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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 4/3/26.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending and subject to examination at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-20 are 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 and referring to the chemical structure:
It is unclear what the circle means. Does is represent a compound? If yes, what is the compound(s)?
It is unclear what bond is between the two cyclohexanes. Is it a C-C bond?
It is unclear what compound(s) T represents.
The metes and bonds of the claim is not clear because it is unclear what chemical structure(s) is being claimed.
Claims 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 recite similar limitations so a similar rejection applies.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 3608061 B2 (e.g. See attached machine translation at page 11 disclosing “It is well known to those skilled in the art that “a compound having a large refractive index anisotropy contains many π bonds, that is, a compound having a benzene ring, a double bond, and a triple bond in the molecule”. That is, a compound composed only of a cyclohexane ring and a saturated alkyl group has an extremely small refractive index anisotropy value.”)
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyoshi et al., US Publication No. 2016/0326311 A1 in view of Cho et al., US Publication No. 2016/0154157 A1, Andou et al., US Patent No. 6,319,570 B1, Nakata et al., US Publication No. 2004/0021128 A1 and Takatsu, EP 0825176 A1.
Motoyoshi teaches:
8. A polarization film, comprising (see fig. 1):
a first wavelength dispersion layer (4);
a polarization layer (1) disposed on (e.g. on top of) the first wavelength dispersion layer (4; and
a second wavelength (2) dispersion layer disposed on (e.g. on the bottom of) the polarization layer (1), wherein
a wavelength dispersion of the second wavelength dispersion layer (2) satisfies both Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2:
[Relational Expression 1] 0.81<DSP 450 nm=R 450 nm/R 550 nm<0.83,
[Relational Expression 2] 1.15<DSP 650 nm=R 650 nm/R 550 nm<1.17, and in Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2, R(λ) denotes a phase difference value in wavelength, λ is wavelength in nanometers nm and DSP(λ) is dispersion at wavelength,… (e.g. See Relational Expressions at para. [0084] – [0089]). See Motoyoshi at para. [0001] – [0143].
Regarding claim 8:
Motoyoshi discloses Relational Expressions that overlap the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Motoyoshi does not expressly teach:
wherein at least the first wavelength dispersion layer includes nematic liquid crystals having a general structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
146
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein terminal group includes groups chosen from alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, or alkenyloxy having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, wherein the linkage group includes toluene, ester ethylene, C-C bond, OCH2, or CH2n.where n may be 1 to 20,
In an analogous art, Cho teaches a wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. quarter wave film) may be made of nematic liquid crystal materials at para. [0066].
In an analogous art, Andou teaches nematic liquid crystals having the general structure recited in claim 1 (see annotated equation (8-3) at col 58):
PNG
media_image3.png
297
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
3
Further regarding claim 8:
Motoyoshi does not expressly teach:
wherein the central group affects the refractive index value and the refractive anisotropy characteristics, and the T group affects polarity.
These limitations are properties of the material. Because Ando discloses the chemical structure, the claimed properties are necessarily present. See MPEP 2122:
“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, in an analogous art, Nakata teaches compounds comprising the claimed central group (e.g. equation (V-c) at col 22) affects the refractive index value and the refractive anisotropy characteristics. See Nakata at para. [0187], [0191], [0198].
Furthermore, in an analogous art, Takatsu teaches the T group affects polarity in the disclosure “At least one of the terminal groups positioned at both ends is a polar group such as -CN, -OCN, -NCS, -F, -Cl, -NO2, -CF3, -OCF3 and -OCHF2”. See Takatsu at page 21, lines 10-20.
Motoyoshi further teaches:
9. The polarization film of claim 8, wherein a wavelength dispersion of the first wavelength dispersion layer (4) satisfies one of Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2, para. [0084] – [0089].
Regarding claims 1 and 2:
Motoyoshi teaches the limitations as applied to claims 8 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 3
Cho teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Motoyoshi with the teachings of Cho to form “the second wavelength dispersion layer include nematic liquid crystals” because nematic liquid crystal materials is an art recognized material suitable to form a wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. quarter wave film).
Regarding claims 4-6:
Motoyoshi teaches the limitations as applied to claims 8 and 9 above.
Regarding claims 7 and 10:
Cho teaches the limitations as applied to claim 3 above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Motoyoshi with the teachings of Cho to form “the first wavelength dispersion layer to include nematic liquid crystals” because nematic liquid crystal materials is an art recognized material suitable to form a wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. quarter wave film). It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Motoyoshi with the teachings of Andou to “…provide liquid crystalline compounds which have a low viscosity, high negative dielectric anisotropy, high resistivity, and high voltage holding ratio, and are stable against heat and ultraviolet light”. See Ando at Abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Motoyoshi with the teachings of Nakata for “…increasing helical twisting power (HTP) in an optically active compound”. See Nakata at para. [0002] – [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Motoyoshi with the teachings of Takatsu because “In this arrangement, the optical anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer can he adjusted to a predetermined value that can render the liquid crystal device electrically drivable and operable in a broader temperature range.” See Takatsu at page 21, lines 10-20.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al., US Publication No. 2020/0025989 A1 in view of Cho et al., US Publication No. 2016/0154157 A1, Andou et al., US Patent No. 6,319,570 B1, Nakata et al., US Publication No. 2004/0021128 A1 and Takatsu, EP 0825176 A1.
Mukai anticipates:
4. A polarization film, comprising:
a first wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. See para. [0123] “a film according to an embodiment of the present invention” corresponding to “Wavelength Dispersion film” at para. [0089]); and
a polarization layer (e.g. See para. [0123] “polarizer”) that is disposed on the first wavelength dispersion layer, wherein
a wavelength dispersion of the first wavelength dispersion layer satisfies one of Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2:
[Relational Expression 1] 0.81<DSP 450 nm=R 450 nm/R 550 nm<0.83 (e.g. See para. [0123], “Re(450)/Re(550) of the film is…particularly preferably 0.81 to 0.83),
[Relational Expression 2] 1.15<DSP 650 nm=R 650 nm/R 550 nm<1.17, and
in Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2, n
Regarding claim 1:
Mukai does not expressly teach:
wherein at least the first wavelength dispersion layer includes nematic liquid crystals having a general structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
146
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein terminal group includes groups chosen from alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, or alkenyloxy having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, wherein the linkage group includes toluene, ester ethylene, C-C bond, OCH2, or CH2n.where n may be 1 to 20,
In an analogous art, Cho teaches a wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. quarter wave film) may be made of nematic liquid crystal materials at para. [0066].
In an analogous art, Andou teaches nematic liquid crystals having the general structure recited in claim 1 (see annotated equation (8-3) at col 58):
PNG
media_image3.png
297
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
3
Further regarding claim 1:
Mukai does not expressly teach:
wherein the central group affects the refractive index value and the refractive anisotropy characteristics, and the T group affects polarity.
These limitations are properties of the material. Because Ando discloses the chemical structure, the claimed properties are necessarily present. See MPEP 2122:
“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, in an analogous art, Nakata teaches compounds comprising the claimed central group (e.g. equation (V-c) at col 22) affects the refractive index value and the refractive anisotropy characteristics. See Nakata at para. [0187], [0191], [0198].
Furthermore, in an analogous art, Takatsu teaches the T group affects polarity in the disclosure “At least one of the terminal groups positioned at both ends is a polar group such as -CN, -OCN, -NCS, -F, -Cl, -NO2, -CF3, -OCF3 and -OCHF2”. See Takatsu at page 21, lines 10-20.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mukai with the teachings of Cho to form “the first wavelength dispersion layer to include nematic liquid crystals” because nematic liquid crystal materials is an art recognized material suitable to form a wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. quarter wave film). It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mukai with the teachings of Andou to “…provide liquid crystalline compounds which have a low viscosity, high negative dielectric anisotropy, high resistivity, and high voltage holding ratio, and are stable against heat and ultraviolet light”. See Ando at Abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mukai with the teachings of Nakata for “…increasing helical twisting power (HTP) in an optically active compound”. See Nakata at para. [0002] – [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mukai with the teachings of Takatsu because “In this arrangement, the optical anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer can he adjusted to a predetermined value that can render the liquid crystal device electrically drivable and operable in a broader temperature range.” See Takatsu at page 21, lines 10-20.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al., US Publication No. 2017/0373028 A1 in view of Motoyoshi et al., US Publication No. 2016/0326311 A1, Cho et al., US Publication No. 2016/0154157 A1, Andou et al., US Patent No. 6,319,570 B1, Nakata et al., US Publication No. 2004/0021128 A1 and Takatsu, EP 0825176 A1.
Ryu teaches:
18. A display device, comprising (see fig. 3):
a substrate (301);
a light-emitting element (OLED) disposed on the substrate;
a thin film encapsulation layer (317) disposed on the light-emitting element; and
a polarization film (319) disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer,… See Ryu at para. [0073] – [0102].
Regarding claim 18:
Ryu does not expressly teach:
the polarization film comprising:
a first wavelength dispersion layer;
a polarization layer that is disposed on the first wavelength dispersion layer; and
a second wavelength dispersion layer that is disposed on the polarization layer, wherein
a wavelength dispersion of the second wavelength dispersion layer satisfies both Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2:
[Relational Expression 1] 0.81<DSP 450 nm=R 450 nm/R 550 nm<0.83,
[Relational Expression 2] 1.15<DSP 650 nm=R 650 nm/R 550 nm<1.17, and
in Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2, R(λ) denotes a phase difference value in wavelength, λ is wavelength in nanometers nm and DSP(λ) is dispersion at wavelength,…
Motoyoshi teaches the limitations as applied to claims 8 and 9 above.
Ryu does not expressly teach:
wherein at least the first wavelength dispersion layer includes nematic liquid crystals having a general structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
146
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein terminal group includes groups chosen from alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, or alkenyloxy having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, wherein the linkage group includes toluene, ester ethylene, C-C bond, OCH2, or CH2n.where n may be 1 to 20,
Choi and Ando teach the limitations as applied to claims 8 and 9 above.
Ryu does not expressly teach:
wherein the central group affects the refractive index value and the refractive anisotropy characteristics, and the T group affects polarity.
Nakata and Takatsu teach the limitations as applied to claims 8 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Motoyoshi teaches the limitations as applied to claims 8 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Motoyoshi further teaches:
20. The display device of claim 18, wherein the first wavelength dispersion layer (4) is disposed closer to the substrate (e.g. In fig. 1, layer 4 is at the bottom of the stack.) than the second wavelength dispersion layer (2).
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
Ryu, Motoyoshi, Cho, Ando, Nakata and Takatsu teach the limitations as applied to claims 8, 9 and 18 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Ryu teaches:
13. The display device of claim 11, wherein the thin film encapsulation layer (317) has a multi-layered structure of three or more layers, para. [0101], fig. 3.
Regarding claim 14:
Motoyoshi teaches the limitations as applied to claim 20 above.
Regarding claims 15-17:
Ryu, Motoyoshi, Cho, Ando, Nakata and Takatsu teach the limitations as applied to claims 8, 9 and 18 above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Motoyoshi because ” The optical film exhibits desired wavelength dispersibility through stretching process and enables broadening of the bandwidth by itself. Thus it is highly useful as an optical film for liquid crystal display devices, organic EL displays and the like.” See Motoyoshi at para. [0021], also see para. [0012] – [0013].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Choi to form “the first wavelength dispersion layer to include nematic liquid crystals” because nematic liquid crystal materials is an art recognized material suitable to form a wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. quarter wave film). It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Andou to “…provide liquid crystalline compounds which have a low viscosity, high negative dielectric anisotropy, high resistivity, and high voltage holding ratio, and are stable against heat and ultraviolet light”. See Ando at Abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Nakata for “…increasing helical twisting power (HTP) in an optically active compound”. See Nakata at para. [0002] – [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Takatsu because “In this arrangement, the optical anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer can he adjusted to a predetermined value that can render the liquid crystal device electrically drivable and operable in a broader temperature range.” See Takatsu at page 21, lines 10-20.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al., US Publication No. 2017/0373028 A1 in view of Mukai et al., US Publication No. 2020/0025989 A1, Cho et al., US Publication No. 2016/0154157 A1, Andou et al., US Patent No. 6,319,570 B1, Nakata et al., US Publication No. 2004/0021128 A1 and Takatsu, EP 0825176 A1.
Ryu teaches:
15. A display device, comprising (see fig. 3):
a substrate (301);
a light-emitting element (OLED) disposed on the substrate;
a thin film encapsulation layer (317) disposed on the light-emitting element; and
a polarization film (319) disposed on the thin film encapsulation layer,… See Ryu at para. [0073] – [0102].
Ryu does not expressly teach:
the polarization film comprising:
a first wavelength dispersion layer; and
a polarization layer that is disposed on the first wavelength dispersion layer, wherein
a wavelength dispersion of the first wavelength dispersion layer satisfies on of Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2:
[Relational Expression 1] 0.81<DSP 450 nm=R 450 nm/R 550 nm<0.83,
[Relational Expression 2] 1.15<DSP 650 nm=R 650 nm/R 550 nm<1.17, and
in Relational Expression 1 and Relational Expression 2, R(λ) denotes a phase difference value in wavelength, λ is wavelength in nanometers nm and DSP(λ) is dispersion at wavelength,…
Mukai teaches the limitations as applied to claim 4 above.
Ryu does not expressly teach:
wherein at least the first wavelength dispersion layer includes nematic liquid crystals having a general structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
146
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein terminal group includes groups chosen from alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, or alkenyloxy having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, wherein the linkage group includes toluene, ester ethylene, C-C bond, OCH2, or CH2n.where n may be 1 to 20,
Choi and Ando teach the limitations as applied to claim 4 above.
Ryu does not expressly teach:
wherein the central group affects the refractive index value and the refractive anisotropy characteristics, and the T group affects polarity.
Nakata and Takatsu teach the limitations as applied to claim 4 above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Mukai to achieve “…a novel phase difference film having a good coefficient of linear thermal expansion, a good water absorption rate and a low photoelastic coefficient, and further a novel phase difference film having a high heat resistance.” See Mukai at para. [0009], also see para. [0191].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Cho to form “the first wavelength dispersion layer to include nematic liquid crystals” because nematic liquid crystal materials is an art recognized material suitable to form a wavelength dispersion layer (e.g. quarter wave film). It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Andou to “…provide liquid crystalline compounds which have a low viscosity, high negative dielectric anisotropy, high resistivity, and high voltage holding ratio, and are stable against heat and ultraviolet light”. See Ando at Abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Nakata for “…increasing helical twisting power (HTP) in an optically active compound”. See Nakata at para. [0002] – [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Takatsu because “In this arrangement, the optical anisotropy of the liquid crystal layer can he adjusted to a predetermined value that can render the liquid crystal device electrically drivable and operable in a broader temperature range.” See Takatsu at page 21, lines 10-20.
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 Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
3 June 2026
Prosecution Insights