparency will have 90% or greater transmittance to at least some wavelengths of light, e.g. infrared) disposed between the color filter layer and the light conversion layer,
a capping layer (CAP2, see [0099]); wherein
the intermediate layer has a side surface facing a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the display device (e.g. the slanted surface in direct contact with CAP2, which faces left in Fig. 17),
in a cross-sectional view, the capping layer extends over and covers an entirety of the side surface of the intermediate layer (see Fig. 17),
the color filter layer comprises a first color filter (CF1), a second color filter (CF2), and a third color filter (CF3) (note that the first color filter CF1 and third color filter CF3 form a light shielding region extending from the display area to the non-display area, see [0182]),
an edge of the third color filter (CF3) protrudes more than an edge of the first color filter (CF1) toward an outer side of the upper substrate, and
the edge of the first color filter is covered by the intermediate layer (see Fig. 17);
in the cross-sectional view, the capping layer (CAP2) is in continuous and direct contact with the intermediate layer from a portion overlapping the edge of the third color filter to the display area (see Fig. 17).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the transmittance of the intermediate layer to be a result effective variable affecting light emitting efficiency of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Yang to have the transmittance within the claimed range in order to improve light emitting efficiency of the device, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Yang does not disclose
the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter, that extend from the display area to the non-display area and are sequentially disposed in a direction from the intermediate layer to the upper substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches in Fig. 2A and related text
the first color filter (123), the second color filter (122), and the third color filter (121, see [0067) are sequentially disposed in a direction towards the upper substrate (note that the first color filter 123, the second color filter 122, and the third color filter 121 extend to areas of light shielding regions, see [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang by having the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter, extending to light shielding regions and being sequentially disposed in a direction toward the upper substrate, as shown by Oh, in order to provide a high quality image and provide improved methods of manufacture (see Oh [0006] and [0152] at least). The limitation “the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter, that extend from the display area to the non-display area and are sequentially disposed in a direction from the intermediate layer to the upper substrate” is therefore taught by the combination of the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter extending to light shielding regions and being sequentially disposed in a direction toward the upper substrate, as shown by Oh, and the light shielding region extending from the display area to the non-display area and a direction from the intermediate layer to the upper substrate being toward the upper substrate, as shown by Yang.
Regarding claim 20, the combined device shows
an edge of the second color filter protrudes more than the edge of the first color filter toward the outer side of the upper substrate, and
the edge of the third color filter protrudes more than the edge of the second color filter toward the outer side of the upper substrate (Oh: edges of the second color filter 122 protrude more than corresponding edges of the first color filter 123 and edges of the third color filter 121 protrude more than corresponding edges of the second color filter 122, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Yang discloses in Fig. 17 and related text a display device comprising:
a display substrate comprising:
a display area (e.g. DA, see [0061]);
a non-display area (e.g. NDA, see [0061])adjacent to the display area; and
light emitting elements (EL, see [0087]) disposed in the display area; and
an upper substrate (SUB2) comprising a rear surface facing the display substrate;
a color filter layer (layer comprising CF1/CF2/CF3, see [0099]) disposed on the rear surface of the upper substrate;
a light conversion layer (layer comprising WLC1/WLC2/LTU, see [0099]) disposed between the display substrate and the color filter layer; and
a intermediate layer (CAP2) (e.g. at the areas of TA1/TA2/TA3, see [0107]; further note that the material having high transparency will have 90% or greater transmittance to at least some wavelengths of light, e.g. infrared) disposed between the color filter layer and the light conversion layer (e.g. between in at least one direction),
a capping layer (CAP1, OBK1, and IBK1); wherein
the intermediate layer has a side surface facing a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the display device (e.g. a slanted surface in direct contact with OBK1 or IBK1, which faces left or right in Fig. 17),
in a cross-sectional view, the capping layer extends over and covers an entirety of the side surface of the intermediate layer (see Fig. 17),
the color filter layer comprises a first color filter (CF1), a second color filter (CF2), and a third color filter (CF3) (note that the first color filter CF1 and third color filter CF3 form a light shielding region extending from the display area to the non-display area, see [0182]),
an edge of the third color filter (CF3) protrudes more than an edge of the first color filter (CF1) toward an outer side of the upper substrate, and
the edge of the first color filter is covered by the intermediate layer (see Fig. 17);
wherein the capping layer (CAP1, OBK1, and IBK1) directly contacts the upper substrate (CAP1 portion directly contacts SUB2), and the capping layer includes a plurality of step portions (see Fig. 17).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the transmittance of the intermediate layer to be a result effective variable affecting light emitting efficiency of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Yang to have the transmittance within the claimed range in order to improve light emitting efficiency of the device, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Yang does not disclose
the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter, that extend from the display area to the non-display area and are sequentially disposed in a direction from the intermediate layer to the upper substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches in Fig. 2A and related text
the first color filter (123), the second color filter (122), and the third color filter (121, see [0067) are sequentially disposed in a direction towards the upper substrate (note that the first color filter 123, the second color filter 122, and the third color filter 121 extend to areas of light shielding regions, see [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang by having the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter, extending to light shielding regions and being sequentially disposed in a direction toward the upper substrate, as shown by Oh, in order to provide a high quality image and provide improved methods of manufacture (see Oh [0006] and [0152] at least). The limitation “the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter, that extend from the display area to the non-display area and are sequentially disposed in a direction from the intermediate layer to the upper substrate” is therefore taught by the combination of the first color filter, the second color filter, and the third color filter extending to light shielding regions and being sequentially disposed in a direction toward the upper substrate, as shown by Oh, and the light shielding region extending from the display area to the non-display area and a direction from the intermediate layer to the upper substrate being toward the upper substrate, as shown by Yang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8, 11) that Yang does not teach or suggest the limitation of the intermediate layer “having light transmittance equal to or greater than 90%” because IBK1 and OBK1 are light blocking members.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the claim does not require the entirety of the layer to have 90% or greater transmittance. Thus, at least portions of the layer, e.g. regions of CAP1 in TA1/TA2/TA3 having high transmittance reads on the claim.
Applicant argues (page 8, 11) that Yang does not teach or suggest the limitation of the intermediate layer “having light transmittance equal to or greater than 90%” because CAP1 is not disclosed as having the claimed transmittance.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is noted that a layer in a “transparent” region would be understood to have high transmittance in general, and further the have a transmittance of at least 90% for at least some wavelengths, e.g. infrared. Additionally, it is noted that transmittance would be readily recognized as easily optimizable in order to improve light emitting efficiency of the device, and a particular claimed range is therefore obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143). Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, which applicant has not done. In particular, it is noted that applicant’s disclosure merely recites a transmittance of “about” 90% or greater, and further defines “about” as being “within an acceptable range of deviation,” for example within ±30%, 20%, 10%, 5% of the stated value. Such a disclosure indicates no criticality whatsoever.
Applicant argues (page 9, 11) that Yang does not teach or suggest the limitation of “the intermediate layer has a side surface facing a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the substrate” because the side surface relied upon in the rejection is slanted.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the claim does not require the side surface to be in the direction perpendicular to the thickness direction, but rather requires the side surface to “face” the direction. The direction perpendicular to the thickness direction is, e.g., left. The side surface faces left. The Examiner notes that in accordance with MPEP 2111, USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore the claim limitation “faces” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. According to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, "faces" is defined as " [t]o occupy a position with the face toward: stood and faced the audience." Therefore, as one would readily recognize a person “facing” the audience need not be strictly perpendicular to the stage, one would recognize the side surface does not need to be strictly perpendicular to the substrate to “face” the direction perpendicular.
Applicant argues (page 12-13) that one would not modify Yang with the teachings of Oh because the motivation cited is unrelated to the sequential arrangement of the first, second, and third color filters.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, Oh explicitly recites “since the display apparatus includes color elements arranged to have a preset rule, a process of manufacturing a color-converting portion included in a color panel may be efficiently performed, and display elements and pixel circuits electrically connected to the display elements may be efficiently arranged in a preset space,” ([0152]) which directly relates the manufacture and resulting disposition of the color filter layers to the improved ease of manufacture. Additionally, while Oh may not explicitly link the sequence of the color filters to the high quality image, one of ordinary skill would understand that all of the design and manufacture considerations made in the invention of the reference contribute to the overall goals and improvement of the device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights