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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/28/2025 and 12/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks, the applicant argues that since an antiglare function is intended to prevent reflection and Watano necessarily reflects light from the bottom surface of the luminance-enhancing film, then it would not have been obvious to combine the laminated optical film of Watano with the teachings of Lu such that an antiglare function is added to the bottom surface of the luminance-enhancing film.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The luminance-enhancing film of Watano is a three layered film (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0022] and [0121], where 14a, 14b, and 14c are first, second, and third light reflection layers that each reflect one of red, green, and blue light). The reflections that would be improved by omitting the antiglare function would be surface reflections and not those achieved by the cholesteric liquid crystals in each of the light reflection layers. By adding an antiglare function to the bottom surface of the luminance-enhancing film the reflections from that film are optimized by the contents of the film rather than those that would occur at the surface. Surface reflections at the bottom surface would reduce the amount of light emitted through the film since it reflects indiscriminately.
On page 8 of the remarks, the applicant argues that since Lu uses the antiglare function for viewing by an observer, it would not have been obvious to use such an antiglare function on a surface that is not directly viewed by an observer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Being viewed by an observer is a specific use-case of an antiglare function, however, fundamentally the purpose of the antiglare function is to remove or minimize unwanted reflections. Such unwanted reflections can exist at any interface within an optical device and not just at one directly viewed by an observer.
The previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained and restated below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Lu (US 2016/0146975) of record (hereafter Lu).
Regarding claim 1, Watano discloses a laminated optical film comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0075] and [0121], where the reflection polarizer comprises layers 14a-14c and reflects circularly polarized light); a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0075] and [0121], where λ/4 plate 12 is a retardation layer); and a linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0291], where 3 is a linear polarizer). Watano does not specify a particular surface roughness for the surface of the reflective circular polarizer, however, it also does not provide any indication that the surface is anything other than flat and smooth.
Watano does not specifically disclose that a surface of the reflective circular polarizer on a side opposite to the linear polarizer has a surface roughness Ra of 100 nm or less.
However, Lu teaches a display device comprising an antiglare layer having a surface roughness of 100 nm or less (see at least paragraph [0100]).
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 of Watano to include the teachings of Lu so that a surface of the reflective circular polarizer on a side opposite to the linear polarizer has a surface roughness Ra of 100 nm or less for the purpose of achieving an antiglare function while minimizing the appearance of haze.
Regarding claim 4, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the laminated optical film does not have a support (see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the reflective circular polarizer includes at least a light reflecting layer formed by immobilizing a cholesteric liquid crystalline phase (see at least the abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the reflective circular polarizer includes at least a blue light reflecting layer with a reflectivity for light having a wavelength of 450 nm, a green light reflecting layer with a reflectivity for light having a wavelength of 530 nm, and a red light reflecting layer with a reflectivity for light having a wavelength of 630 nm (see at least paragraph [0022]).
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the reflectivity is 40% or greater for light having the specific wavelengths.
However, 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). Among the benefits of the reflectivity being 40% or greater for light having the specific wavelengths include enhancing the luminance of a display (see at least the abstract of Watano).
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 of Watano as modified by Lu so that the reflectivity is 40% or greater for light having the specific wavelengths for the purpose of enhancing the luminance of a display (see at least the abstract of Watano).
Regarding claim 8, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the reflective circular polarizer includes at least a light reflecting layer formed by immobilizing a cholesteric liquid crystalline phase containing a rod-like liquid crystal compound and a light reflecting layer formed by immobilizing a cholesteric liquid crystalline phase containing a disk-like liquid crystal compound (see at least the abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the retardation layer includes at least a layer formed by immobilizing a uniformly aligned liquid crystal compound (see at least paragraphs [0229]-[0233]).
Regarding claim 12, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the linear polarizer consists of a layer having a thickness of 10 μm or less (see at least paragraph [0303], where the polarizer thickness is more preferably 5 to 25 μm).
Regarding claim 14, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses a positive C-plate (see at least paragraph [0152]).
Regarding claim 15, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses one or more functional layers or a support, wherein the laminated optical film includes, in the following order, at least: at least either the one or more functional layers or the support; the reflective circular polarizer; the retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light; and the linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [320], where a hard coat layer, an anti-glare layer, or a low reflection layer laminated between the third light reflection layer and the backlight unit is a functional layer or a support).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses an antireflection layer on any surface, wherein the antireflection layer is an AR film (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [320], where a low reflection (AR) layer can be located between the third light reflection layer and the backlight unit).
Regarding claim 18, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses an image display device comprising: the laminated optical film according to claim 1; and an image display element (see at least paragraph [0003]).
Claims 1, 2, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Tsunashima et al. (JP 2010/038924, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Tsunashima).
Regarding claim 1, Watano discloses a laminated optical film comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0075] and [0121], where the reflection polarizer comprises layers 14a-14c and reflects circularly polarized light); a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0075] and [0121], where λ/4 plate 12 is a retardation layer); and a linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0291], where 3 is a linear polarizer). Watano does not specify a particular surface roughness for the surface of the reflective circular polarizer, however, it also does not provide any indication that the surface is anything other than flat and smooth.
Watano does not specifically disclose that a surface of the reflective circular polarizer on a side opposite to the linear polarizer has a surface roughness Ra of 100 nm or less.
However, Tsunashima teaches a display device comprising an optical film having a surface roughness of 50 nm or less (see at least the bottom of page 5).
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 of Watano to include the teachings of Tsunashima so that a surface of the reflective circular polarizer on a side opposite to the linear polarizer has a surface roughness Ra of 100 nm or less for the purpose of preventing distortion or blurring of an image (see at least the bottom of page 5 of Tsunashima).
Regarding claim 2, Watano as modified by Tsunashima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses a support (see at least paragraph [0320], where a support can be included between the third reflection layer and the backlight unit).
Tsunashima also teaches an optical film that has a surface roughness of 50 nm or less (see at least the bottom of page 5).
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 of Watano as modified by Tsunashima to include the further teachings of Tsunashima so that the support has a surface roughness Ra of 50 nm or less for the purpose of preventing distortion or blurring of an image (see at least the bottom of page 5 of Tsunashima).
Regarding claim 20, Watano as modified by Tsunashima discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Watano also discloses that the reflective circular polarizer includes at least a light reflecting layer formed by immobilizing a cholesteric liquid crystalline phase (see at least the abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Tsunashima et al. (JP 2010/038924, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Tsunashima) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hata (US 2004/0263731) of record (hereafter Hata).
Regarding claim 3, Watano as modified by Tsunashima discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Watano also discloses that the support is a resin base material (see at least paragraph [0242], where a support can comprise a variety of materials including resins).
Watano as modified by Tsunashima does not specifically disclose that the support is a resin base material having a tan δ peak temperature of 170°C or lower.
The tan δ peak temperature is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be related to the glass transition temperature.
However, Hata teaches a laminated optical film comprising a polymer film with a glass transition temperature between 120 and 170 degrees C (see at least paragraph [0054]).
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 of Watano as modified by Tsunashima to include the teachings of Hata so that the support is a resin base material having a tan δ peak temperature of 170°C or lower for the purpose of optimizing heat resistance and processability (see at least paragraph [0054] of Hata).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Lu (US 2016/0146975) of record (hereafter Lu) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2020/0049992) of record (hereafter Peng’2020).
Regarding claim 7, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the reflective circular polarizer further includes an infrared light reflecting layer with a reflectivity of 40% or greater for light having a wavelength of 800 nm.
However, Peng’2020 teaches a reflective circular polarizer (see at least the title), wherein the reflective circular polarizer can include an infrared light reflecting layer (see at least paragraph [0120]) with a reflectivity of 40% or greater (see at least paragraph [0100]) for light having a wavelength of 800 nm (see at least paragraph [0051], where the infrared band is defined as between 750 nm and 1 mm).
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 of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teaching of Peng’2020 so that the reflective circular polarizer further includes an infrared light reflecting layer with a reflectivity of 40% or greater for light having a wavelength of 800 nm for the purpose of achieving broadband reflection (see at least paragraph [0120] of Peng).
Regarding claim 19, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the image display device is a virtual reality display device.
However, Peng’2020 teaches a head-mounted display used as a virtual reality display (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0070]).
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 image display device of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teachings of Peng’2020 so that the image display device is a virtual reality display device for the purpose of using a known display device in a known application such as a virtual reality display device in order to meet current market demands.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Lu (US 2016/0146975) of record (hereafter Lu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 2020/0411802) of record (hereafter Fujita).
Regarding claim 9, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the wavelength dispersion of retardation is able to increase or decrease or is able to be superposed and is able to be arbitrarily controlled thus achieving a phase difference of a ¼ wavelength over a wide wavelength range (see at least paragraph [0251]).
However, Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the retardation layer has substantially reverse dispersibility with respect to a wavelength.
However, Fujita teaches a retardation layer having substantially reverse dispersibility with respect to a wavelength (see at least paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and [0098]-[0099]).
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 of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teachings of Fujita so that the retardation layer has substantially reverse dispersibility with respect to a wavelength for the purpose of keeping the deviation from ideal wavelength dispersion properties small (see at least paragraph [0099] of Fujita).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Lu (US 2016/0146975) of record (hereafter Lu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2006/0215079) of record (hereafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 11, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the retardation layer includes at least a layer formed by immobilizing a twistedly aligned liquid crystal compound with a helical axis in a thickness direction.
However, Suzuki teaches a retardation layer that includes at least a layer formed by immobilizing a twistedly aligned liquid crystal compound with a helical axis in a thickness direction (see at least paragraph [0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the film of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teachings of Suzuki so that the retardation layer includes at least a layer formed by immobilizing a twistedly aligned liquid crystal compound with a helical axis in a thickness direction for the purpose of substituting one known retardation layer for another in order to obtain predictable results such as desired optical properties like retardation (see at least paragraph [0097] of Suzuki).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Lu (US 2016/0146975) of record (hereafter Lu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuyama et al. (WO 2019/132020, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Matsuyama).
Regarding claim 13, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the linear polarizer includes at least a light absorption anisotropic layer containing a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance.
However, Matsuyama teaches a polarizer and image display device (see at least the abstract) comprising a linear polarizer that includes at least a light absorption anisotropic layer containing a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance (see at least paragraph [0012]).
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 of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teachings of Matsuyama so that the linear polarizer includes at least a light absorption anisotropic layer containing a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance for the purpose of substituting one known linear polarizer for another in order to obtain predictable results such as a high degree of orientation (see at least paragraph [0012] of Matsuyama).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watano et al. (US 2016/0170114) of record (hereafter Watano), in view of Lu (US 2016/0146975) of record (hereafter Lu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2021/0286124) (hereafter Peng’2021).
Regarding claim 21, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose a positive C-plate on a side opposite to the retardation layer of the reflective circular polarizer.
However, Peng’2021 teaches a device including a reflective circular polarizer, wherein two positive C-plates are included on either side of at least a portion of the reflective circular polarizer (see at least Fig. 3B and paragraph [0063], where 360 indicates both positive C-plates).
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 of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teachings of Peng’2021 so that the film comprises a positive C-plate on a side opposite to the retardation layer of the reflective circular polarizer for the purpose of reducing light leakage (see at least paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 22, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the laminated optical film is formed into a curved surface shape.
However, Peng’2021 teaches a device including a reflective circular polarizer, a retardation layer and a linear polarizer, wherein the films are formed into a curved surface shape (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraphs [0071]-[0072], where 508 is a reflective polarizer, 504 is a retardation layer, and 502 is a linear polarizer).
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 of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teachings of Peng’2021 so that the laminated optical film is formed into a curved surface shape for the purpose of focusing the light passing through the film (see at least paragraph [0069] of Peng’2021).
Regarding claim 23, Watano as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watano also discloses that the laminated film comprises, in the following order, at least: the reflective circular polarizer; the retardation layer that converts circularly polarizer light into linearly polarized light; and the linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 4).
Watano as modified by Lu does not specifically disclose that the laminated film comprises, in the following order, at least: at least one functional layer; a support; the reflective circular polarizer; the retardation layer that converts circularly polarizer light into linearly polarized light; and the linear polarizer.
However, Peng’2021 teaches a device including at least one functional layer (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraph [0070], where one or more of the optical elements such as second optical element 510 can have a coating such as an anti-reflective coating); a support (see at least Fig. 5A, where second optical element 510 is a support); a reflective circular polarizer (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraphs [0072]-[0073], where reflective polarizer 508 is a reflective circular polarizer); a retardation layer that converts circularly polarizer light into linearly polarized light (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraph [0071], waveplate 504); and a linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraph [0071], linear polarizer 502).
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 of Watano as modified by Lu to include the teachings of Peng’2021 so that the laminated film comprises, in the following order, at least: at least one functional layer; a support; the reflective circular polarizer; the retardation layer that converts circularly polarizer light into linearly polarized light; and the linear polarizer for the purpose of providing durability and minimizing unwanted reflections.
Claims 1 and 21-23 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 2021/0286124) (hereafter Peng’2021), in view of Lu (US 2016/0146975) of record (hereafter Lu).
Regarding claim 1, Peng’2021 discloses a laminated optical film comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer (see at least Figs. 5A and 5B and paragraphs [0072]-[0073], where reflective polarizer 508 is a reflective circular polarizer); a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light (see at least Figs. 5A and 5B and paragraphs [0071] and [0076], where waveplate 504 is a retardation layer that converts linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light or vice-versa); and a linear polarizer (see at least Figs. 5A and 5B and paragraphs [0071] and [0076], where 502 is a linear polarizer).
Peng’2021 also discloses that any optical elements in the stack can include an anti-reflective coating (see at least paragraph [0070]).
Peng’2021 does not specifically disclose that a surface of the reflective circular polarizer on a side opposite to the linear polarizer has a surface roughness Ra of 100 nm or less.
However, Lu teaches a display device comprising an antiglare layer having a surface roughness of 100 nm or less (see at least paragraph [0100]).
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 of Peng’2021 to include the teachings of Lu so that a surface of the reflective circular polarizer on a side opposite to the linear polarizer has a surface roughness Ra of 100 nm or less for the purpose of achieving an antiglare function while minimizing the appearance of haze.
Regarding claim 21, Peng’2021 as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Peng’2021 also discloses a positive C-plate on a side opposite to the retardation layer of the reflective circular polarizer (see at least Fig. 3B and paragraph [0063], where 360 indicates both positive C-plates).
Regarding claim 22, Peng’2021 as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Peng’2021 also discloses that the films are formed into a curved surface shape (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraphs [0071]-[0072], where 508 is a reflective polarizer, 504 is a retardation layer, and 502 is a linear polarizer).
Regarding claim 23, Peng’2021 as modified by Lu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Peng’2021 also discloses that the laminated film comprises, in the following order, at least: at least one functional layer (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraph [0070], where one or more of the optical elements such as second optical element 510 can have a coating such as an anti-reflective coating); a support (see at least Fig. 5A, where second optical element 510 is a support); the reflective circular polarizer (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraphs [0072]-[0073], where reflective polarizer 508 is a reflective circular polarizer); the retardation layer that converts circularly polarizer light into linearly polarized light (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraph [0071], waveplate 504); and the linear polarizer (see at least Fig. 5A and paragraph [0071], linear polarizer 502).
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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872