DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 04/19/2026) with respect to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-22 have been considered, but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 14 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 14 and 22 should read “wherein the second active diluent is selected from”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP H11305010 A) in view of Budnaitis et al. (US 6184589 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an anti-glare layer (claim 1, “anti-glare film”) comprising:
a substrate (claim 1, “transparent substrate film”; Fig. 1, 12);
an anti-glare sub-layer (claim 1, “anti-glare layer”; Fig. 1, 18) disposed on a side of the substrate (claim 1, “anti-glare layer…is laminated on at least one surface of a transparent substrate film”; Fig. 1, 18 is disposed on a side of 12); and
a hardened sub-layer (claim 2, “low refractive index layer”; Fig. 1, 20; [0129] and [0164] discuss hardness) disposed on a side of the anti-glare sub-layer away from the substrate (Fig. 1, 20 is disposed on a side of 18 away from 12);
wherein the anti-glare sub-layer comprises a first resin matrix (Fig. 1, 18 comprises 16) and composite particulates dispersed in the first resin matrix ([0058], “16 contains fine particles”), and the composite particulates comprise metal oxide particulates ([0058], “16 contains…ZrO2”); and
wherein the metal oxide particulates are zirconia ([0058], ZrO2), and a difference between a refractive index of the composite particulates and a refractive index of the first resin matrix is greater than 0.25 ([0058], 2.05 – 1.5 = 0.55).
Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose a titanate-based compound connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates, wherein the titanate-based compound is formed from diisopropoxy-bisethylacetoacetatotitanate.
However, Budnaitis teaches treating ZrO2 with coupling agents (column 13 lines 18-36), and discloses wherein “[t]itanate coupling agents are exemplified by…Tyzor® DC” (column 13 lines 42-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Suzuki and Budnaitis such that a titanate based compound was connected to a surface of the metal oxide particles, wherein the titanate-based compound was formed from diisopropoxy-bisethylacetoacetatotitanate, motivated by rendering ZrO2 more reactive to a matrix (column 13 lines 30-33).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Suzuki discloses wherein the composite particulates have a diameter greater than or equal to 3 micrometers and less than or equal to 5 micrometers (Suzuki - [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Suzuki discloses wherein a refractive index of the titanate-based coupling agent is greater than 1.45. (per https://web.archive.org/web/20151107223816/https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB3270530.htm, diisopropoxy-bisethylacetoacetatotitanate has a refractive index of 1.518)
Regarding claim 6, modified Suzuki discloses wherein the composite particulates have a refractive index greater than 1.75 (Suzuki - [0058], “ZrO2 (refractive index: 2.05)”), and the difference between the refractive index of the composite particulates and the refractive index of the first resin matrix is less than 1 (Suzuki - [0058], 2.05 – 1.5 = 0.55).
Regarding claim 8, modified Suzuki discloses wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first active diluent (Suzuki - [0045]) and a first photoinitiator (Suzuki - [0046] and [0084]);
wherein the first active diluent is selected from at least one of trimethylolethane tri(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, (meth)acrylic triglyceride, pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate (Suzuki - [0045]), di(trimethylol propane) tri(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate, tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate, tricyclodecanedimethanol diacrylate, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate; and
wherein the first photoinitiator is selected from at least one of 4-phenoxydichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyldichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyltrichloroacetophenone, diethoxyacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, 1-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-propanone, 1-(4-dodecylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 4-(2-hydroxyethoxy)-phenyl(2-hydroxy-2-propyl)ketone, 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone (Suzuki - [0084]), benzoin, benzoin methyl ether, benzoin ethyl ether, benzyl dimethyl ketal, acyl phosphine oxide, a titanocene compound, benzophenone (Suzuki - [0046]), benzoyl benzoic acid, benzoyl benzoic acid methyl ether, 4-benzoylbiphenyl, hydroxybenzophenone, 4-benzoyl-4’-methyldiphenylsulfide, 3,3’-dimethyl-4-methoxybenzophenone, thioxanthone (Suzuki - [0046]), 2-chlorothiotonone, 2-methylthioxenone, 2,4-dimethylthioxenone, and isopropylthioxine.
Regarding claim 9, modified Suzuki discloses wherein the first resin matrix further comprises a first resin (Suzuki - [0044]-[0047]).
Modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein based upon 100 parts by weight of the first resin in the anti-glare sub-layer, the composite particulates are present in an amount ranging from 1 to 10 parts by weight, the first active diluent is present in an amount ranging from 5 to 20 parts by weight, and the first photoinitiator is present in an amount ranging from 1 to 10 parts by weight.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of optical design includes manipulation of variables such as amounts of materials used, indexes of refraction, distances between optical components, and other concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amounts of composite particulates / active diluent / photoinitiator of modified Suzuki such that the above ratio was satisfied, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the amount(s) of composite particulates / active diluent / photoinitiator such that the ratio was satisfied, motivated by balancing anti-glare characteristics of the system.
Regarding claim 14, modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, and the second resin matrix comprises a second active diluent and a second photoinitiator;
wherein the first active diluent is selected from at least one of trimethylolethane tri(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, (meth)acrylic triglyceride, pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, di(trimethylol propane) tri(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate, tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate, tricyclodecanedimethanol diacrylate, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate; and
wherein the second photoinitiator is selected from at least one of 4-phenoxydichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyldichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyltrichloroacetophenone, diethoxyacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, 1-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-propanone, 1-(4-dodecylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 4-(2-hydroxyethoxy)-phenyl(2-hydroxy-2-propyl)ketone, 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone, benzoin, benzoin methyl ether, benzoin ethyl ether, benzyl dimethyl ketal, acyl phosphine oxide, a titanocene compound, benzophenone, benzoyl benzoic acid, benzoyl benzoic acid methyl ether, 4-benzoylbiphenyl, hydroxybenzophenone, 4-benzoyl-4’-methyldiphenylsulfide, 3,3’-dimethyl-4-methoxybenzophenone, thioxanthone, 2-chlorothiotonone, 2-methylthioxenone, 2,4-dimethylthioxenone, and isopropylthioxine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the device such that the hardened sub-layer was to comprise a second resin matrix and the second resin matrix was to comprise a second active diluent and a second photoinitiator, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977), in order to harden the device.
Regarding claim 15, modified Suzuki discloses wherein the second resin matrix further comprises a second resin (rejection of claim 14).
Modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein based upon 100 parts by weight of the second resin in the hardened sub-layer, the second active diluent is present in an amount ranging from 5 to 10 parts by weight, and the second photoinitiator is present in an amount ranging from 1 to 10 parts by weight.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of optical design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, distances between optical components, materials used, and other concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amounts of second active diluent / second photoinitiator of modified Suzuki such that the above ratio was satisfied, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the amount(s) of second active diluent / second photoinitiator such that the ratio was satisfied, motivated by balancing anti-glare characteristics of the system.
Regarding claim 17, modified Suzuki discloses wherein a thickness of the anti-glare sub-layer is greater than or equal to 1 micrometer and less than or equal to 10 micrometers (Suzuki - [0137], 3-4 μm).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki discloses a display device ([0001], present invention relates to a display device using an antiglare film”) comprising a display panel ([0167]) and an anti-glare layer (claim 1, “anti-glare film”) disposed on a light output side of the display panel ([0026]-[0027] and [0167]), wherein the anti-glare layer comprises:
a substrate (claim 1, “transparent substrate film”; Fig. 1, 12);
an anti-glare sub-layer (claim 1, “anti-glare layer”; Fig. 1, 18) disposed on a side of the substrate (claim 1, “anti-glare layer…is laminated on at least one surface of a transparent substrate film”; Fig. 1, 18 is disposed on a side of 12); and
a hardened sub-layer (claim 2, “low refractive index layer”; Fig. 1, 20; [0129] and [0164] discuss hardness) disposed on a side of the anti-glare sub-layer away from the substrate (Fig. 1, 20 is disposed on a side of 18 away from 12);
wherein the anti-glare sub-layer comprises a first resin matrix (Fig. 1, 18 comprises 16) and composite particulates dispersed in the first resin matrix ([0058], “16 contains fine particles”), and the composite particulates comprise metal oxide particulates ([0058], “16 contains…ZrO2”); and
wherein the metal oxide particulates are zirconia ([0058], ZrO2), and a difference between a refractive index of the composite particulates and a refractive index of the first resin matrix is greater than 0.25 ([0058], 2.05 – 1.5 = 0.55).
Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose a titanate-based compound connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates, wherein the titanate-based compound is formed from diisopropoxy-bisethylacetoacetatotitanate.
However, Budnaitis teaches treating ZrO2 with coupling agents (column 13 lines 18-36), and discloses wherein “[t]itanate coupling agents are exemplified by…Tyzor® DC” (column 13 lines 42-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Suzuki and Budnaitis such that a titanate based compound was connected to a surface of the metal oxide particles, wherein the titanate-based compound was formed from diisopropoxy-bisethylacetoacetatotitanate, motivated by rendering ZrO2 more reactive to a matrix (column 13 lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 19, modified Suzuki discloses wherein the anti-glare layer is attached to the light output side of the display panel (Suzuki - Fig. 1 & [0026]-[0027]).
6. Claims 10-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Budnaitis, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20080255264 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first resin formed by cross-linking a nine functional polyurethane.
However, Hong teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a first resin is formed by cross-linking ([0016]) a nine functional polyurethane ([0039], EBECRYL 1290).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Hong such that a first resin matrix was to comprise a first resin formed by cross-linking a nine functional polyurethane, motivated by hardening the device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first resin formed by cross-linking of a first compound represented by the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hong teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a first resin is formed by cross-linking ([0016]) of a first compound represented by the above structure ([0039], EBECRYL 1290).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Hong such that a first resin matrix was to comprise a first resin formed by cross-linking EBECRYL 1290, motivated by hardening the device.
Regarding claim 21, modified Suzuki discloses wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first resin (Suzuki - [0044]-[0047]), a first active diluent (Suzuki - [0045]) and a first photoinitiator (Suzuki - [0046] and [0084]),
wherein the first active diluent is selected from at least one of trimethylolethane tri(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, (meth)acrylic triglyceride, pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate (Suzuki - [0045]), di(trimethylol propane) tri(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate, tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate, tricyclodecanedimethanol diacrylate, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate; and
wherein the first photoinitiator is selected from at least one of 4-phenoxydichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyldichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyltrichloroacetophenone, diethoxyacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, 1-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-propanone, 1-(4-dodecylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 4-(2-hydroxyethoxy)-phenyl(2-hydroxy-2-propyl)ketone, 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone (Suzuki - [0084]), benzoin, benzoin methyl ether, benzoin ethyl ether, benzyl dimethyl ketal, acyl phosphine oxide, a titanocene compound, benzophenone (Suzuki - [0046]), benzoyl benzoic acid, benzoyl benzoic acid methyl ether, 4-benzoylbiphenyl, hydroxybenzophenone, 4-benzoyl-4’-methyldiphenylsulfide, 3,3’-dimethyl-4-methoxybenzophenone, thioxanthone (Suzuki - [0046]), 2-chlorothiotonone, 2-methylthioxenone, 2,4-dimethylthioxenone, and isopropylthioxine.
Modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first resin formed by cross-linking of a first compound represented by the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hong teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a first resin is formed by cross-linking ([0016]) of a first compound represented by the above structure ([0039], EBECRYL 1290).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Hong such that a first resin matrix was to comprise a first resin formed by cross-linking EBECRYL 1290, motivated by hardening the device.
7. Claims 12-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Budnaitis, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (KR 101791452 B1, of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, and the second resin matrix comprises a second resin formed by cross-linking a fifteen functional polyurethane.
However, Yamazaki teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a hardened layer comprises a resin formed by cross-linking a fifteen functional polyurethane (Fig. 5 & [0133]-[0135], EBECRYL 8301).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Yamazaki such that the hardened sub-layer was to comprise a second resin matrix, the second resin matrix comprising a second resin formed by cross-linking a fifteen functional polyurethane, motivated by hardening the device.
Regarding claim 13, modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, wherein the second resin matrix comprises a second resin formed by cross-linking a second compound represented by the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
542
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Yamazaki teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a hardened layer comprises a resin formed by cross-linking a second compound represented by the above structure (Fig. 5 & [0133]-[0135], EBECRYL 8301).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Yamazaki such that the hardened sub-layer was to comprise a second resin matrix, the second resin matrix comprising a second resin formed by cross-linking of EBECRYL 8301, motivated by hardening the device.
Regarding claim 22, modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, wherein the second resin matrix comprises a second resin, a second active diluent, and a second photoinitiator;
wherein the first active diluent is selected from at least one of trimethylolethane tri(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, (meth)acrylic triglyceride, pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, di(trimethylol propane) tri(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate, tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate, tricyclodecanedimethanol diacrylate, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate; and
wherein the second photoinitiator is selected from at least one of 4-phenoxydichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyldichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyltrichloroacetophenone, diethoxyacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, 1-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-propanone, 1-(4-dodecylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 4-(2-hydroxyethoxy)-phenyl(2-hydroxy-2-propyl)ketone, 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone, benzoin, benzoin methyl ether, benzoin ethyl ether, benzyl dimethyl ketal, acyl phosphine oxide, a titanocene compound, benzophenone, benzoyl benzoic acid, benzoyl benzoic acid methyl ether, 4-benzoylbiphenyl, hydroxybenzophenone, 4-benzoyl-4’-methyldiphenylsulfide, 3,3’-dimethyl-4-methoxybenzophenone, thioxanthone, 2-chlorothiotonone, 2-methylthioxenone, 2,4-dimethylthioxenone, and isopropylthioxine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the device such that the hardened sub-layer was to comprise a second resin matrix and the second resin matrix was to comprise a second active diluent and a second photoinitiator, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977), in order to harden the device.
Modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the second resin is formed by cross-linking a second compound represented by the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
542
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Yamazaki teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a hardened layer comprises a resin formed by cross-linking a second compound represented by the above structure (Fig. 5 & [0133]-[0135], EBECRYL 8301).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Yamazaki such that the hardened sub-layer was to comprise a second resin matrix, the second resin matrix comprising a second resin formed by cross-linking of EBECRYL 8301, motivated by hardening the device.
8. Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Budnaitis, and further in view of Asakura et al. (US 8208197 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 16, modified Suzuki discloses wherein a haze of the anti-glare layer is greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 65% ([0032]).
Modified Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein a pencil hardness of the anti-glare layer is greater than or equal to 4H.
However, Asakura teaches a similar optical device (Abstract) comprising a resin matrix (column 24 line 25) and metal oxide particulates (column 5 lines 38-41 of reference US-6696140-B2, whose Japanese counterpart JP-A-2000-338310 is cited in column 24 line 28 of Asakura), and discloses wherein a pencil hardness of an anti-glare layer is greater than or equal to 4H (column 21 lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Asakura such that a pencil hardness of the anti-glare layer was greater than or equal to 4H, motivated by hardening the device.
Regarding claim 20, modified Suzuki discloses a polarizer disposed on the light output side of the display panel (Suzuki - Fig. 8, 30).
Modified Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the anti-glare layer is attached to a side of the polarizer away from the display panel.
However, Asakura teaches a similar optical device (Abstract) comprising a resin matrix (column 24 line 25) and metal oxide particulates (column 5 lines 38-41 of reference US-6696140-B2, whose Japanese counterpart JP-A-2000-338310 is cited in column 24 line 28 of Asakura), and discloses wherein an anti-glare layer is attached to a side of a polarizer away from a display panel (column 33 lines 58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Suzuki and Asakura such that the anti-glare layer was attached to a side of the polarizer away from the display panel, motivated by protecting the polarizer (Asakura - column 33 lines 58-59).
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights