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 .
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation of “as measured in a machine direction of the polarizer” in lines 3-5. Does it mean that the polarizer film was transported in the machine direction and stretched in the transverse direction, or was stretched in the machine direction? For the purposes of examination, both interpretations are deemed to be within the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 2-16 depend on and contain all the subject matter of claim 1, but all fail to provide any solutions to the indefinite issue described above.
Regarding claims 4, 6-7, it is also unclear whether each of the coefficients of thermal expansions in these claims, is also measured in the machine direction of the polarizer, because while that condition describes the coefficient of thermal expansion in claim 1, it is not used to describe the coefficients of thermal expansions in these claims. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation is deemed to include the more generic coefficients of thermal expansions.
Clarification and/or amendment with relevant citation(s) from the specification are required.
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.
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 1-2, 6-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140378614) in view of Murakami (US 6,572,941).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a polarizing plate (100, Fig. 1 [0063]) comprising: a polarizer (110, Fig. 1 [0063]) and a protective film (second optical film 130, Fig. 1 [0063] may be a protective film [0014]) formed on a surface of the polarizer, wherein the polarizer has a thickness of 10 µm [0065]). Kim is silent regarding a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the polarizing plate, and hence fails to teach that it has a CTE of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, as measured in a machine direction of the polarizer, after the polarizing plate is left under the presently claimed heat shock conditions.
However, Kim teaches that the polarizer is a polyvinyl alcohol film ([0064]), and that the protective film is a triacetyl cellulose film (TAC) (first optical film [0066]).
Murakami teaches that a CTE of a polarizing plate (overall polarizing film102, col 5, lines 12-21) comprising a polarizer that is a polyvinyl alcohol film, and a protective film that is a TAC film (col 5, lines 10-21), is desirably the CTE of the TAC protective film which in this case, is 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C (col 5, lines 10-21) which is within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less.
Although Murakami is silent as to whether the CTE of the TAC protective film and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate is measured in a machine direction of the polarizer, the units of “cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C” (col 5, lines 10-21) which converts to “µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C)”, are for a linear coefficient of expansion which is conventionally measured in the direction which has the largest linear expansion, such that the CTE of the TAC protective film and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate as measured in a machine direction of the polarizer, is 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C or less, which is within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less.
Kim teaches that the polarizing plate is left under heat shock conditions of:
1) cooling the polarizing plate to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (treatment under thermal shock conditions (i.e., -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins [0100]),
2) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (i.e., -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins and at 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes [0100]) which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from 25[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
3) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
4) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
5) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
6) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
7) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), where the high temperature of 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C is only 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C higher than the presently claimed high temperature of 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
While Kim is silent regarding a heating rate and a cooling rate, and hence fails to teach a heating rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min and a cooling rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min, the 200 cycles of treatment ([0100]) taught by Kim, in the combination, is much more severe than the mere 3 cycles of treatment that are presently claimed. Kim teaches that the exemplary polarizing plate ([Symbol font/0x4F], durability, Examples 1-3, Table 3 [0086]) has no observed bubbling, peeling or detachment, even after the 200 cycles of treatment ([Symbol font/0x4F] [0101]) such that the CTE of the polarizing plate as measured in a machine direction of the polarizer, is expected to have undergone minimal change, and hence to stay within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, for the purpose of providing the desired durability under the presently claimed heat shock conditions.
Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the polarizing plate of Kim with a CTE that stays within a range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, as measured in a machine direction of the polarizer, even after having been left under the above described heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired heat shock durability, as taught by Murakami.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches that the polarizer comprises a polyvinyl alcohol-based film (acetoacetyl-group modified polyvinyl alcohol film [0063]), and the polyvinyl alcohol-based film contains both a hydrophilic functional group (alcoholic hydroxy group [0064]) and a hydrophobic functional group (acetoacetyl group [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches that the polarizer is a polyvinyl alcohol film ([0064]), and that the protective film (second optical film [0066]) can be a polyethylene terephthalate film (PET) instead of a triacetyl cellulose film (TAC) ([0066]).
Murakami teaches that a CTE of a polarizing plate (overall polarizing film102, col 5, lines 12-21) comprising a polarizer that is a polyvinyl alcohol film, and a protective film (col 5, lines 10-21), is desirably the CTE of the protective film, which in the case of PET, is 15 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (1.5 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C, Fig. 4, col 5, lines 10-21) which is within the claimed range of 20 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, as measured before the polarizing plate is left under the presently claimed heat shock conditions.
Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the protective film of the polarizing plate of Kim, with a CTE that is within a range of 20 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, before the polarizing plate is left under the presently claimed heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired heat shock durability, as taught by Murakami.
Regarding claim 7, Murakami teaches that the protective film has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C (col 5, lines 10-21) which is within the claimed range of 40 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or more.
Kim teaches that the polarizing plate comprising the protective film, is left under heat shock conditions of:
1) cooling the polarizing plate to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (treatment under thermal shock conditions (i.e., -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins [0100]),
2) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (i.e., -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins and at 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes [0100]) which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from 25[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
3) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
4) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
5) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
6) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
7) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), where the high temperature of 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C is only 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C higher than the presently claimed high temperature of 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
While Kim is silent regarding a heating rate and a cooling rate, and hence fails to teach a heating rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min and a cooling rate of a heating rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min, the 200 cycles of treatment ([0100]) taught by Kim, in the combination, is much more severe than the 3 cycles of treatment that are presently claimed. Kim teaches that the exemplary polarizing plate ([Symbol font/0x4F], durability, Examples 1-3, Table 3 [0086]) has no observed bubbling, peeling or detachment, even after the 200 cycles of treatment ([Symbol font/0x4F] [0101]) such that the CTE of the protective film is expected to have undergone minimal change, and hence to stay within the claimed range of 40 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or more, for the purpose of providing the desired heat shock durability.
Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the protective film of the polarizing plate of Kim, with a CTE that stays within a range of 40 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or more, even after having been left under the above described heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired heat shock durability, as taught by Murakami.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches that the protective film comprises a triacetylcellulose (TAC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or amorphous cyclic polyolefin resin film (amorphous cyclic olefin polymer [0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches that the polarizing plate 100 further comprises an adhesive layer (adhesive film 140 [0063]) formed on a surface of the protective film (second optical film 130, Fig. 1 [0063]), the adhesive layer 140 having a storage modulus of 900 kPa at 30[Symbol font/0xB0]C (9x105 Pa [0023]) which, being 22 times greater than the lower limit of 40 Kpa, is expected to remain greater than 40 Kpa, and hence stay within the claimed range of 40 KPa or more at 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C (G1), in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, where the storage modulus (G2) is expected to be lower than G1 at the higher temperature of 120[Symbol font/0xB0]C (as measured from 0[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 120[Symbol font/0xB0]C [0023]), such that the adhesive layer 140 satisfies Formula 1 of Applicant.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches that the exemplary polarizing plate ([Symbol font/0x4F], durability, Examples 1-3, Table 3 [0086]) has no observed bubbling, peeling or detachment, even after the 200 cycles of treatment ([Symbol font/0x4F] [0101]) such that the storage modulus G2 of the adhesive layer 140, at the higher temperature of 120[Symbol font/0xB0]C (as measured from 0[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 120[Symbol font/0xB0]C [0023]), is expected to have undergone minimal change, and hence to stay within the claimed range of 40 kPa or more.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches that the adhesive layer comprises a cured product of a composition comprising a (meth)acrylic-based copolymer, an isocyanate-based curing agent (polyisocyanate cross-linking agent [0029]), and a metal chelate-based curing agent (cross-linking agent [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches that the (meth)acrylic copolymer is a copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising an alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic-based monomer (unsubstituted linear or branched alkyl group [0036]) in an amount of 80 wt% ([0037]) which is within the claimed range of 40 wt% to 95 wt%, a crosslinkable functional group-containing functional (meth)acrylic-based monomer ((meth)acrylic monomer containing hydroxyl groups ([0040]) in an amount of 0.01 wt% ([0040]) which is within the claimed range of 0.01 wt% to 20 wt%, an aromatic group-containing (meth)acrylic-based monomer (2-hydroxy-3-phenyloxypropyl (meth)acrylate ([0039]) in an amount of 1 wt% ([0040]) which is within the claimed range of 1 wt% to 35 wt%, and a (meth)acrylic-based monomer having a homopolymer glass transition temperature (Tg) within a range of 0[Symbol font/0xB0]C or more (acrylic acid [041]) in an amount of 1 wt% ([0042]) which is within the claimed range of 1 wt% to 40 wt%.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches that when the composition comprises 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic-based copolymer (based on 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic-based copolymer), it then comprises the isocyanate-based curing agent in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight ([0053]) which is within the claimed range of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight, and the metal chelate-based curing agent in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight ([0054]) which is within the claimed range of 0.01 to 5 parts by weight.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches an optical display apparatus (display 200 [0076]) comprising the polarizing plate (220, Fig. 2 [0076]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Murakami, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-13, 16 above, as further evidenced by Hiroyuki (Clarivate Analytics English translation of JP-2005-023214-A).
Kim, as modified by Murakami, teaches the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer and the protective film formed on a surface of the polarizer, as described above. In addition, Kim teaches that the polarizer comprises a polyvinyl alcohol film (col 5, lines 10-21) which has a softening point that is within a range of 66[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C, as evidenced by Hiroyuki.
Hiroyuki teaches that polyvinyl alcohol has a glass transition temperature which is a softening point that is within a range of 65[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0037]) which contains the claimed range of 66[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Murakami, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-13, 16 above, and further in view of Um (US 2014/0016196) and Ueno (US 2019/0049642).
Kim, as modified by Murakami, teaches the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer and the protective film formed on a surface of the polarizer, where the CTE of the polarizing plate comprising the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film and the TAC protective film, is desirably the CTE of the TAC protective film, which in this case, is 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C), even when measured under heat shock conditions, as described above.
Although Kim, as modified by Murakami, is silent as to whether the CTE of the TAC protective film and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate is measured in a machine direction of the polarizer, the units are for a linear coefficient of expansion which is conventionally measured in the direction which has the largest linear expansion, such that the CTE of the TAC protective film, and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate, as measured in a machine direction of the polarizer, is 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C or less, which is within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less.
Kim, as modified by Murakami, is silent regarding a CTE of the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film, and hence fails to teach a range of a CTE of the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film, measured under heat shock conditions, of the CTE of the polarizing plate comprising the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film, measured under heat shock conditions.
However, Kim teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film has a thickness of 10 µm [0065]).
Ueno teaches that a polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film (polyvinyl alcohol-based film ([0054]) desirably has a thickness of 10 µm or less, for the purpose of providing the desired reduction in dimensional change, resulting in high durability under heat shock conditions (thermal shock [0053], heat shock test in which -30[Symbol font/0xB0]C and 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C temperature conditions are repeated [0004]).
Um teaches that a CTE of a polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film can be within a range of 50 to 80 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (ppm/[Symbol font/0xB0]C, very small amount of difference in thermal expansion coefficient [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film of the polarizing plate of Kim, as modified by Murakami, with a CTE that remains within a range of 50 to 80 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C), even when measured under heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired reduction in dimensional change, resulting in high durability under heat shock conditions, as taught by Um in light of Ueno.
Accordingly, Kim, as modified by Murakami, Ueno and Um, teaches that the CTE of the polarizer, is within a range of 92% to 148% of the CTE of the polarizing plate (50 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) x 100/54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) to 80 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) x 100/54 ) µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C), when measured under heat shock conditions, which is within the claimed range of 50% to 250%, for the purpose of providing the desired reduction in dimensional change, resulting in high durability under heat shock conditions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Murakami, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-13, 16 above, and further in view of Ueno (US 2019/0049642).
Kim, as modified by Murakami, teaches the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer and the protective film formed on a surface of the polarizer, as described above. In addition, Kim teaches that the polarizer comprises a polyvinyl alcohol film (col 5, lines 10-21). Kim is silent regarding a boric acid content of 15 wt% to 30 wt%.
However, Ueno teaches that a polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film has a boric acid content of 20 wt% ([0056], polyvinyl alcohol-based film [0055]) which is within the claimed range of 15 wt% to 30 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired combination of stretching stability, optical durability and suppression of through cracks ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the polarizer of the polarizing plate of Kim, with a boric acid content that is within a range of 15 wt% to 30 wt%, in order to obtain the desired combination of stretching stability, optical durability and suppression of through cracks, as taught by Ueno.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Murakami, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-13, 16 above, and further in view of Morimoto (Clarivate Analytics English translation of WO-2021/117289-A1).
Kim, as modified by Murakami, teaches the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer and the protective film formed on a surface of the polarizer, as described above.
Regarding claim 14, Kim, as modified by Murakami, is silent regarding a hole formed in a region of the polarizing plate in an in-plane direction to penetrate through the polarizing plate in a thickness direction thereof.
However, Morimoto teaches that a polarizing plate (100, Polarizing plate A-1, item A, 4th para of page 2) comprising a protective film formed on a surface of a polarizer (protective layer 12 arranged on one side of the polarizing element 11, Polarizing plate A-1, item A, 4th para of page 2), further comprises a hole formed in a region of the polarizing plate 100 in an in-plane direction (through hole 30, 2nd last para of page 2, Fig. 1A) to penetrate through the polarizing plate 100 in a thickness direction thereof (through hole 30, 2nd last para of page 2, Fig. 2), for the purpose of providing an opening corresponding to a camera unit, when the polarizing plate is an optical component of a mobile phone comprising the camera unit (1st para of page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have further comprised a hole formed in a region of the polarizing plate of Kim, in an in-plane direction to penetrate through the polarizing plate in a thickness direction thereof, in order to provide an opening corresponding to a camera unit, when the polarizing plate is an optical component of a mobile phone comprising the camera unit, as taught by Morimoto.
Regarding claim 15, Morimoto teaches that the hole has a diameter of 2 mm to 4 mm (last para of page 2) which is within the claimed range of 4 mm or less, for the purpose of suppressing crack formation around the hole (last para of page 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular workweek between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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 Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center 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.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782