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 Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 02/11/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is Amended to incorporate the subject matter of Claim 3 and Claim 4. Claim 3 and Claim 4 have been Amended. Claims 6-9 have been Amended based on Examiner suggestion. Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Arguments with respect to claim(s) in the Non-Final rejection dated 02/11/2026 have been considered persuasive and have been withdrawn. Due to the Amendments filed 02/11/2026, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendments by Rinehart (U.S. Patent 4,015,045) (herein “Rinehart”)
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
if rubidium were substituted in place of potassium to provide a second strengthening molten salt including Rb+ and Na+, one skilled in the art would have used rubidium in a large amount relative to sodium, such as a salt ratio of rubidium nitrate (RbNO3) to sodium nitrate (NaNO3) in the range of about 90:about 10 to about 95:about 5, in order to increase compressive strength, and thus one would not have been led to use rubidium in a small amount relative to sodium as in amended claim 1.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner replies that,
Rinehart teaches ion exchange processes of a glass using single molten KNO3 only (single salt) ion exchange salt bath (Col 5 Table 1, Col 5 lines 44-47) to increase surface strength (Col 6/7 Table II, Table III). Further, Rinehart teaches the use of a single molten Rb salt (including nitrates, i.e. RbNO3) could be used as a strengthening treatment (Col 21 lines 25-26, 40). Continuing, that the glass can be subjected to successive strengthening processes where the molten salt in each successive strengthening process has a larger diameter than the molten salt of the previous strengthening process ( Col 21 lines 44-56). The effect of a second strengthening process where potassium salt only was used in the first strengthening process (exchanging out of the glass smaller diameter alkali metals (Na+)) and rubidium salt only was used in the second strengthening process (exchanging out of the glass smaller diameter alkali metals (Na+, K+)) resulted in increased magnitude of compressive stress at the surface of the glass (Col 22 lines 1-7). Therefore, pure salt baths containing Rb+ create more surface compression than pure salt baths of K+. It is well known in the art that as the atomic radii (or the average atomic radii) of the cation in the molten salt increases, the surface compression in ion exchanged glass article increases. A PHOSITA would know that there are a finite number of ions, or sites, in the glass, to be replaced by a larger ion. Therefore, a Rb+ ion produces higher surface compression in the glass per ion as compared to a K+ ion. Hence fewer Rb+ ions would be needed as compared to K+ ions to produce similar surface compression in glass of the same composition. A PHOSITA would be motivated to use less Rb+ ions vs. K+ ions to achieve the same surface compression, and therefore a lesser portion of Rb+ ions, as compared to the portion of K+ ions, would be needed in relation to any amount of Na+ in the salt bath.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20210269356A1 by Kang et. al. (herein “Kang”) and in view of CN110627378A (English language
translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Wang (herein
“Wang”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,015,045 by Rinehart (herein “Rinehart”).
Regarding Claim 1 , Kang teaches:
A method of manufacturing a window; [0008], [0054], [0055], “ According to one aspect of the
invention, a method for manufacturing a glass article for a display device”, “…embodiments of a
glass article constructed according to principles of the invention. Glass is used as a cover
window for protecting a display…”
the method comprising:
preparing a first preliminary glass substrate including Li+ ions and Na+ ions; [0019], [0053];
“The LAS-based glass may include a silicon dioxide in a range of about 55 mol % to about 62 mol
%, an aluminum oxide in a range of about 18 mol % to about 26 mol %, a sodium oxide in a
range of about 8 mol % to about 13 mol %, and a lithium oxide in a range of about 2 mol % to
about 5 mol %”, “…glass article refers to an article made entirely or partially of glass, which is
usually, an amorphous undercooled liquid of extremely high viscosity that appears as a solid,
and may include one or more nonmetallic elements, e.g., silicon, and metallic elements, e.g.,
calcium, lead, lithium, sodium, rubidium, cesium and/or potassium, in the form of oxides, such
as silicon dioxide.”
providing a first strengthening molten salt including Na+ ions onto the first preliminary glass
substrate and forming a second preliminary glass substrate; [0100], “the first ion exchange
…is performed generally by exposing the glass to mixed molten salt containing potassium (K)
ions and sodium (Na) ions.
providing a third strengthening molten salt including K+ ions onto the third preliminary glass
substrate and forming a strengthened glass substrate; [0115], “The third ion exchange process
…is generally performed by exposing the glass to single molten salt containing potassium (K)
ions.”
Kang teaches a three-step mixed molten salt ion exchange process where the ratio of medium radius
metal ions (K+)/small radius metal ions (Na+) increases with each successive ion exchange step (Fig. 7),
where, in general, increasing the average atomic radii of ions in each successive mixed molten salt
ion exchange is common practice to one skilled in the art. Kang further teaches an LAS glass that may
contain lithium, sodium, potassium and rubidium ions ([0053]) near the surface of the glass can be
exchanged with larger ions that have the same valence, i.e. when the glass contains monovalent alkali
metal ions such as lithium (Li) ions, sodium (Na) ions, potassium (K) ions and rubidium (Rb) ions, the
monovalent cations on the surface may be replaced by sodium (Na) ions, potassium (K) ions, rubidium
(Rb) ions, or cesium (Cs) ions with a larger ionic radius [0098]. While Kang teaches a mixed molten salt
of NaNO3 and KNO3 in the second strengthening and directly suggests that rubidium ions
(Rb) can be in mixed molten salt ion exchange processes but fails to specifically disclose,
providing a second strengthening molten salt including Na+ ions and Rb+ ions onto the second
preliminary glass substrate and forming a third preliminary glass substrate.
In a similar endeavor of a method using three mixed molten salt ion exchange processes for providing
a compressive stress layer (with a depth of layer) on the surface of a glass article, Wang teaches the use
of, and concept of:
small radius metal ions (Na+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+)), medium radius metal
ions (K+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+)), and large radius metal
ions which are at least rubidium ions (Rb+, which exchanges with potassium ions (K+), lithium
ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+))(Page 3 lines 58-60, Page 4 lines 1-5), where the average ionic
radius in each successive molten salt ion exchange bath increases, where the quantity of smaller
ionic radius ions increases from the glass surface to a depth of layer and where a quantity of
larger ionic radius ions decreases from the glass surface to a depth of layer (Page 1 lines 50-54),
which is illustrated by denoting the penetration depths of each size of ion (Page 4 lines 5-8);
While Wang does not specifically teach a second strengthening molten salt that includes rubidium ions
(Rb+), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention was made by substituting the larger ionic radius ions (Rb+
ions) suggested by Wang to any of the three strengthening molten salt processes of Kang (including the
second strengthening molten salt process) as one would be motivated to do so to flexibly choose metal
ions according to actual needs, such as depth of layer, surface compressive value and increased
resistance to bending cracks, as noted by Wang (Page 4 lines 7-8, Page 5 lines 10-14). The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While the combination teaches the substitution of K+ ions for Rb+ ions in the second strengthening to provide a molten salt bath of Na+ ions and Rb+ ions, the combination fails to disclose,
the Na+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 60% to about 90%,
and the Rb+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 10% to about 40%
with respect to a total cation concentration of the second strengthening molten salt.
In a similar endeavor of molten salt ion exchange processes for providing a compressive stress layer
(with a depth of layer) on the surface of a glass article, Rhinehart teaches ion exchange processes of a
glass using single salt molten KNO3 (only KNO3) ion exchange salt bath (Col 5 Table 1, Col 5 lines 44-47)
to increase surface strength (Col 6/7 Table II, Table III). Further, Rinehart teaches the use of a single
molten Rb salt (including nitrates, i.e. RbNO3) could be used as a strengthening treatment (Col 21 lines
25-26, 40). Continuing, that the glass can be subjected to successive strengthening processes where the
molten salt in each successive strengthening process has a larger diameter than the molten salt of the
previous strengthening process ( Col 21 lines 44-56). The effect of a second strengthening process where
potassium salt only was used in the first strengthening process (exchanging out of the glass smaller
diameter alkali metals (Na+)) and rubidium salt only was used in the second strengthening process
(exchanging out of the glass smaller diameter alkali metals (Na+, K+)) resulted in increased magnitude of
compressive stress at the surface of the glass (Col 22 lines 1-7). Therefore, pure molten salt baths
containing Rb+ create more surface compression than pure molten salt baths containing K+.
It is well known in the art that as the atomic radii (or the average atomic radii) of the cation in the
molten salt increases, the surface compression in ion exchanged glass article increases. A PHOSITA
would know that there are a finite number of ions, or sites, in the glass, to be replaced by a larger ion.
Therefore, a Rb+ ion produces higher surface compression in the glass per ion as compared to a K+ ion.
Hence fewer Rb+ ions would be needed as compared to K+ ions to produce similar surface compression
in glass of the same composition. Rinehart teaches a PHOSITA would be motivated to use less Rb+ ions
vs. K+ ions to achieve the same surface compression, and therefore a lesser portion of Rb+ ions, as
compared to the portion of K+ ions, would be needed in relation to any amount of Na+ in the salt bath.
Yet, Rinehart fails to disclose the specific proportions of Na+ and Rb+ of the instant claim.
Wang teaches the use of, and concept of, a first number ratio and a second number ratio, which,
as summarized by the Examiner here, are ratios of the number of X ions to Y ions in each strengthening
molten salt process, where X represents larger ions (which encompasses Rb+) and Y presents smaller
ions (which encompasses Na+) (Page 2 line 60, Page 3 lines 1-7, 38-42) and where it is understood by
one skilled in the art that X and Y represent proportions of a total of X + Y. The first number ratio
and second number ratio for each strengthening process has a value relative to each of the other
strengthening processes. As well Wang cites it is understood that the composition and ratio of the
molten salts could be different (Page 6 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of Wang to
optimize the proportions of Na+ and Rb+ in the second strengthening process (and relative to the other
strengthening processes) of the combination since it has been held that where the general conditions of
a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine
skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use the concept of Wang optimize the proportions
of Na+ and Rb+ in the second strengthening process for the purpose of being able to flexibly adjust the
ratio of metal salts with different radii according to the glass thickness and the target strength, as noted
by Wang (Page 6 lines 2-3). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the
relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 2 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the first strengthening molten salt comprises NaNO3; [0100] lines 3-4, “For example, for the first
ion exchange process, the glass is immersed in a bath containing mixed molten salt in which
potassium nitrate (KNO3) and sodium nitrate (NaNO3) are mixed.”
Regarding Claim 3 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the second strengthening molten salt comprises the Na+ ions and the Rb+ ions as cations, but
does not include other cations; The instant claim was taught previously in Claim 1, as in a
NaNO3/KNO3 molten salt bath, KNO3 was substituted with RbNO3.
Regarding Claim 4 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 3.
While the combination teaches Na+ ions and Rb+ ions in the second strengthening molten salt, Kang fails to teach,
the Na+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 70%,
and the Rb+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 30%
with respect to a total cation concentration of the second strengthening molten salt.
Wang teaches the use of, and concept of, a first number ratio and a second number ratio, which,
as summarized by the Examiner here, are ratios of the number of X ions to Y ions in each strengthening
molten salt process, where X represents larger ions (which encompasses Rb+) and Y presents smaller
ions (which encompasses Na+) (Page 2 line 60, Page 3 lines 1-7, 38-42) and where it is understood by
one skilled in the art that X and Y represent proportions of a total of X + Y. The first number ratio
and second number ratio for each strengthening process has a value relative to each of the other
strengthening processes. As well Wang cites it is understood that the composition and ratio of the
molten salts could be different (Page 6 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of Wang to
optimize the proportions of Na+ and Rb+ in the second strengthening process (and relative to the other
strengthening processes) of the combination since it has been held that where the general conditions of
a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine
skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use the concept of Wang optimize the proportions
of Na+ and Rb+ in the second strengthening process for the purpose of being able to flexibly adjust the
ratio of metal salts with different radii according to the glass thickness and the target strength, as noted
by Wang (Page 6 lines 2-3). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the
relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 5 – Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang fails to teach wherein,
the third strengthening molten salt comprises Rb+ ions
Wang teaches the use of, and concept of:
small radius metal ions (Na+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+)), medium radius metal
ions (K+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+)), and large radius metal
ions which are at least rubidium ions (Rb+, which exchanges with potassium ions (K+), lithium
ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+))(Page 3 lines 58-60, Page 4 lines 1-5), where the average ionic
radius in each successive molten salt ion exchange bath increases, where the quantity of smaller
ionic radius ions increases from the glass surface to a depth of layer and where a quantity of
larger ionic radius ions decreases from the glass surface to a depth of layer (Page 1 lines 50-54),
which is illustrated by denoting the penetration depths of each size of ion (Page 4 lines 5-8);
While Kang does not specifically teach a third strengthening molten salt that includes rubidium ions
(Rb+), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention was made to deploy the concept of adding larger ionic radius ions (Rb+
ions) suggested by Kang to any of the three strengthening molten salt processes of Wang (including the
third strengthening molten salt process) as one would be motivated to do so to flexibly choose metal
ions according to actual needs, such as surface compressive value and increased resistance to bending
cracks, as noted by Kang (Page 4 lines 7-8, Page lines 10-14). The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6 – Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 5.
While Kang teaches a proportion of K+ ions in a third strengthening molten salt (Fig. 7), Kang fails to
teach,
the K+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 60% to about 90%,
and the Rb+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 10% to about 40%,
with respect to a total cation concentration of the
Wang teaches a third strengthening treatment wherein large radius metal ions (Rb+ Page 2 lines 1-2) can be introduced and the medium radius metal ions (K+, Page 3 line 60) is relatively higher.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Rb + to the third strengthening treatment, as one would be motived to do so for the purpose of shortening the ion exchange time while increasing the surface compressive stress, as noted by Wang (Page 6 lines 17-19). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wang teaches the concept of a first number ratio and a second number ratio, which,
As summarized by the Examiner here, are ratios of the number of X ions to Y ions in each strengthening
molten salt process, where X represents larger ions (which encompasses Rb+) and Y presents smaller
ions (which encompasses K+) (Page 2 line 60, Page 3 lines 1-7, 38-42) and where it is understood by
one skilled in the art that X and Y represent proportions of a total of X + Y. The first number ratio
and second number ratio for each strengthening process has a value relative to each of the other
strengthening processes. As well Wang cites it is understood that the composition and ratio of the
molten salts could be different (Page 6 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of Wang
optimize the proportions of K+ and Rb+ in the third strengthening process (and relative to the other
strengthening processes) of the combination since it has been held that where the general conditions of
a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine
skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use the concept of Wang optimize the proportions
of Na+ and Rb+ in the third strengthening process for the purpose of being able to flexibly adjust the
ratio of metal salts with different radii according to the glass thickness and the target strength, as noted
by Wang (Page 6 lines 2-3). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the
relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 7 – Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the first strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature in a range of about 380 °C to about 420 °C for a period in a range of about 30 minutes to about 3 hours in the forming of the second preliminary glass substrate; [0011], “The first step may include a first strengthening step performed for about 90 minutes… at a temperature of about 385° C. to about 405° C.”
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kang’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05"
Regarding Claim 8 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the second strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature in a range of about 380 °C to about 420 °C for a period in a range of about 30 minutes to about 3 hours in the forming of the third preliminary glass substrate; [0110], “For example, the second ion exchange process may be performed for about 1 hour to about 3 hours…in the temperature range of about 380° C. to about 460° C.” Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kang’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05"
Regarding Claim 9 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the third strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature in a range of about 380 °C to about 450 °C for a period in a range of about 10 minutes to about 2 hours in the forming of the strengthened glass substrate; [0116], “ For example, the third ion exchange process may be performed for about 5 minutes to about 10 minutes, in the temperature range of about 380° C. to about 460° C.”
Regarding Claim 10 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein the strengthened glass substrate comprises,
a compressive stress layer having a compressive stress of about 1400 MPa or less; [0118], “In one exemplary embodiment, the maximum compressive stress CS1 of the first surface US subjected to the third ion exchange process may have a value ranging from about 900 MPa to about 1,200 MPa.”
as measured through a method of ASTM C770-16; as noted in “Standard Test Method of Measurement of Glass Stress- Optical Coefficient”, https://store.astm.org/c0770-16.html.
and the compressive stress layer has a thickness in a range of about 90 μm to about 130 μm; [0124], “the first compression depth DOC1 may range from about 120 μm to about 140 μm”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kang’s compressive stress layer thickness that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
forming a printing layer overlapping a portion of the strengthened glass substrate in plan view after the forming of the strengthened glass substrate; [0063], “The strengthened glass article 100 may be used as a main body of the cover window 100….The cover window 100 may further include a print layer disposed on at least one surface of the glass article 100 at an edge portion of the glass article 100. The print layer of the cover window 100 may prevent the bezel area of the display device 500 from being visible from the outside, and may perform a decoration function in some cases”.
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741