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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the limitation as amended in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches the film comprises a liquid trap (portion of 22 to the right of the film) that contains none of the liquid in the first cavity and being configured to be in fluid communication with the first cavity via at least a first opening (16), the liquid trap being arranged to contain some of the liquid in the first cavity that flows from the first cavity through the first opening when the pressure inside the first cavity increases; wherein the liquid trap is between the first and second substrates; and wherein the first cavity (22, 25) is coplanar with the liquid trap (portion of 22 to the right of the film; figure 3). 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 film as taught by Benoit et al. in order to ensure that the liquid crystal material can expand without distorting the LC cell or exerting an undue force on cover.
The applicant further argues that none of the cited references teaches the limitation as amended in claim 27. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses a laminated glazing comprising a film containing a liquid (26, 28, 36), a first sheet of glazing material (glass 16) and a first sheet of adhesive interlayer material (24, 22, 132, 134) having a thickness between 0.3 mm and 2.3 mm (1.5 mm -2.6 mm; see at least paragraph 0023); the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material being between the film and the first sheet of glazing material (glass 16) and wherein the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material has at least a first void therein, the first void communicating with the first substrate and being arranged to accommodate at least a portion of the first substrate into the first void (between the adhesive layers).
The limitations “the first void being arranged to accommodate at least a portion of the film into the first void and the first void communicating with the first substrate” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Interpretations
In claim 1, the limitation “the liquid trap being arranged to contain some of the liquid in the first cavity that flows from the first cavity through the first opening when the pressure inside the first cavity increase” appear to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the phrase is no longer valid if when the pressure inside the first cavity does not increase.
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 1-7, 9, and 14 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. The specific limitation “a liquid trap that contains none of the liquid in the first cavity and being configured to be in fluid communication with the first cavity via at least a first opening, the liquid trap being arranged to contain some of the liquid in the first cavity that flows from the first cavity through the first opening when the pressure inside the first cavity increases; wherein the liquid trap is between the first and second substrates; and wherein the first cavity is coplanar with the liquid trap” as presented in claim 1 appears to be unclear. The examiner is not sure whether the liquid trap contains the liquid or not. Appropriate correction is required. Being dependent on claim 1, claims 2-7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 27-35 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. The specific limitation “a laminated glazing comprising a film containing a liquid, a first sheet of glazing material and a first sheet of adhesive interlayer material having a thickness between 0.3 mm and 2.3 mm” as presented in claim 27 appears to be unclear. The examiner is not sure whether a laminated glazing or a first sheet of adhesive interlayer material having a thickness between 0.3 mm and 2.3 mm. Appropriate correction is required. Being dependent on claim 27, claims 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 37-38 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. The specific limitation “the film having a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein when the film is in the first configuration the first cavity is filled with the liquid and the fluid trap contains none of the liquid; and when the film is in the second configuration some of the liquid in the first cavity has flowed from the first cavity through the first opening when the pressure inside the first cavity increased” as presented in claim 37 appears to be unclear. The examiner is not sure whether the liquid trap contains the liquid or not. Appropriate correction is required. Being dependent on claim 37, claim 38 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (US 2005/0088603).
Regarding claim 37, Hong (figure 7) discloses a film containing a liquid, the film comprising a first substrate joined to a second substrate, the first substrate being spaced apart from the second substrate to define a first cavity in which the liquid is contained (168a, 168b, 161, and areas between the seals portions; see at least paragraph 0048), wherein upon applying a suitable electric field between the first and second substrates, the film changes from a first optical opacity to a second optical opacity (see at least paragraph 0005), characterized in that the film comprises a liquid trap configured to be in fluid communication with the first cavity via at least a first opening, the liquid trap being arranged to contain some of the liquid in the first cavity that flows from the first cavity through the first opening, wherein the liquid trap is between the first and second substrates and wherein the first cavity is coplanar with the liquid trap;
the film having a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein when the film is in the first configuration the first cavity is filled with the liquid and the fluid trap contains none of the liquid; and when the film is in the second configuration some of the liquid in the first cavity has flowed from the first cavity through the first opening when the pressure inside the first cavity increased (figure 7).
The limitation, “wherein upon applying a suitable electric field between the first and second substrates, the film changes from a first optical opacity to a second optical opacity, characterized in that the film comprises a liquid trap configured to be in fluid communication with the first cavity via at least a first opening, the liquid trap being arranged to contain some of the liquid in the first cavity that flows from the first cavity through the first opening, wherein the liquid trap is between the first and second substrates and wherein the first cavity is coplanar with the liquid trap” is functional in nature. Here, Hong discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 38, Hong (figure 7) discloses wherein the liquid trap is spaced from the first cavity by a seal, and wherein the first opening is in the seal.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann et al. (WO 2020/126011; US 2021/0146660 is used as a tentative translation) in view of Benoit et al. (US 8,031,319).
Regarding claim 1, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses a film containing a liquid, the film comprising a first substrate joined to a second substrate (32 and 34), the first substrate being spaced apart from the second substrate to define a first cavity (44) in which the liquid is contained (44), wherein upon applying a suitable electric field between the first and second substrates, the film changes from a first optical opacity to a second optical opacity (see at least paragraph 0050).
Buchmann et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Buchmann et al. is silent regarding the film comprises a liquid trap configured to be in fluid communication with the first cavity via at least a first opening, the liquid trap being arranged to contain liquid that flows from the first cavity through the first opening; wherein the liquid trap is between the first and second substrates. Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches the film comprises a liquid trap (portion of 22 to the right of the film) that contains none of the liquid in the first cavity and being configured to be in fluid communication with the first cavity via at least a first opening (16), the liquid trap being arranged to contain some of the liquid in the first cavity that flows from the first cavity through the first opening when the pressure inside the first cavity increases; wherein the liquid trap is between the first and second substrates; and wherein the first cavity (22, 25) is coplanar with the liquid trap (portion of 22 to the right of the film; figure 3). 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 film as taught by Benoit et al. in order to ensure that the liquid crystal material can expand without distorting the LC cell or exerting an undue force on cover.
Regarding claim 2, Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches wherein the liquid trap comprises a second cavity and liquid that passes through the first opening is containable in the second cavity.
Regarding claim 3, Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches wherein the second cavity has an internal pressure less than atmospheric pressure and/or wherein the second cavity is configured as a channel having a length, a width and a height, the height of the channel being determined the spacing of the first and second substrates of the film (16 and 22; figure 3A).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 4, Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches wherein the second cavity is configured as an expansion vessel to compensate for pressure changes inside the first cavity (see at least column 5, lines 45-60).
Regarding claim 5, Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches wherein the expansion vessel has at least a first wall portion and wherein the first wall portion of the expansion vessel is movable and/or flexible and/or located inside the second cavity (16 and 22; figure 3A).
Regarding claim 7, Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches wherein the first opening is configured such that for a predetermined pressure inside the first cavity, liquid is inhibited from flowing from the first cavity to the liquid traps.
Regarding claim 14, Buchmann et al. (figure 2) discloses a laminated glazing comprising a film according to claim 1, the film being joined to a first sheet of glazing material by a first adhesive layer or a first sheet of adhesive interlayer material.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann et al. in view of Benoit et al.; further in view of Kuwagaki et al. (US 4,310,220).
Regarding claim 6, Buchmann et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Buchmann et al. is silent regarding wherein the liquid trap comprises a liquid absorber for containing liquid that passes through the first opening therein Kuwagaki et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the liquid trap comprises a liquid absorber for containing liquid that passes through the first opening therein (see at least claim 1). 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 film as taught by Kuwagaki et al. in order to provide an improved ECD of the type using a liquid electrolyte which provides improved resistance to the effects of a temperature change.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann et al. in view of Benoit et al.; further in view of Fujiki et al. (US 2019/0324313).
Regarding claim 9, Buchmann et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Buchmann et al. is silent regarding wherein the first and/or second substrate comprises a heat shrinkable material. Fujiki et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the first and/or second substrate comprises a heat shrinkable material. 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 film as taught by Fujiki et al. in order to provide a fluid cell which can curb blending of a gas into a fluid layer even in a case where a plastic substrate is greatly deformed such that the plastic substrate stretches or shrinks, a three-dimensional fluid cell formed of the fluid cell.
Claims 27-32, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann et al. (US 2021/0146660) in view of Fujiki et al. (US 2019/0324313).
Regarding claim 27, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses a laminated glazing comprising a film containing a liquid (26, 28, 36), a first sheet of glazing material (glass 16) and a first sheet of adhesive interlayer material (24, 22, 132, 134) having a thickness between 0.3 mm and 2.3 mm (1.5 mm -2.6 mm; see at least paragraph 0023); the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material being between the film and the first sheet of glazing material (glass 16);
the film comprising a first substrate joined to a second substrate (26, 28), wherein the first substrate is a heat shrinkable plastic, and further wherein the first substrate being spaced apart from the second substrate to define a first cavity in which at least a portion of the liquid is contained (36);
the film being joined to the first sheet of glazing material by the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material (24, 22, 132, 134);
wherein the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material has at least a first void therein, the first void communicating with the first substrate and being arranged to accommodate at least a portion of the first substrate into the first void (between the adhesive layers).
The limitations “the first void being arranged to accommodate at least a portion of the film into the first void and the first void communicating with the first substrate” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Buchmann et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 27 above. However, Buchmann et al. is silent regarding wherein the first and/or second substrate comprises a heat shrinkable material. Fujiki et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the first and/or second substrate comprises a heat shrinkable material. 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 film as taught by Fujiki et al. in order to provide a fluid cell which can curb blending of a gas into a fluid layer even in a case where a plastic substrate is greatly deformed such that the plastic substrate stretches or shrinks, a three-dimensional fluid cell formed of the fluid cell.
Regarding claim 28, Greenall et al. (figure 7) discloses wherein the first void is arranged to accommodate at least a portion of the film in the first void by expansion of the film into the first void.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitations “wherein the first void is arranged to accommodate at least a portion of the film in the first void by expansion of the film into the first void” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 29, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses wherein a portion of the film is in the first void in the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material.
Regarding claim 30, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses wherein a resilient material is contained in the first void, the resilient material being between the film and the first sheet of glazing material (30, 40).
Regarding claim 31 Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses wherein the film comprises at least one weak zone, the weak zone being arranged to communicate with the first void such that upon an increase of pressure within the film the weak zone ruptures and liquid flows into the first void.
The limitation, “wherein the film comprises at least one weak zone, the weak zone being arranged to communicate with the first void such that upon an increase of pressure within the film the weak zone ruptures and liquid flows into the first void” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Greenall et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 32, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses wherein the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material (24, 22, 132, 134) has an edge facing into the first void and a barrier covers the edge to prevent the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material from flowing into the first void (30).
The limitations “prevent the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material from flowing into the first void” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 34, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses wherein the first substrate has a first major surface facing the first cavity and the second substrate has a first major surface facing the first cavity, and wherein the liquid trap is between the first major surface of the first substrate and the first major surface of the second substrate.
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmann et al. in view of Benoit et al..
Regarding claim 33, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses wherein the film changes from a first optical opacity to a second optical opacity upon applying an electric field between the first and second substrates (see at least paragraph 0050). Greenall et al. is silent regarding the opening. Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches the film also comprising a liquid trap configured to be in flux communication with the first cavity via at feast a first opening, the liquid trap being arranged to contain liquid that flows from the first cavity through the first opening the liquid trap being at least partially in the first void. 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 film as taught by Benoit et al. in order to ensure that the liquid crystal material can expand without distorting the LC cell or exerting an undue force on cover.
Regarding claim 35, Buchmann et al. (figure 14) discloses the liquid trap is spaced from the first cavity by a seal (46). Greenall et al. is silent regarding wherein the first opening is in the seal. Benoit et al. (figures 2-3A) teaches the film also comprising a liquid trap configured to be in flux communication with the first cavity via at feast a first opening, the liquid trap being arranged to contain liquid that flows from the first cavity through the first opening the liquid trap being at least partially in the first void. 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 film as taught by Benoit et al. in order to ensure that the liquid crystal material can expand without distorting the LC cell or exerting an undue force on cover. Therefore, Buchmann et al. as modified by Benoit et al. teaches wherein the liquid trap is spaced from the first cavity by a seal, and wherein the first opening is in the seal.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871