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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the motivation to combine Yi and Lee fails because Yi’s displays should not bend. The examiner disagrees. Yi discloses multiple displays, the first of which is a mobile terminal 100, the second of which can be a projector 200a, a detachable display mounted in the seat of the vehicle 200b, or another mobile terminal 200c (Yi paragraph 57). Yi does on to explicitly state that the displays of the mobile terminals can be flexible (Yi paragraph 102).
Applicant argues that Lee teaches away from and/or discourages the claimed range of "about 0.30 to about 0.40 with respect to a strain of about 24% to about 26% at a temperature of about 70°C" as it would lead to increased interlayer peeling during unbending. The examiner disagrees. As a preliminary matter, the limitation “at a temperature of about 70°C” isn’t in the claims and thus will not be considered further. With respect to the limitations in the claims, 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.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See MPEP 2144.05. In the present case, Lee’s teaching with respect to the invention is directly analogous to the situation in In re Geisler; since both the prior art and the claimed invention use ‘about’ when referring to the pertinent range, the prior art teaching of greater than about 0.4 falls directly teaches a value within the claimed range of about 0.30 to about 0.4. Note also that Lee specifically states that the endpoints of their disclosed ranges are to be considered as being within the disclosed range (Lee paragraph 47).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0363297 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0200915 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Park teaches “a display device (DD) comprising: a display panel (DP); an anti-reflection member (260) on the display panel (see Fig. 2); a window member (300) on the anti-reflection member (see Fig. 2); and an adhesive layer (172) between the window member and the anti-reflection member (see Fig. 2)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the adhesive layer has a stress relaxation value of about 0.30 to about 0.40 with respect to a strain of about 24% to about 26%”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the adhesive layer (AD1) has a stress relaxation value of about 0.30 to about 0.40 (paragraph 124; note that Lee multiplies by 100, thus Lee’s stress relaxation ratio of 40 is the same as the claimed stress relaxation value of 0.40) with respect to a strain of about 24% to about 26% (paragraph 124)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by adjusting the stress relaxation value of the adhesive to within the claimed range as taught by Lee in order to permit the display device to bend without peeling (Lee paragraph 126).
Claims 2-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita (US 2021/0214482 A1).
With respect to claim 2: Park in view of Lee teaches “The display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park further teaches “wherein the window member comprises: a window divided into a transmission region (DA) and a bezel region (NDA)”.
Park does not specifically teach “a printing layer that does not overlap the transmission region and is on one surface of the window, the adhesive layer being in contact with a side surface of the printing layer and one surface of the printing layer crossing the side surface of the printing layer”.
However, Morita teaches “a printing layer (BM) that does not overlap the transmission region (DA) and is on one surface of the window (BL), the adhesive layer (AP-a) being in contact with a side surface of the printing layer (see Fig. 10) and one surface of the printing layer crossing the side surface of the printing layer (see Fig. 10)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the printing layer of Morita in order to define the shape of the transmission region (Morita paragraphs 96, 98).
With respect to claim 3: Park in view of Lee and Morita teaches “The display device of claim 2 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein in the bezel region, the printing layer and the anti-reflection member are apart from each other with the adhesive layer therebetween”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein in the bezel region (BZ), the printing layer (BM) and the anti-reflection member (PP) are apart from each other with the adhesive layer therebetween (see Fig. 10)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the printing layer of Morita in order to define the shape of the transmission region (Morita paragraphs 96, 98).
With respect to claim 4: Park in view of Lee and Morita teaches “The display device of claim 2 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the adhesive layer has a first thickness in the bezel region, and has, in the transmission region, a second thickness greater than the first thickness”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein the adhesive layer has a first thickness in the bezel region, and has, in the transmission region, a second thickness greater than the first thickness (see Fig. 10)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the printing layer of Morita in order to define the shape of the transmission region (Morita paragraphs 96, 98), and consequently make the adhesive layer thinner where the printing layer is to make room for the thickness of said printing layer (see Morita Fig. 10).
With respect to claim 6: Park in view of Lee teaches “the display device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the adhesive layer comprises a polymer resin derived from a resin composition comprising a monomer, an oligomer, and a crosslinking agent”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein the adhesive layer comprises a polymer resin derived from a resin composition comprising a monomer (paragraph 75), an oligomer (paragraph 75)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the adhesive composition taught by Morita in order to obtain an adhesive that is easy to coat on the display device and exhibits good peeling characteristics (Morita paragraph 75).
Park does not specifically teach “a crosslinking agent”.
However, Lee teaches “a crosslinking agent (paragraph 144)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the crosslinking agent taught by Lee in order to obtain a favorable stress relaxation value (Lee paragraph 148).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee and Morita as applied to claims 1, 2 above, and further in view of Shim et al. (US 2019/0215974 A1).
With respect to claim 5: Park in view of Lee and Morita teaches “The display device of claim 2 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein: the printing layer comprises first to third printing parts sequentially stacked on the one surface of the window; a first side surface of the third printing part and one surface of the second printing part define a first step, and a second side surface of the second printing part and one surface of the first printing part define a second step; and the adhesive layer covers the first step and the second step”.
However, Shim teaches “wherein: the printing layer (100) comprises first to third printing parts (101, 102, 103) sequentially stacked (see Fig. 4) on the one surface of the window (20); a first side surface of the third printing part and one surface of the second printing part define a first step (101s), and a second side surface of the second printing part and one surface of the first printing part define a second step (102s); and the adhesive layer (301) covers the first step and the second step (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the sacked printing layer of Shim in order to improve the aesthetics of the display (Shim paragraphs 63-64).
Claims 7-10, 12, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park et al. (US 2020/0266368 A1), hereinafter Park II.
With respect to claim 7: Park teaches “a method of manufacturing a display device (method of making DD), the method comprising: forming a preliminary adhesive layer (172); applying the preliminary adhesive layer on an anti-reflection member (260) on a display panel (DA); applying a window member (300) on the preliminary adhesive layer on the anti-reflection member (see Fig. 2)”.
Park does not specifically teach preparing a resin composition comprising a monomer, an oligomer; forming a preliminary adhesive layer; and forming an adhesive layer by curing the preliminary adhesive layer.
However, Morita teaches preparing a resin composition (RC) comprising a monomer (paragraph 75), an oligomer (paragraph 75), forming a preliminary adhesive layer (P-AP), and forming an adhesive layer by curing the preliminary adhesive layer (see Fig. 9b)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the adhesive composition taught by Morita in order to obtain an adhesive that is easy to coat on the display device and exhibits good peeling characteristics (Morita paragraph 75).
Park does not specifically teach a crosslinking agent, wherein the adhesive layer has a stress relaxation value of about 0.30 to about 0.40 with respect to a strain of about 24% to about 26%.
However, Lee teaches “a crosslinking agent (Lee paragraph 144), wherein the adhesive layer has a stress relaxation value of about 0.30 to about 0.40 with respect to a strain of about 24% to about 26% (paragraph 124)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the crosslinking agent taught by Lee in order to obtain a favorable stress relaxation value (Lee paragraph 148), and to select said stress relaxation value within the claimed range in order to permit the display device to bend without peeling (Lee paragraph 126).
Park does not teach having a creep value of about 10% to about 35% with respect to a stress of about 900 Pa to about 1100 Pa.
However, Park II teaches forming the adhesive with a creep value within the claimed range (paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by forming the adhesive to have the claimed creep value as taught by Park II in order to balance between the display being easy to bend and having a sufficient restorative force (Park II paragraph 101).
With respect to claim 8: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein, in the forming of the adhesive layer, ultraviolet light of about 6500 mJ to about 8500 mJ is applied to the preliminary adhesive layer”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein, in the forming of the adhesive layer, ultraviolet light of about 6500 mJ to about 8500 mJ is applied to the preliminary adhesive layer (paragraphs 150-151; Morita irradiates the UV light at a rate of 1000 mJ/cm2 (paragraph 150) and obtains 7 samples each having an area of 1 cm2 (paragraph 151), meaning 7000 mJ were used in the described experiment)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by irradiating the adhesive layer as suggested by Morita, as an art-recognized suitable method of curing the adhesive (Morita paragraph 116).
With respect to claim 9: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein, in the forming of the adhesive layer, light passes through the window member and is applied to the preliminary adhesive layer”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein, in the forming of the adhesive layer, light passes through the window member and is applied to the preliminary adhesive layer (see Fig. 9b)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by irradiating the adhesive layer as suggested by Morita, as an art-recognized suitable method of curing the adhesive (Morita paragraph 116).
With respect to claim 10: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the window member comprises: a window divided into a transmission region and a bezel region; and a printing layer that does not overlap the transmission region and is on one surface of the window; wherein the preliminary adhesive layer is in contact with a side surface of the printing layer and one surface of the printing layer crossing the side surface of the printing layer”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein the window member (WP) comprises: a window divided into a transmission region (TA/DA) and a bezel region (BZA/NDA); and a printing layer (BM) that does not overlap the transmission region and is on one surface of the window (see Fig. 7); wherein the preliminary adhesive layer is in contact with a side surface of the printing layer and one surface of the printing layer crossing the side surface of the printing layer (see Fig. 9b)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the printing layer of Morita in order to define the shape of the transmission region (Morita paragraphs 96, 98).
With respect to claim 12: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the oligomer comprises 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA)”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein the oligomer comprises 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA) (paragraph 79)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the adhesive composition taught by Morita in order to obtain an adhesive that is easy to coat on the display device and exhibits good peeling characteristics (Morita paragraph 75).
With respect to claim 14: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the monomer comprises at least one of 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA), butyl acrylate, isooctyl acrylate, isobornyl acrylate, octyl methacrylate, or benzyl acrylate”.
Howevever, Morita teaches “wherein the monomer comprises at least one of 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA), butyl acrylate, isooctyl acrylate, isobornyl acrylate, octyl methacrylate, or benzyl acrylate (paragraph 80)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using the adhesive composition taught by Morita in order to obtain an adhesive that is easy to coat on the display device and exhibits good peeling characteristics (Morita paragraph 75).
With respect to claim 19: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the resin composition further comprises an ultraviolet (UV) absorber”.
However, Morita teaches “wherein the resin composition further comprises an ultraviolet (UV) absorber (paragraph 121)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by including a UV absorber, so the adhesive can be cured by UV light (Morita paragraph 116).
Claims 11, 13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hou et al. (US 20200299471 A1).
With respect to claim 11: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the oligomer has a weight of about 73.9 wt% to about 84.7 wt% with respect to a total weight of the resin composition”.
However, Hou teaches “wherein the oligomer has a weight of about 73.9 wt% to about 84.7 wt% with respect to a total weight of the resin composition (paragraph 95)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by selecting the material taught by Hou as the resin composition in order to obtain an adhesive layer with a good combination of flexibility and protection (Hou paragraph 13).
With respect to claim 13: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the monomer has a weight of about 15.0 wt% to about 25.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the resin composition”.
However, Hou teaches “wherein the monomer has a weight of about 15.0 wt% to about 25.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the resin composition (paragraph 95)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by selecting the material taught by Hou as the resin composition in order to obtain an adhesive layer with a good combination of flexibility and protection (Hou paragraph 13).
With respect to claim 15: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the crosslinking agent has a weight of about 0.1 wt% to about 0.5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the resin composition”.
However, Hou teaches “wherein the crosslinking agent has a weight of about 0.1 wt% to about 0.5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the resin composition (paragraph 99)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by selecting the material taught by Hou as the resin composition in order to obtain an adhesive layer with a good combination of flexibility and protection (Hou paragraph 13).
With respect to claim 17: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the resin composition further comprises about 0.1 wt% to about 0.4 wt% of a photoinitiator with respect to a total weight of the resin composition”.
However, Hou teaches “wherein the resin composition further comprises about 0.1 wt% to about 0.4 wt% of a photoinitiator with respect to a total weight of the resin composition (paragraph 99)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by selecting the material taught by Hou as the resin composition in order to obtain an adhesive layer with a good combination of flexibility and protection (Hou paragraph 13).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lewandowski et al. (US 2007/0213449 A1).
With respect to claim 16: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the crosslinking agent comprises at least one of 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA), pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA), tripropylene glycol diacrylate (TPGDA), dipropylene glycol diacrylate (DPGDA), tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (TCDDA), tetraethylene glycol diacrylate (TTEGDA), bisphenol F (ethylene oxide)4 diacrylate, bisphenol A (ethylene oxide)20 diacrylate, bisphenol A (ethylene oxide)30 diacrylate, polyethylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PEG400DA), polyethylene glycol 200 diacrylate (PEG200DA), polyethylene glycol 300 diacrylate (PEG300DA), polyethylene glycol 600 diacrylate (PEG600DA), or polypropylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PPG400DA)”.
However, Lewandowski teaches “wherein the crosslinking agent comprises at least one of 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA), pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA), tripropylene glycol diacrylate (TPGDA), dipropylene glycol diacrylate (DPGDA), tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (TCDDA), tetraethylene glycol diacrylate (TTEGDA), bisphenol F (ethylene oxide)4 diacrylate, bisphenol A (ethylene oxide)20 diacrylate, bisphenol A (ethylene oxide)30 diacrylate, polyethylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PEG400DA), polyethylene glycol 200 diacrylate (PEG200DA), polyethylene glycol 300 diacrylate (PEG300DA), polyethylene glycol 600 diacrylate (PEG600DA), or polypropylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PPG400DA) (paragraph 42)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by selecting the crosslinking agent taught by Lewandowski in order to increase the cohesive strength of the adhesive (Lewandowski paragraph 42).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hasskerl et al. (US 2014/0349093 A1).
With respect to claim 18: Park in view of Lee, Morita, and Park II teaches “The method of claim 7 (see above)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the resin composition further comprises about 0.1 wt% to about 0.2 wt% of a molecular weight modifier with respect to a total weight of the resin composition, and the molecular weight modifier comprises n-dodecyl mercaptan”.
However, Hasskerl teaches “wherein the resin composition further comprises about 0.1 wt% to about 0.2 wt% of a molecular weight modifier with respect to a total weight of the resin composition (paragraph 103), and the molecular weight modifier comprises n-dodecyl mercaptan (paragraph 103)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by adding the n-dodecyl mercaptan taught by Hasskerl in order to improve processability (Hasskerl paragraph 103).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee and Yi et al. (US 20150031352 A1).
With respect to claim 20: Park teaches “a display device (DD) comprising: a display panel (DP); an anti-reflection member (260) on the display panel (see Fig. 2); a window member (300) on the anti-reflection member (see Fig. 2); and an adhesive layer (172) between the window member and the anti-reflection member (see Fig. 2)”.
Park does not specifically teach “wherein the adhesive layer has a stress relaxation value of about 0.30 to about 0.40 with respect to a strain of about 24% to about 26%”.
However, Lee teaches “wherein the adhesive layer (AD1) has a stress relaxation value of about 0.30 to about 0.40 (paragraph 124; note that Lee multiplies by 100, thus Lee’s stress relaxation ratio of 40 is the same as the claimed stress relaxation value of 0.40) with respect to a strain of about 24% to about 26% (paragraph 124)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by adjusting the stress relaxation value of the adhesive to within the claimed range as taught by Lee in order to permit the display device to bend without peeling (Lee paragraph 126).
Park does not specifically teach a vehicle comprising: a first display device in a first region inside the vehicle and to display first information of the vehicle; and a second display device in a second region inside the vehicle and to display second information of the vehicle.
However, Yi teaches a vehicle (see Fig. 1) comprising: a first display device (200) in a first region inside the vehicle (201a) and to display first information of the vehicle (Fig. 7); and a second display device (100) in a second region inside the vehicle and to display second information of the vehicle (see Figs. 10).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Park by using it as a display device in a vehicle as Yi suggests in order to provide information to guide the driver of the vehicle (Yi paragraphs 60-61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al. (US 20190107866 A1), which teaches a display panel using an adhesive having a stress relaxation value of 0.35 to 0.45 (paragraph 63).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights