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 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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what is meant by the language “by the nucleating agent included in the crystal layer” in the last line as the claimed structure is still nothing more than a crystal layer having a nucleating agent on a base glass wherein the crystal layer and base glass differ in crystal content.
For examination, as the claimed structure only requires that the crystalline layer include a nucleating agent and the crystalline layer and base glass differ in crystal content, if the prior art teaches a nucleating agent as claimed in their crystal layer and the crystal layer and base glass differ in crystal content, the claim will be considered to be met.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1 above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by Marshall et al. (USPub20200095159).
Regarding claim 1: Marshall teaches the following cover window comprising a base glass including a central region with a peripheral/exterior region surrounding the central region (0075-0076, Figures).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marshall teaches an embodiment wherein a crystal layer comprising ZrO2 can be disposed on the base glass overlapping the peripheral (exterior) region (see 0075-0076, 0161, 0164-0167) as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
280
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that not only is ZrO2 a well-known nucleating agent material, but additionally, given that ZrO2 is the same material used by Applicants’, the presence of a nucleating agent is considered to be met (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the limitation that the crystal content differs by the nucleating agent in the crystal layer, it is initially noted that given that as Marshall’s crystalline layer includes ZrO2 (a nucleating agent) and their crystalline layer necessarily has a different crystal content from the base glass (glass is amorphous=no crystal), the claim is considered to be met.
However, it is also noted for the record that given that the ZrO2 (a nucleating agent) is in Marshall’s crystalline layer, the ZrO2 would be expected to contribute, at least to some degree, to the crystallization of the crystalline layer and thereby, also to any crystalline difference resulting therefrom between the layer and base glass.
Regarding claim 3: As the base glass is glass it will have less crystals than that of the crystal layer.
Regarding claim 4: Given that base glass is glass and the crystal layer is ceramic, they would be expected to have differing CTEs.
Regarding claim 5: As shown in the Figures above, the exterior has a corner region adjacent to a vertex of the central region and the ceramic crystal layer overlaps the corner.
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.
2. Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (USPub20200095159) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6: The crystal layer has a thickness less than the base glass (see Figures 17A-17B, 0006) and can be that overlapping Applicants (see discussion of the ceramic layer being 20-40% thickness of the cover glass part in combination with the cover glass thickness ranges of par 0006, 0059, 0063) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11: The window can have a transmittance in the visible range overlapping that claimed (0068) (MPEP 2144.05).
3. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (USPub20200095159) as applied to claim 1 above in view of USPub20190169060).
Regarding claim 2: While Marshall may not describe their embodiment mentioned above having their ceramic crystal layer not overlap the central region, Marshall does not exclude this and instead, only generally teaches their window being used as a cover for an electronic device having crystal regions for strength, etc..
As ‘060, who similarly teaches window being used as a cover for an electronic device having crystal regions for strength, etc., teach that crystals scatter light and create haze (0028) and given that the area of a cover sheet adjacent a display (i.e. this is the central region as understood in the cover glass art) is desirably transparent whereas the edges are less concerned with transparency and more concerned with strength, suggests it would be desirable to vary the properties across the cover such as selectively having crystals on the edges to make said edges less susceptible to damage while having none adjacent the display to maximize optical performance (see entire document 0024-0027, 0038-0039 and Figures 2A and 2B), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to include having their crystal layer on the edges (exterior region) to make said edges less susceptible to damage while having no crystals adjacent the display (central region) to maximize optical performance.
While it is noted for the record that the crystals in ‘060 are being grown from a base glass while that of Marshall’s embodiment is a crystal ceramic layer applied to a base glass, the concept and problem to be solved with crystal placement on a cover glass is still relevant and would be rendered obvious.
4. Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (USPub20200095159) as applied to claim 1 above in view of in view of USPub20140233161 and/or USPub20170200914.
Regarding claims 9 and 10: While Marshall does not mention a bezel pattern being under the base glass, overlapping the exterior region, and a functional layer covering the crystal layer, Marshall does not exclude this and instead, only generally teaches a cover glass for an electronic display having an exterior region and interior region and wherein their surface having the crystal layer is an exterior surface and the surface opposite is an interior surface.
As ‘161 and ‘914, who each similarly teach a cover glass for an electronic display having an exterior region and interior region and having an exterior surface and a surface opposite being an interior surface, disclose it being desirable to have a bezel pattern on the interior surface overlapping the exterior (non-display) region surrounding the central (display) region (see entire document and Figures in ‘161 and ‘914) and a functional layer on the glass (see anti-finger layer discussion in ‘161 covering the exterior surface and all the layers having a function in the bezel region in ‘914), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to include a bezel pattern on the interior surface overlapping the exterior (non-display) region surrounding the central (display) region (and a functional layer on the glass according to ‘161 and/or ‘914 to obtain a desirable cover glass structure.
Note that modifying Marshall with the teachings of ‘161 will provide Marshall with the following wherein the bezel patter will be under the base glass and a functional layer will be on the base glass overing the top of the crystal layer thereby meeting claims 9 and 10,
PNG
media_image3.png
448
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and modifying Marshall with the teachings of ‘914 will provide Marshall with the following meeting claims 9 and 10,
PNG
media_image4.png
448
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note that although the functional layers are under the base glass in the above modification, as they are on the base glass and will be covering the under portion of the crystal layer (note the claims do not prohibit intervening materials, does not require direct contact nor does it limit the orientation of the functional layer to that of the crystal layer coverage), the modification meet claims 9 and 10.
5. Claim(s) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (USPub20200095159) in view of either on of US20200071225 or USPub20190169060.
The following is an alternative rejection to the rejections of Marshall above using Marshall’s alternative embodiment.
Regarding claim 1: Marshall teaches the following cover window comprising a base glass including a central region with a peripheral/exterior region surrounding the central region (0076, Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marshall teaches an embodiment wherein crystal layer is nucleated from and disposed on a base glass overlapping the peripheral (exterior) region (0077-0084) as shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
456
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The crystal content of the base glass is different from that of the crystal layer (0072-0074).
While Marshall may not mention the crystal layer including a nucleating agent of one of the oxides claimed, Marshall does not exclude such oxides but instead, only merely teaches their window being used as a cover for an electronic device wherein their crystal layer is that of a glass ceramic, such as a LAS glass-ceramic, formed from heat treating the constituents of the base glass which can be LAS glass (0074, 0144).
As ‘225 and ‘060, who each similarly teach windows being used as covers for an electronic device wherein a glass ceramic, such as a LAS glass-ceramic, is produced from heat treating constituents of a base glass such as LAS (see 0085, 0125, 0127-0128, 0131 in ‘225 and 0041-0044), suggest that nucleating agents of TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 can be added to a base glass as nucleating agents to enhance the nucleation of the glass-ceramic during heating (see 0085 in ‘225 and 0042, 0044 in ‘225), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to include nucleating agents of TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 to their base glass to enhance the nucleation of their glass-ceramic crystal layer.
Note for the record that given that the glass ceramic crystal layer is nucleated/formed from the constituents of the base glass and the TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 nucleating agents are not only constituents of the base glass but are aiding in driving the nucleating/formation of the glass-ceramic crystal layer, one skilled in the art would expect these oxides to be present in the finally nucleated/formed glass ceramic crystal layer.
Regarding the limitation that the crystal content differs by the nucleating agent in the crystal layer, it is initially noted that given that as the glass ceramic crystal layer will be expected to include a TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 nucleating agent and their layer will necessarily have a different crystal content from the base glass (glass is amorphous=no crystal), the claim is considered to be met.
However, it is also noted for the record that given that the nucleating agent is enhancing the nucleation (i.e. crystallization) of the glass ceramic layer it would be expected to at least to some degree be contributing to the crystallization of the glass ceramic layer and thereby, also contribute to the resulting crystalline difference between the layer and base glass.
Regarding claim 2: While Marshall may disclose that a crystal layer is also nucleated/form on and overlapping the central region, note that as the crystal layer overlapping the exterior region relied upon for meeting claim 1 can differ in thickness and crystal volume from the layer portion overlapping the central region (see 0085, 0155, 0177) and the layer in the central region and the layer in the peripheral region can even be formed in different steps (see Fig 15, 0155-0157 for instance), they are considered different layers and the specific crystal layer overlapping the exterior relied upon to meet claim 1 is not the one overlapping Marshall’s central region thereby meeting claim 2.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue against the above, the following is noted. Initially, Marshall is generally teaching a window being used as a cover for an electronic device having crystal regions for strength, etc..
As ‘060, who similarly teaches window being used as a cover for an electronic device having crystal regions for strength, etc., teach that crystals scatter light and create haze (0028) and given that the area of a cover sheet adjacent a display (i.e. this is the central region as understood in the cover glass art) is desirably transparent whereas the edges are less concerned with transparency and more concerned with strength, suggests it would be desirable to vary the properties across the cover such as selectively having crystals on the edges to make said edges less susceptible to damage while having none adjacent the display to maximize optical performance (see entire document 0024-0027, 0038-0039 and Figures 2A and 2B), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to include having their crystal layer on the edges (exterior region) to make said edges less susceptible to damage while having no crystals adjacent the display (central region) to maximize optical performance.
Regarding claim 3: The crystal content of the base glass is less than that of the crystal layer (0072-0074).
Regarding claim 4: The CTE of the base glass can be different from that of the crystal layer (see 0016, 0095, 0100, 0123, Marshall’s claim 12).
Regarding claim 5: As shown in the Figures above, the exterior has a corner region adjacent to a vertex of the central region and the crystal layer overlaps the corner.
Regarding claim 6: The crystal layer can have a thickness overlapping Applicants (see discussion of the layer being 20-40% thickness of the cover glass in combination with the cover glass thickness ranges of par 0006, 0059, 0063, 0073 or alternatively, an example range of 100-400micron is discussed in par 0073) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7: Marshall discloses that their crystal layer can comprise the following post an ion exchange step (see D1ions)
PNG
media_image6.png
423
910
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Given that the crystal layer is nucleated/ formed from the base glass, both the above labeled first and second layers are necessarily inorganic.
Given that the ion exchange step exchanges ions only in the second layer, the first and second layer will necessarily have different compositions and therefore, different CTE’s.
Regarding claim 8: While Marshall may not discuss the crystal layer having another layer as claimed, Marshal does not exclude this and as mentioned above only generally teaches their window being used as a cover for an electronic device wherein their crystal layer is that of a glass ceramic formed from heat treating the constituents of the base glass (0074, 0144).
As ‘060, who each similarly teach windows being used as covers for an electronic device wherein a glass ceramic is produced from heat treating constituents of a base glass (see 0085, 0125, 0127-0128, 0131 in ‘225 and 0041-0044), teaches that the glass can be selectively heated during crystallization to form different material properties at different distances from the surface (i.e. this will form differing crystal content layers at different distances from the surface) (0063, 0065), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to selectively heat during crystallization to form different material properties at different distances from the surface (i.e. form different layers of differing crystal content at different distances from the surface) as desired.
The above would allow for, but not limited to, layer orientations such as that below.
PNG
media_image7.png
248
606
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As noted above, given that the crystal layers will be nucleated/ formed from the base glass, the above labeled first, second and third layers are necessarily inorganic.
Given that the ion exchange step exchanges ions only in the third layer, the second and third layer will necessarily have different compositions and therefore, different CTE’s.
Regarding claim 11: The window can have a transmittance in the visible range overlapping that claimed (0068) (MPEP 2144.05).
6. Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (USPub20200095159) and either on of US20200071225 or USPub20190169060 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of USPub20140233161 and/or USPub20170200914.
Regarding claims 9 and 10: While Marshall does not mention a bezel pattern being under the base glass, overlapping the exterior region, and a functional layer covering the crystal layer, Marshall does not exclude this and instead, only generally teaches a cover glass for an electronic display having an exterior region and interior region and wherein their surface having the crystal layer is an exterior surface and the surface opposite is an interior surface.
As ‘161 and ‘914, who each similarly teach a cover glass for an electronic display having an exterior region and interior region and having an exterior surface and a surface opposite being an interior surface, disclose it being desirable to have a bezel pattern on the interior surface overlapping the exterior (non-display) region surrounding the central (display) region (see entire document and Figures in ‘161 and ‘914) and a functional layer on the glass (see anti-finger layer discussion in ‘161 covering the exterior surface and all the layers having a function in the bezel region in ‘914), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to include a bezel pattern on the interior surface overlapping the exterior (non-display) region surrounding the central (display) region (and a functional layer on the glass according to ‘161 and/or ‘914 to obtain a desirable cover glass structure.
Note that modifying Marshall with the teachings of ‘161 will provide Marshall with the following wherein the bezel patter will be under the base glass and a functional layer will be on the base glass overing the top of the crystal layer thereby meeting claims 9 and 10,
PNG
media_image3.png
448
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and modifying Marshall with the teachings of ‘914 will provide Marshall with the following meeting claims 9 and 10,
PNG
media_image4.png
448
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note that although the functional layers are under the base glass in the above modification, as they are on the base glass and will be covering the under portion of the crystal layer (note the claims do not prohibit intervening materials, does not require direct contact nor does it limit the orientation of the functional layer to that of the crystal layer coverage), the modification meet claims 9 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments are summarized below.
Applicants initially argue over the 102 rejection and assert that Marshall does not anticipate the claimed invention because Marshall merely discloses depositing or cladding a separate ceramic layer, specifically YSZ, over a base glass panel but is silent to the crystal layer including a nucleating agent of P2O5, ZrO2 or TiO2 to have a different crystal content from the base glass.
This is not persuasive. While the Office does acknowledge that Marshall’s embodiment relied upon in the 102 rejections is a ceramic layer over a base glass, the embodiment still meets the claimed invention.
Specifically, as discussed above in the Office Action, Marshall’s embodiment includes a crystal layer on the base glass overlapping the peripheral (exterior) region (see 0075-0076, 0161, 0164-0167) as shown below and Marshall explicitly mentions that the crystal layer can include ZrO2 specifically (see 0075 for instance).
PNG
media_image2.png
280
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that not only is ZrO2 a well-known nucleating agent material, but additionally, given that ZrO2 is the same material used by Applicants’, the limitation of the presence of a nucleating agent is considered to be met (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the claimed limitation that the crystal content differs by the nucleating agent in the crystal layer, as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection, it is unclear what is meant by this in the claim as the claimed structure is still nothing more than a crystal layer having a nucleating agent on a base glass wherein the crystal layer and base glass differ in crystal content. As such, for examination, if the prior art teaches a nucleating agent as claimed in their crystal layer and the crystal layer and base glass differ in crystal content, the claim will be considered to be met.
In the instant case, as Marshall’s crystalline layer includes ZrO2 (a nucleating agent) and their crystalline layer necessarily has a different crystal content from the base glass (glass is amorphous=no crystal), the claim is considered to be met.
However, it is also noted for the record that given that the ZrO2 (a nucleating agent) is in Marshall’s crystalline layer, the ZrO2 would be expected to contribute, at least to some degree, to the crystallization of the crystalline layer and thereby, also to any crystalline difference resulting therefrom between the layer and base glass.
Applicants argue against the 103 rejection and assert that Marshall does not render obvious the claimed invention because Marshall does not teach the crystal layer including a nucleating agent of P2O5, ZrO2 or TiO2 wherein the crystal layer has a different crystal content from the base glass by the nucleating agent and neither Lee or Jones cure this deficiency. Instead, Lee and Jones merely disclose adding these oxides into a raw material to produce a homogenous, uniform crystallized glass ceramic wherein crystallization is throughout.
This is not persuasive. While the Office does acknowledge that Marshall’s embodiment relied upon in the 103 rejection does not mention a nucleating agent, note Marshall’s embodiment relied upon in the Office Action includes the following crystal layer which is nucleated from and disposed on a base glass overlapping the peripheral (exterior) region (0077-0084) as shown below wherein the crystal content of the base glass is different from that of the crystal layer (0072-0074).
PNG
media_image5.png
456
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Marshall may not mention the crystal layer including a nucleating agent of one of the oxides claimed, Marshall does not exclude such oxides but instead, only merely teaches their window being used as a cover for an electronic device wherein their crystal layer is that of a glass ceramic, such as a LAS glass-ceramic, formed from heat treating the constituents of the base glass which can be LAS glass (0074, 0144).
As ‘225 and ‘060, who each similarly teach windows being used as covers for an electronic device wherein a glass ceramic, such as a LAS glass-ceramic, is produced from heat treating constituents of a base glass such as LAS (see 0085, 0125, 0127-0128, 0131 in ‘225 and 0041-0044), suggest that nucleating agents of TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 can be added to a base glass as nucleating agents to enhance the nucleation of glass-ceramic during heating (see 0085 in ‘225 and 0042, 0044 in ‘225), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to include nucleating agents of TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 to their base glass to enhance the nucleation of their glass-ceramic crystal layer.
Note for the record that given that Marshall’s glass ceramic crystal layer is nucleated/formed from the constituents of the base glass and the TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 nucleating agents are not only constituents of the base glass but are aiding in driving the nucleating/formation of Marshall’s glass-ceramic crystal layer, one skilled in the art would expect these oxides to be present in the finally nucleated/formed glass ceramic crystal layer.
Regarding the limitation that the crystal content differs by the nucleating agent in the crystal layer, it is initially noted that given that as the glass ceramic crystal layer will be expected to include a TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 nucleating agent and their layer will necessarily have a different crystal content from the base glass (glass is amorphous=no crystal), the claim is considered to be met.
However, it is also noted for the record that given that the nucleating agent is enhancing the nucleation (i.e. crystallization) of the glass ceramic layer it would be expected to at least to some degree be contributing to the crystallization of the glass ceramic layer and thereby, also contribute to the resulting crystalline difference between the layer and base glass.
Regarding Applicants argument that Lee and Jones would not cure the deficiencies in Marshall because Lee and Jones merely disclose adding these oxides into a raw material to produce a homogenous, uniform crystallized glass ceramic wherein crystallization is throughout, this is not persuasive. While the Examiner acknowledges that the glass ceramics made in Lee and Jones may be homogenous, uniform crystallized glass ceramics, the Examiner initially notes that Marshall was in no way being modified to make their article homogenous, uniform crystallized glass ceramic. Instead, Lee and Jones were only being used to render obvious the inclusion of nucleating agents of TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 being added to a base glass to enhance the nucleation of a LAS glass-ceramic during heating. Simply because Lee and Jones decide to heat and crystallize their entire article whereas Marshall only selectively heats and crystallizes the surface does not matter.
Given that Lee and Jones clearly teach that the inclusion of nucleating agents of TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 added to a base glass enhances the nucleation of a LAS glass-ceramic during heating and Marshall’s surface crystal layer is that of a LAS glass ceramic formed from heat treating the constituents of their base glass (0074, 0144), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Marshall to include nucleating agents of TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 to the base glass to enhance the nucleation of their glass-ceramic crystal layer.
Note for the record that given that Marshall’s glass ceramic crystal layer is nucleated/formed from the constituents of their base glass and the TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 nucleating agents are not only constituents of the base glass but are aiding in driving the nucleating/formation of the glass-ceramic crystal surface layer, one skilled in the art would expect these oxides to be present in the finally nucleated/formed glass ceramic crystal layer.
Even further, regarding the claim limitation that the crystal content differs by the nucleating agent in the crystal layer, it is initially noted that given that as the glass ceramic crystal layer will be expected to include a TiO2, ZrO2 or P2O5 nucleating agent and their layer will necessarily have a different crystal content from the base glass (glass is amorphous=no crystal), the claim is considered to be met.
However, it is also noted for the record that given that the nucleating agent is what is enhancing the nucleation (i.e. crystallization) of the glass ceramic layer it would be expected to be contributing to the crystallization of the glass ceramic layer and thereby, also contribute to the resulting crystalline difference between the layer and base glass.
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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights