DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claim 1in the submission filed 5/25/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-18. Claims 2-9, 16-18 were withdrawn in response to a restriction action previously.
Claims 1,10-15, will be examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 5/25/2026) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
a) Hatanaka merely discloses generic adhesives used for bonding layers, described broadly as "sticky agents," aqueous adhesives, or energy-curable adhesives. These materials are characterized by their bonding function and tackiness, not by controlled Tg or polymer design for managing interfacial mechanical properties. There is no disclosure in Hatanaka that such adhesive layers are designed as primer layers having a defined Tg, nor that they are engineered to control stress or adhesion balance within a multilayer optical system.
Hatanaka teaches that the first to third phase difference layers are adhered with the help of adhesives such as the sticky agent which is engineered by radical-polymerizing an acrylic monomer mixture containing a (meth)acrylate as the main component and containing a small amount of a (meth)acryl monomer having a functional group, in the presence of a polymerization initiator. The sticky agent is not a generic adhesive and is engineered and designed by polymer design, using different monomers with different functional groups (as recited in Para [279] to Para [288]).
In addition, the sticky agent contains an acrylic resin with a glass transition temperature Tg of 0°C or lower. Changing the functional groups or the monomer or the acrylic resin changes the Tg and hence Tg is in fact controlled and in effect designed.
A primer layer is an adhesive layer between two layers which controls adhesion between layers and Hatanaka’s sticky agent performs the primer adhesive function of mechanical bonding and engineering the sticky agent leads to different mechanical strengths and interfacial property between the layers.
b) Hatanaka teaches that such adhesive has a Tg of approximately 0°C and relies on low-Tg materials to provide flexibility and sufficient adhesion between phase difference layers. This is different form 50°C-100°C claimed range. Thus, Hatanaka teaches away from higher Tg materials.
Applicant argues that the reference teaches away. However, it has been held that such nonpreferred embodiments failing to assert discovery beyond that known in the art does not constitute a “teaching away” unless such disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), (see MPEP §2124).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” 27 F.3d at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (MPEP §2124).
In this case, Examiner finds neither discredit of the combination, nor destruction of the reference because Hatanaka does not state that the sticky agent cannot have a higher Tg than 0°C and varied acrylic resins can be designed by a person of ordinary skill in the art with routine experimentation, which have glass transition temperatures Tg in the higher claimed range which improves stability of the bonding at higher temperatures also.
c) Yoda relates to primer layers in a different technical context and does not address multilayer optical films having stacked retardation layers. More importantly, modifying Hatanaka in view of Yoda would fundamentally change the operation of Hatanaka's system. Increasing the Tg of Hatanaka's adhesive layer from approximately 0°C to the claimed 50°C-100°C range would significantly reduce flexibility and tackiness, thereby impairing the adhesive function required in Hatanaka. Such a modification would render Hatanaka unsuitable for its intended purpose. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have no motivation to make such a modification.
Applicant’s assertion that increasing the Tg of Hatanaka's adhesive layer from approximately 0°C to the claimed 50°C-100°C range would significantly reduce flexibility and tackiness is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 2129, 2144.03, 716.01(c).
At Tg, the thermal energy overcomes intermolecular forces, enabling segmental motion of polymer chains. This change affects mechanical, thermal, and processing properties, including stiffness, ductility of the material. A polymer which has a Tg around 75-100°C, is rigid at room temperature, a polymer with Tg around 50-70°C is less rigid and more flexible at room temperature and a polymer with Tg at 0°C is quite flexible at room temperature. Modifying Hatanaka’s sticky agent with Yoda’s primer layer would increase the mechanical stability between layers as the high Tg of the primer prevents degradation at high temperatures. Hence modifying Hatanaka with Yoda’s primer layer would not render Hatanaka unsuitable for its intended purpose and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification for further improvement in adhesion and mechanical stability of the stack.
d) The prior art treats primer or adhesive layers independently and does not recognize the importance of coordinating Tg values between two primer layers. The present invention, by contrast, identifies and controls this relationship to achieve balanced interfacial stress and improved adhesion stability across the multilayer structure
The current claims recite that a difference in the Tg between the first and second primer layers is 0°C to 10°C. Hence the difference in the Tg can be 0°C which indicates that the two glass transition temperatures of the first and second primer layers are the same. Current disclosure at Para [0049] states that the first and second primer layers may have the same glass transition temperatures. Now, Hatanaka teaches the same primer layers (sticky agents, para 279) between third, first and second layers and hence the Tg of the sticky agents is the same and hence the difference between the Tg of the first and second primer layers is 0°C which overlaps with the current claimed range of difference in Tg.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., coordinating Tg values between two primer layers or a specific Tg difference constraint which excludes 0°C) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
e) The cited case law applies where a claimed range overlaps with a range disclosed in the prior art for the same parameter. Here, the claimed invention is not directed merely to a Tg range of a single layer, but to a coordinated relationship between two primer layers, including a specific Tg difference constraint. The prior art neither discloses this parameter nor recognizes it as a result- effective variable. Accordingly, this is not a case of routine optimization, and the rationale of Aller does not apply.
Hatanaka teaches that the first and second primer layer between the third, first and second layers is a sticky agent which is the same sticky adhesive layer. Yoda teaches a primer layer which is an adhesive and has glass transition temperature range which overlaps the claimed range and hence each of the sticky agent layers between third, first and second layers of Hatanaka is replaced with Yoda’s primer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the primer layers of Hatanaka-Yoda to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures for the purposes of improvement in adhesion and mechanical stability of the stack.
f) the Examiner asserts that the specification does not demonstrate criticality. This is incorrect. The present specification explicitly teaches that controlling the Tg of the primer layers, and particularly maintaining a small Tg difference between them, contributes to improved adhesion performance and durability in the multilayer optical film.
Current disclosure at Para [0049] states that the first and second primer layers may have the same glass transition temperatures or different glass transition temperatures. Hence current specification also discloses that the Tg can be the same for the first and second primer layers. This recitation does not demonstrate criticality, but rather demonstrates that Tg of the first and second primer layers can be in a wide range of values and the difference in Tg can be null or can have a small Tg difference. In fact, the current disclosure at Para [0049] states that the first and second primer layers have same Tg for “enabling easy realization of the effects of the present invention”.
Hence in view of the above arguments, rejection of claims is upheld.
Claims 1, 10-15 are rejected as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hatanaka et al (US 2015/0042943 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatanaka teaches (fig 2d) an optical film (optical film 100, para 277) comprising:
a third layer (third phase difference layer),
a second primer layer (“For pasting, adhesives described later can be used”, para 276, “The adhesive includes, for example, a sticky agent, an aqueous adhesive and an active energy ray curable adhesive”, para 279, The sticky agent between third and second phase difference layers in fig 1d is considered the second primer),
a first layer (second phase difference layer),
a first primer layer (“For pasting, adhesives described later can be used”, para 276, “The adhesive includes, for example, a sticky agent, an aqueous adhesive and an active energy ray curable adhesive”, para 279, The sticky agent between second and first phase difference layers in fig 1d is considered the first primer), and
a second layer (first phase difference layer) sequentially stacked in the stated order (“fig. 2(d) shows an optical film 100 having a base material, a first phase difference layer, a second phase difference layer and a third phase difference layer laminated in this order”, para 277).
wherein each of the first primer layer and the second primer layer (“For pasting, adhesives described later can be used”, para 276, “The adhesive includes, for example, a sticky agent, an aqueous adhesive and an active energy ray curable adhesive”, para 279, sticky agent between third and second phase difference layers and second and first phase difference layers) has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 0 0C (“acrylic sticky agents containing an acrylic resin having a glass transition temperature Tg of 00C”, para 280) and is a (meth) acrylate based primer layer (“The sticky agent is obtained, in general, by radical-polymerizing an acrylic monomer mixture containing a (meth)acrylate as the main component”, para 280), and
a difference in the glass transition temperature (Tg) between the first primer layer and the second primer layer (“acrylic sticky agents containing an acrylic resin having a glass transition temperature Tg of 00C”, para 280) (sticky agents between second and first phase difference layers and second and third phase difference layers are the first and second primers and the primers are the same and hence both have the same Tg, hence the difference in Tg is 0°C) is 0°C.
However, Hatanaka does not teach difference in Tg is between 0°C. to 10°C
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of glass transition temperature difference, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0103] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 0°C. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hatanaka to have the claimed range of difference in Tg for the purposes of uniform adhesivity across the layers.
However, Hatanaka does not teach the primer layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 50 0C to 100 0C.
Hatanaka and Yoda are related as primer layers.
Yoda teaches
the primer layer (primer layer 2, para 56) has a glass transition temperature of 50 0C to 100 0C (“a polyester type resin having a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 60° C. or more”, “polyester type resin having a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 80° C. or more, more preferably a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 100° C. or more”, para 56).
Therefore, 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 primer of Hatanaka to include the primer with glass transition temperature of Yoda for the purpose of further improvement in adhesiveness (para 56).
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
the primer layer has a glass transition temperature of 50 0C to 100 0C.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0044] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 60°C or more. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hatanaka-Yoda to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures for the purposes of
improvement in adhesion and mechanical stability of the stack.
Claim(s) 10-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al (US 2015/0042943 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1) and further in view of Hintze et al (WO 95/28453).
Regarding Claim 10, Hatanaka-Yoda teaches the optical film according to claim 1.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the (meth) acrylate based primer layer is formed of a primer layer composition comprising a copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic monomer having a glass transition temperature of 10 °C to 100 °C in a homopolymer phase.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the (meth) acrylate-based primer layer is formed of a primer layer composition (priming plastic, para 7) comprising a copolymer (copolymer, para 21) of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer (“mixture of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid”, para 23) having a glass transition temperature of 10°C to 100 °C (“glass transition temperature”, “preferably 10°C to 80°C”, para 36) in a homopolymer phase.
Therefore, 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 primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
However, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze does not teach
a glass transition temperature of 10°C to 100 °C.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0044] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 10°C to 80 °C. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Regarding Claim 11, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze teaches the optical film according to claim 10.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the (meth)acrylic monomer comprises an alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic ester.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the (meth)acrylic monomer comprises an alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic ester (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
Therefore, 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 primer of Hatanaka-Yoda-Jeong to include the (meth)acrylic monomer comprises an alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic ester of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 12, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze teaches the optical film according to claim 10.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the monomer mixture further comprises a peel strength-enhancing compound.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the monomer mixture (monomer, para 24) further comprises a peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
Therefore, 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 primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 13, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze teaches the optical film according to claim 12.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound comprises at least one selected from among methyl (meth)acrylate, ethyl (meth)acrylate, n-propyl (meth)acrylate, iso-propyl (meth)acrylate, n-butyl (meth)acrylate, iso-butyl (meth)acrylate, t-butyl (meth)acrylate, n-hexyl (meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, cyclohexyl (meth)acrylate, n-octyl (meth)acrylate, lauryl (meth)acrylate, stearyl (meth)acrylate, butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, 2-methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39) comprises at least one selected from among methyl (meth)acrylate (, ethyl (meth)acrylate, n-propyl (meth)acrylate, iso-propyl (meth)acrylate, n-butyl (meth)acrylate, iso-butyl (meth)acrylate, t-butyl (meth)acrylate, n-hexyl (meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, cyclohexyl (meth)acrylate, n-octyl (meth)acrylate, lauryl (meth)acrylate, stearyl (meth)acrylate, butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, 2-methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate (methyl, ethyl, propyl, hexyl methacrylate, para 39).
Therefore, 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 primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 14, Hatanaka-Yoda optical film according to claim 13.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound comprises at least one selected from among butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, 2- methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39) comprises at least one selected from among butyl acetic ester (butyl acetate, para 56, a mixture of butyl methacrylate, cyclohexyl methacrylate is mixed with butyl acetate, para 56), butyl formic ester, 2- methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate.
Therefore, 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 primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include an ester-based compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 15, Hatanaka-Yoda optical film according to claim 10.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the primer layer composition further comprises at least one selected from among a peel strength-enhancing compound and a curing agent.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the primer layer composition (priming plastic, para 7) further comprises at least one selected from among a peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39) and a curing agent.
Therefore, 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 primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al (WO 2016/003138A1) teaches a difference in the glass transition temperature (Tg) between the first primer layer and the second primer layer is 10°C -30°C.
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 JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights