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 Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “polygonal shapes of the polygonal prism shape and the polygonal cone shape” in lines 1-2. It appears “polygonal shapes of the polygonal prism shape and the polygonal cone shape” may not exist because “a shape of each magnetic material body comprises a polygonal prism shape, a cylindrical prism shape, a polygonal cone shape, a conical shape, or a combination thereof” defined in claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: “≧” in line 3. It appears that “≧” should be “equal or greater than”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 9-10, 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " a dielectric coefficient of the substrate is 1 to 50" in lines 1-2. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “a dielectric coefficient of the substrate”, which is one value, equals to a data range “1 to 50”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as " a dielectric coefficient of the substrate is a value in a range from 1 to 50". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a thickness of the substrate is 0.05 mm to 50 mm” in lines 1-2. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “a thickness of the substrate”, which is one value, equals to a data range “0.05 mm to 50 mm”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as " a thickness of the substrate is a value in a range from 0.05 mm to 50 mm". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the plurality of magnetic material bodies is 0.1 MHz to 1 THz” in lines 1-2. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the plurality of magnetic material bodies”, which is one value, equals to a data range “0.1 MHz to 1 THz”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as " the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the plurality of magnetic material bodies is a value in a range from 0.1 MHz to 1 THz ". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a thickness of each magnetic material body is 0.01 mm to 50 mm” in lines 1-2. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “a thickness of each magnetic material body”, which is one value, equals to a data range “0.01 mm to 50 mm”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as " a thickness of each magnetic material body is a value in a range from 0.01 mm to 50 mm ". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a width of each magnetic material body conforms to: a=λFm*fp, where a is the width of the magnetic material body, λFm is a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency Fm of the plurality of magnetic material bodies, and fp is 0.01 to 50” in lines 1-5. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “a width of each magnetic material body” , which is one value, equals to a data range determined by “fp is 0.01 to 50” based on “a=λFm*fp”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, the limitation “fp is 0.01 to 50” is being interpreted as " fp is a value in a range from 0.01 to 50". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a pitch is provided between adjacent magnetic material bodies and conforms to:
PNG
media_image1.png
27
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where p is the pitch between adjacent magnetic material bodies, λFs is a wavelength of twice the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the magnetic material bodies, εs is a dielectric coefficient of the substrate, μs is a magnetic permeability coefficient of the substrate, and sp is 0.1 to 2” in lines 1-6. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “a pitch” , which is one value, equals to a data range determined by “sp is 0.1 to 2” based on “
PNG
media_image1.png
27
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, the limitation “sp is 0.1 to 2” is being interpreted as " sp is a value in a range from 0.1 to 2". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushita et al. (US 2008/0257599, hereafter Matsushita).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that An electromagnetic wave absorber { Title (electromagnetic wave absorber) }, comprising:
a substrate { Fig.2; [0066] lines 1-2 (FIG. 2 is a sectional view of an electromagnetic wave absorber 1); [0078] lines 8-9 (planar substrate) }; and
a plurality of magnetic material bodies disposed on the substrate in an array { Fig.3 item 12 (conductive pattern), 30 (radial patters), 31 (square patterns) form “array”; [0081] lines 1-4 (the conductive pattern 12, radial patterns 30 are disposed, square pattern 31 is formed); [0083] lines 13-17 (When an electromagnetic wave is received by the conductive pattern 12, a resonant current flows at an edge portion of the conductive pattern 12. When the current flows, a magnetic field is generated around the current.)}, so that the electromagnetic wave absorber has a plurality of electromagnetic wave absorption frequencies in addition to an electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the plurality of magnetic material bodies {Fig.13 (0°, 45°); Fig.17; Fig.19; [0047] lines 1-3 (Fig.13, absorption characteristics of a 2.45-GHz band;); [0051] lines 1-2 (Fig.17, three absorption frequencies); [0137] lines 6-7 (FIG. 19, a solid line 110 shows the electromagnetic wave absorption characteristics when an incident angle is 10°,), 9-11 (a chain line 112 shows the electromagnetic wave absorption characteristics when an incident angle is 45°.)},
wherein a ratio of one of the plurality of electromagnetic wave absorption frequencies to the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 6 {Fig.17; [0029] lines 1 (the invention), 3-4 (absorbing an electromagnetic wave of 2.4-GHz band,); Examiner’s Note: ratio of electromagnetic wave absorption frequencies 5.5GHz and 7.5 GHz in Fig.17 for operation frequency 2.4GHz is 5.5GHz / 2.4GHz = 2.3 and 7.5 GHz / 2.4GHz = 3.1, which “is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 6”}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
the substrate comprises a multi-layer structure {Fig.2}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1 and 3, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
the substrate comprises a first substrate and a second substrate stacked on each other {Fig.2}, and
the plurality of magnetic material bodies are disposed on the second substrate { Fig.2 item 5; Fig.3 items 5, 12 (conductive pattern); [0066] line 6 (a pattern layer 5); [0083] lines 13-17 (When an electromagnetic wave is received by the conductive pattern 12, a resonant current flows at an edge portion of the conductive pattern 12. When the current flows, a magnetic field is generated around the current.)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1 and 3-4, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a material of the first substrate comprises a conductive material { Fig.2 item 2 (conductive reflective layer); [0066] line 8 (conductive reflective layer 2); [0078] lines 7-9 (conductive reflective layer 2, planar substrate conductive film) }, and
a material of the second substrate comprises resin { Fig.2 item 5; Fig.3 item 11 in item 5; [0068] lines 1-4 (pattern layer 5, planar substrate 11, instance a synthetic resin) }.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1 and 3-4, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a material of the first substrate comprises a conductive material { Fig.2 item 2 (conductive reflective layer); [0066] line 8 (conductive reflective layer 2); [0078] lines 7-9 (conductive reflective layer 2, planar substrate with a conductive film) }, and
a material of the second substrate is the same as a material of the plurality of magnetic material bodies { Fig.2 items 4-5; Fig.3 items 5, 12 (conductive pattern); [0066] line 6 (a pattern layer 5); [0083] lines 13-17 (When an electromagnetic wave is received by the conductive pattern 12, a resonant current flows at an edge portion of the conductive pattern 12. When the current flows, a magnetic field is generated around the current.); [0121] lines 1-5 from bottom (the electromagnetic wave absorbing layer 4 may be formed of a magnetic body itself. In this case, a method where a layer of a soft magnetic sintered body Such as ferrite, a plated matter thereof, a metal compound or a metal oxide is formed is adopted.); Examiner’s note: layers 4-5 in Fig.2 are interpreted as “the second substrate”}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1 and 3, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
substrate comprises a first substrate, a second substrate, and a third substrate that are stacked on one another {Fig.2}, and
the plurality of magnetic material bodies are disposed on the third substrate {Fig.2 item 5; Fig.3 item 12 in item 5; Examiner’s note: the top layer in Fig.2 is interpreted as the third layer}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1, 3, and 7, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a material of the first substrate comprises a conductive material { Fig.2 item 2 (conductive reflective layer); [0066] line 8 (conductive reflective layer 2); [0078] lines 7-9 (conductive reflective layer 2, planar substrate conductive film) },
a material of the second substrate comprises resin {Fig.2 item 3 (dielectric layer); [0119] lines 11-14 (The dielectric layer 3 is formed by discharging inorganic and other fillers (magnetic loss material is not used) in an SBS (styrene/butadiene/styrene copolymer) resin) }, and
a material of the third substrate is the same as a material of the plurality of magnetic material bodies {Fig.2 items 4-5; Fig.3 items 5, 12 (conductive pattern); [0066] line 6 (a pattern layer 5); [0083] lines 13-17 (When an electromagnetic wave is received by the conductive pattern 12, a resonant current flows at an edge portion of the conductive pattern 12. When the current flows, a magnetic field is generated around the current.); [0121] lines 1-5 from bottom (the electromagnetic wave absorbing layer 4 may be formed of a magnetic body itself. In this case, a method where a layer of a soft magnetic sintered body Such as ferrite, a plated matter thereof, a metal compound or a metal oxide is formed is adopted.); Examiner’s note: layers 4-5 in Fig.2 are interpreted as “the second substrate”}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a thickness of the substrate is 0.05 mm to 50 mm { [0138] lines 6-8 from bottom (as an electromagnetic wave absorber of a 950-MHz band, a thin type having such a thickness as 4.4 mm); [0140] Table 3 (see thickness of layers)}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the plurality of magnetic material bodies is 0.1 MHz to 1 THz { Figs.11-12; Fig.16 }.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a thickness of each magnetic material body is 0.01 mm to 50 mm { [0086] lines 16-17 (0.5 mm as a thickness of a layer having the magnetic permeability)); [0140] Table3 (absorbing layer thickness) }.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a width of each magnetic material body conforms to: a=λFm*fp, where a is the width of the magnetic material body, λFm is a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency Fm of the plurality of magnetic material bodies, and fp is 0.01 to 50 { Fig.13 (see pattern size 12.5mm); [0029] lines 3-4 (absorbing an electromagnetic wave of 2.4-GHz band,); [0047] lines 1-3 (Fig.13, absorption characteristics of a 2.45-GHz band); [0103] lines 1 (Fig.13), 5 (square pattern 31 with R.); Examiner’s note: 2.4GHz corresponds to wavelength of 12.5cm = λFm. 12.5mm in Fig.13 satisfies a=λFm*fp when fp =0.1. }.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a ratio of a cross-sectional area of a bottom surface to a cross-sectional area of a top surface of the plurality of magnetic material bodies is ≧1 { Fig.2 items 2 and 5 }.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (‘599) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN 114204279, hereafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) does not explicitly disclose that “a dielectric coefficient of the substrate is 1 to 50”. In the same field of endeavor, Jiang (‘279) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a dielectric coefficient of the substrate is 1 to 50 { Fig.2 item 4; Page 5 line 28 (substrate 4 adopts the relative dielectric constant is 4.4)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsushita (‘599) with the teachings of Jiang (‘279) {use substrate with a certain dielectric constant greater than 1 (e.g. dielectric constant: 4.4)} to use substrate with a certain dielectric constant greater than 1 (e.g. dielectric constant: 4.4). Doing so would avoid signal interference of multiple signal emitting system similar frequency bands in the electronic device so as to provide an absorber with wide wave-absorbing frequency band and high efficiency of the wave-absorbing performance, as recognized by Jiang (‘279) {page 1 lines 1-2 from bottom (avoiding signal interference of multiple signal emitting system similar frequency bands in the electronic device); page 2 lines 20-21 (the wave-absorbing frequency band is wide and the wave-absorbing performance is high efficiency)}.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (‘599) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirose (US 9.263,802, hereafter Hirose).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) does not explicitly disclose that “a shape of each magnetic material body comprises a polygonal prism shape, a cylindrical prism shape, a polygonal cone shape, a conical shape, or a combination thereof”. In the same field of endeavor, Hirose (‘802) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a shape of each magnetic material body comprises a polygonal prism shape, a cylindrical prism shape, a polygonal cone shape, a conical shape, or a combination thereof {Fig. 2}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsushita (‘599) with the teachings of Hirose (‘802) {use magnetic absorbing material with a certain shape (e.g. oblong rectangular pyramidal shape, wedge shape, etc. } to use magnetic absorbing material with a certain shape (e.g. oblong rectangular pyramidal shape, wedge shape, etc. Doing so would provide an electromagnetic wave absorber excellent in absorption characteristics for oblique incidence as well as normal so as to suit for designing a small-sized and high-performance anechoic chamber, as recognized by Hirose (‘802) {col.1 lines 6-8 (small-sized electromagnetic wave absorber having excellent absorbing performance for oblique incident angles as well as normal); col.2 lines 24-27 (provide an electromagnetic wave absorber excellent in absorption characteristics for oblique incidence as well as normal and Suited for designing a small-sized and high-performance anechoic chamber)}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claims 1 and 11, Matsushita (‘599) does not explicitly disclose that “polygonal shapes of the polygonal prism shape and the polygonal cone shape comprise a trigonal shape, a quadrilateral shape, a hexagonal shape, an octagonal shape, or a dodecagonal shape”. In the same field of endeavor, Hirose (‘802) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
polygonal shapes of the polygonal prism shape and the polygonal cone shape comprise a trigonal shape, a quadrilateral shape, a hexagonal shape, an octagonal shape, or a dodecagonal shape {Fig.2}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsushita (‘599) with the teachings of Hirose (‘802) {use magnetic absorbing material with a certain shape (e.g. oblong rectangular pyramidal shape, wedge shape, etc. } to use magnetic absorbing material with a certain shape (e.g. oblong rectangular pyramidal shape, wedge shape, etc. Doing so would provide an electromagnetic wave absorber excellent in absorption characteristics for oblique incidence as well as normal so as to suit for designing a small-sized and high-performance anechoic chamber, as recognized by Hirose (‘802) {col.1 lines 6-8 (small-sized electromagnetic wave absorber having excellent absorbing performance for oblique incident angles as well as normal); col.2 lines 24-27 (provide an electromagnetic wave absorber excellent in absorption characteristics for oblique incidence as well as normal and Suited for designing a small-sized and high-performance anechoic chamber)}.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (‘599) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US5,617,096, hereafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) does not explicitly disclose that “a pitch is provided between adjacent magnetic material bodies and conforms to:
PNG
media_image1.png
27
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where p is the pitch between adjacent magnetic material bodies, λFs is a wavelength of twice the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the magnetic material bodies, εs is a dielectric coefficient of the substrate, μs is a magnetic permeability coefficient of the substrate, and sp is 0.1 to 2”. In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi (‘096) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
a pitch is provided between adjacent magnetic material bodies and conforms to:
PNG
media_image1.png
27
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where p is the pitch between adjacent magnetic material bodies, λFs is a wavelength of twice the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the magnetic material bodies, εs is a dielectric coefficient of the substrate, μs is a magnetic permeability coefficient of the substrate, and sp is 0.1 to 2 { Col.10 lines 7-9 (When each of the magnetic members 2 shown in FIG. 10 is constructed as summarized below, the absorption characteristics of the wave absorber is as shown in FIG. 12), 23 ((Px, Py): 20 mm), 31-32 (Apparent relative permeability: about 3.3 Apparent relative dielectric constant: about 2.6); Examiner’s note: “twice the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the magnetic material bodies” is 1KMHz from Fig.12, which corresponds to λFs = 0.3m wavelength. Px=20mm satisfies
PNG
media_image1.png
27
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when sp=0.19, λFs = 0.3m, permeability=3.3, dielectric constant = 2.6.}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsushita (‘599) with the teachings of Takahashi (‘096) {design structure of absorber based on operation frequency and property of materials used (e.g. permeability, dielectric constant)} to design structure of absorber based on operation frequency and property of materials used (e.g. permeability, dielectric constant). Doing so would take account of operation frequency and properties of material used (e.g. power absorption, and reflection coefficient) in the design of absorber so as to meet required standard in absorber design, as recognized by Takahashi (‘096) {col.1 lines 9-10 (undesirable radiation (noise) from electronics apparatuses), 15-26 (a conductive metal plate for reflecting a radio wave, a sintered ferrite plate in the form of a tile mounted on the metal plate M. In the meantime, when the reflection coefficient at a surface of the wave absorber is represented by "s", the power absorption coefficient thereof is given 1-|s|2, Thus, the smaller the reflection coefficient Isl, the better becomes the absorber performance. Generally, an absorber having a reflection coefficient Isl of 0.1 or less is regarded as meeting with the standard. In other words, the standard requires that the return loss (-20 log s) should be 20 dB or more and the power absorption coefficient should be 0.99 or more)}.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (‘599) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nikawa et al. (US5,952,953 , hereafter Nikawa).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 1, Matsushita (‘599) does not explicitly disclose “dielectric coefficients of the plurality of magnetic material bodies range from 1 to 50”. In the same field of endeavor, Nikawa (‘953) discloses that in the electromagnetic wave absorber,
dielectric coefficients of the plurality of magnetic material bodies range from 1 to 50 {Fig.1}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsushita (‘599) with the teachings of Nikawa (‘953) {use materials with dielectric coefficients within a certain range (e.g. from 2 to 20) in absorber design} to use materials with dielectric coefficients within a certain range (e.g. from 2 to 20) in absorber design. Doing so would provide a light-weight, flexible wave absorber which is used for evaluation of electromagnetic wave radiation characteristics of an electronic device so as to prevent or suppress electromagnetic interference in electronic devices, as recognized by Nikawa (‘953) {col.1 lines 4-8 (light-weight, flexible wave absorber which is used for evaluation of electromagnetic wave radiation characteristics of an electronic device or for prevention or Suppression of electromagnetic interference in the electronic device.)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US5,275,880 Figs.1-2 discloses the limitations in claims 5-7, which further support the rejections of claims 5-7.
US5,275,880 also discloses that “a thickness of the substrate is 0.05 mm to 50 mm” { Col.8 lines 31-33 (layered absorber, 1.3 mm in thickness)}, which further support the rejections of claim 9.
US5,275,880 also discloses that “the electromagnetic wave characteristic frequency of the plurality of magnetic material bodies is 0.1 MHz to 1 THz” {col.7 lines 13-14 (absorption of transverse electric (TE) mode radiation, from 2 to 18 GHz }, which further support the rejections of claim 10.
US 4,023,174 Fig. 3 discloses the limitations of claims 11-12, which further support the rejections of claims 11-12.
WO2003056894 discloses that “a thickness of each magnetic material body is 0.01 mm to 50 mm” { Page 2 lines 8-9 from bottom (conventional electromagnetic wave absorbers made of sintered ferrite magnetic material, having a thickness of 5~8 mm) }, which further support the rejections of claim 13.
US 5853889 discloses that “dielectric coefficients of the plurality of magnetic material bodies range from 1 to 50” {Fig.7}, which further support the rejections of claim 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648