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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 12-19 in the reply filed on 11/26/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both groups of claims are directed to the same statutory class of invention-a glass-based flexible cover window for a foldable display-and share the identical core inventive concept; and, no serious search or examination burden exists that would justify restriction since both groups fall within the same field of search-flexible glass-based cover windows. This is found persuasive.
The restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 10/22/25 is hereby withdrawn.
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 1-31 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.
The phrase “improved strength and surface hardness” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “improved strength and surface hardness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, e.g., the necessary strength and surface hardness of the glass-based flexible cover window to be considered improved.
Claims 3, 6-8, and 12-19 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
The phrase “improved strength and surface hardness” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “improved strength and surface hardness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, e.g., the necessary strength and surface hardness of the glass-based flexible cover window to be considered improved.
Claims 4, 5, 9-11, and 20-31 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 2.
Claims 4 and 5 fail to take into account the structure of the embossed or engraved uneven pattern, e.g., an embossed or engraved uneven pattern would create thickness variations, so it would have been unclear to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of invention at what location the planar portion and the folding portion of the glass substrate have the same thickness with regard to the embossed or engraved uneven pattern also existing on the glass substrate.
Claims 9, 10, 21, 29, and 30 fail to take into account the structure of the embossed or engraved uneven pattern, e.g., an embossed or engraved uneven pattern would create thickness variations, so it would have been unclear to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of invention at what location the thickness of the folding portion is less than a thickness of the planar portion of the glass substrate have the same thickness with regard to the inclined portion and embossed or engraved uneven pattern also existing on the glass substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2022/0140263 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 13, 16, and 17, Liu teaches a glass-based flexible cover window (e.g., reinforcement layer) with improved strength and surface hardness comprising a planar portion formed so as to correspond to a planar region of a flexible display and a folding portion formed so as to be connected to the planar portion, the folding portion being formed so as to correspond to a folding region of the flexible display (para 40, 70-74, 81-82; fig 1, 6a).
Liu further teaches the reinforcement layer comprises a first optical clear adhesive layer (e.g., elastic buffer layer), a first colorless polyimide layer or ultra-thin film on a side of the first optical clear adhesive layer, a second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive resin buffer layer) on a side of the first colorless polyimide layer, and a second colorless polyimide layer (i.e., protective film layer) on a side of the second optical clear adhesive layer; the reinforcement layer further comprises a hard coating layer on a side of the second colorless polyimide layer distal to the flexible substrate; and the reinforcement layer is a laminated layer of the glass and PI. (para 21, 25, 62).
With regard to the limitation “a flat glass substrate;” Liu teaches that ultra-thin glass layers are structural equivalents to polyimide films in that of the reinforcement layer and flexible substrates may comprise glass substrates (para 24, 79, 101); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute ultra-thin glass for the first polyimide layer or ultra-thin film in the reinforcement layer, therein creating a flat glass substrate; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation “the adhesive buffer layer and the protective film layer are alternately stacked at least n times (where n is a natural number equal to or greater than 1);” one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely duplicating the second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive buffer layer) and the second colorless polyimide layer to arrive at this embodiment; and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B). This would come with the additional motivation that more layers would provide greater reinforcement or protection.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the planar portion and the folding portion of the glass substrate have the same thickness (figs 1-6b).
Regarding claims 6-8, the limitations of the instant claims would be considered that of a change in shape. It is noted that change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the reinforcement layer of Liu with the dimensions (i.e., shapes of the glass substrate) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention. Furthermore, adjusting the shape of or in the folding portion the glass substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention with the motivation of allowing or optimizing the ability of the glass substrate to provide protection while being able to properly fold while handling the additional stress and fatigue of being repeatedly folded.
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the films of a uniform thickness and composition (para 24-26, 52-54; figs 1-6b) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of a uniform reinforcement layer, i.e., wherein a strength of the protective film layer at the planar portion and a strength of the protective film layer at the folding portion are equal to each other.
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches the above flexible display module provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure, the thickness of the reinforcement layer 400 ranges from 10 μm to 150 μm (para 52); so each layer of the overall reinforcement layer would have thicknesses of less than these ranger limitations. These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Liu, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 18 and specifically the limitations wherein when the adhesive buffer layer and the protective film layer are alternately stacked at least n+1 times in a stacking direction, compositions of n-th and (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layers are identical to each other, and compositions of n-th and (n+1)-th protective film layers are identical to each other (where n is a natural number equal to or greater than 1); one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely duplicating the second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive buffer layer) and the second colorless polyimide layer to arrive at this embodiment; and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B). This would come with the additional motivation that more layers would provide greater reinforcement or protection.
Regarding the limitation “or different from” is an optional limitation and need not be taught by the prior art of Liu.
Regarding claim 19, and specifically the limitations wherein when the adhesive buffer layer and the protective film layer are alternately stacked at least n+1 times in a stacking direction and (where n is a natural number equal to or greater than 1); one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely duplicating the second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive buffer layer) and the second colorless polyimide layer to arrive at this embodiment; and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
The limitations a thickness of an n-th adhesive buffer layer is less than a thickness of an (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layer, and a thickness of an n-th protective film layer is less than a thickness of an (n+1)-th protective film layer would be considered that of a change in size. It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the reinforcement layer of Liu with the dimensions (i.e., thicknesses of the n-th and (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layer and protective film layer) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention. Furthermore, adjusting the thicknesses of the n-th and (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layer and protective film layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention with the motivation of allowing or optimizing the ability of the layers to provide protection while being able to properly fold while handling the additional stress and fatigue of being repeatedly folded.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9-11, and 20-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2022/0140263 A1) in view of Yoo (US 2010/0105442 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 22, 23, 26, 31, Liu teaches a glass-based flexible cover window (e.g., reinforcement layer) with improved strength and surface hardness comprising a planar portion formed so as to correspond to a planar region of a flexible display and a folding portion formed so as to be connected to the planar portion, the folding portion being formed so as to correspond to a folding region of the flexible display (para 40, 70-74, 81-82; fig 1, 6a).
Liu further teaches the reinforcement layer comprises a first optical clear adhesive layer (e.g., elastic buffer layer), a first colorless polyimide layer or ultra-thin film on a side of the first optical clear adhesive layer, a second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive resin buffer layer) on a side of the first colorless polyimide layer, and a second colorless polyimide layer (i.e., protective film layer) on a side of the second optical clear adhesive layer; the reinforcement layer further comprises a hard coating layer on a side of the second colorless polyimide layer distal to the flexible substrate; and the reinforcement layer is a laminated layer of the glass and PI. (para 21, 25, 62).
With regard to the limitation “a flat glass substrate;” Liu teaches that ultra-thin glass layers are structural equivalents to polyimide films in that of the reinforcement layer and flexible substrates may comprise glass substrates (para 24, 79, 101); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute ultra-thin glass for the first polyimide layer or ultra-thin film in the reinforcement layer, therein creating a flat glass substrate; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation “the adhesive buffer layer and the protective film layer are alternately stacked at least n times (where n is a natural number equal to or greater than 1);” one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely duplicating the second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive buffer layer) and the second colorless polyimide layer to arrive at this embodiment; and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B). This would come with the additional motivation that more layers would provide greater reinforcement or protection.
Liu fails to suggest a glass substrate having an embossed or engraved uneven pattern formed thereat.
Yoo teach displays (e.g., touch displays or flexible displays) with an overlay glass layer; wherein a plurality of numerals, characters, and symbols may be engraved on the glass layer (para 37, 38, 63, 68, 138; figs 2, 7c).
Therefore, per the teachings of Yoo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to engrave the glass substrate of Liu to display a plurality of numerals, characters, and symbols such as a logo, brand name, or trademark and/or numerals for dial function and/or characters and/or symbols for device function.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Liu teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the planar portion and the folding portion of the glass substrate have the same thickness (figs 1-6b); and Yoo teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the engraved uneven pattern is formed at the front surface (para 37, 38, 63, 68, 138; figs 2, 7c). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the engravings of Yoo to indicate the folding area of the glass substrate and therein the folding display on which it is used (i.e., the engraved uneven pattern is formed at the folding portion of the glass substrate).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Yoo teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the engraved uneven pattern is formed at the front surface (para 37, 38, 63, 68, 138; figs 2, 7c). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the engravings of Yoo to indicate the folding area of the glass substrate and therein the folding display on which it is used (i.e., the engraved uneven pattern is formed at the folding portion of the glass substrate).
The limitation “wherein at least one surface of the folding portion of the glass substrate comprises an inclined portion, whereby a thickness of the folding portion is less than a thickness of the planar portion” of the instant claims would be considered that of a change in shape. It is noted that change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the reinforcement layer of Liu with the dimensions (i.e., shapes of the glass substrate) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention. Furthermore, adjusting the shape of or in the folding portion the glass substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention with the motivation of allowing or optimizing the ability of the glass substrate to provide protection while being able to properly fold while handling the additional stress and fatigue of being repeatedly folded.
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches the glass substrate (e.g., ultra-thin glass and planar and folding portions) may have a thickness of 10 to 50 µm (para 58), and this ranges lies within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the planar portion and the folding portion of the glass substrate have the same thickness (figs 1-6b).
Regarding claims 21, 29, and 30, the limitation(s) of the instant claim would be considered that of a change in shape. It is noted that change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the reinforcement layer of Liu with the dimensions (i.e., shapes of the glass substrate) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention. Furthermore, adjusting the shape of or in the folding portion the glass substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention with the motivation of allowing or optimizing the ability of the glass substrate to provide protection while being able to properly fold while handling the additional stress and fatigue of being repeatedly folded.
Regarding claim 24, Liu teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the films of a uniform thickness and composition (para 24-26, 52-54; figs 1-6b) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of a uniform reinforcement layer, i.e., wherein a strength of the protective film layer at the planar portion and a strength of the protective film layer at the folding portion are equal to each other.
Regarding claim 25, Liu teaches the above flexible display module provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure, the thickness of the reinforcement layer 400 ranges from 10 μm to 150 μm (para 52); so each layer (i.e., the second polyimide layer or the protective film layer) of the overall reinforcement layer would have thicknesses of less than these ranger limitations. These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Liu, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 27 and specifically the limitations wherein when the adhesive buffer layer and the protective film layer are alternately stacked at least n+1 times in a stacking direction, compositions of n-th and (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layers are identical to each other, and compositions of n-th and (n+1)-th protective film layers are identical to each other (where n is a natural number equal to or greater than 1); one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely duplicating the second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive buffer layer) and the second colorless polyimide layer to arrive at this embodiment; and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B). This would come with the additional motivation that more layers would provide greater reinforcement or protection.
Regarding the limitation “or different from” is an optional limitation and need not be taught by the prior art of Liu.
Regarding claim 28 and specifically the limitations wherein when the adhesive buffer layer and the protective film layer are alternately stacked at least n+1 times in a stacking direction and (where n is a natural number equal to or greater than 1); one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been merely duplicating the second optical clear adhesive layer (i.e., adhesive buffer layer) and the second colorless polyimide layer to arrive at this embodiment; and duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
The limitations a thickness of an n-th adhesive buffer layer is less than a thickness of an (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layer, and a thickness of an n-th protective film layer is less than a thickness of an (n+1)-th protective film layer would be considered that of a change in size. It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the reinforcement layer of Liu with the dimensions (i.e., thicknesses of the n-th and (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layer and protective film layer) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention. Furthermore, adjusting the thicknesses of the n-th and (n+1)-th adhesive buffer layer and protective film layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention with the motivation of allowing or optimizing the ability of the layers to provide protection while being able to properly fold while handling the additional stress and fatigue of being repeatedly folded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783