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.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 2/12/26 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 6, and 17 have been amended and claim 18 added. Claims 1 – 18 are pending.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant's amendments have obviated the rejections of claims 6 and 17 under 35 USC 112.
Applicant's arguments regarding the amended claims versus the previously-raised rejections under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, including new claim 18.
Claims 1 and 18:
Applicant argues that “Park's mirrored design is intended for symmetry and to accommodate light from opposing light sources”. The Examiner agrees that Park considers only embodiments wherein two groups of outcoupling elements are disposed over respective non-overlapping spatial regions/areas. Accordingly, the Examiner applies a reference by Chui et al (US 2012/0051088 A1) that has been yielded by an updated prior-art search and discloses both embodiments (Fig. 3A and 4A) similar to those in Park and an embodiment (Fig. 6) that, in combination with other prior art of record, fully meets the limitations of amended claims 1 – 17 and new clam 18, as detailed below.
As a relevant comment, it is also noted that the updated prior-art search has yielded several references that may be applied to at least amended claims 1 – 17 to provide grounds of rejections alternative or additional to that based on Chui.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the 820contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 8 – 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chui (US 2012/0051088 A1) in view of Fujita et al (US 2019/0248240 A1), and further in view of Heber et al (US 2019/0353838 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Chui discloses (Figs. 2, 6A, and 6B; para. 0041 – 0047 and 0056 – 0061) a light guide (identified as 210 in Fig. 2B) comprising:
main faces (top and bottom faces, which are identified as 211,213 in Fig. 2; para. 0041 and 0042), each main face having at least one edge (as seen in Fig. 2A) surrounding it, the main faces being connected by lateral faces (vertical faces, which are identified as 215,219 in Fig. 2B; para. 0042 and 0043) at the edges (as seen in Fig. 2);
a plurality of three-dimensionally shaped light outcoupling elements 901,921 (identified in Fig. 6 and corresponding to 100 in Fig. 2B) on at least one of the main faces and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces and the lateral faces (as in Figs. 2B and 6; para. 0039 – 0045 and 0058), the light outcoupling elements 901,921 being distributed according to a predetermined distribution pattern (as illustrated in Fig. 6B);
wherein:
the distribution pattern is predetermined to result, for light coupled into the light guide on at least one of the lateral faces (light 250 is coupled from a light source 231a into the light guide 210 on the lateral face 219 in Fig. 2B and, similarly, light from light sources 631-635 is coupled into the light guide 610 on the lateral faces) and propagating so as to be totally internally reflected (at angle q1) within the light guide (“Light propagating through the panel 210 can be trapped within the panel 210 and/or prismatic block 100 by total internal reflection ("TIR")” at para. 0045) prior to entering or impinging on an outcoupling element (100 in Fig. 100 which corresponds to one of the light outcoupling elements 901,921 in Fig. 6) on, in preferring one (e.g., main face 213 in Fig. 2) of the two main faces 211,213 to couple out a higher quantity of light over the other (main surface 211 in Fig. 2) of the two main faces 211,213;
the outcoupling elements 100/901,921 are provided with a longitudinal section in a plane (the plane of Fig. 2B) perpendicular to at least one of the main faces 211,213, the longitudinal section being formed approximately like a polygon (e.g., a triangle) with at least three corners and at least three connecting lines connecting the corners (to form the triangular cross-section in Figs. 2 and 6), with one of the at least three connecting lines being a selected line (105 in Fig. 2B; 905,915,925,935 in Fig. 6), which comprises at least a straight segment;
an orientation of the straight segment relative to the plane of the at least one main face defines a blaze angle (q2, as denoted in Fig. 2B) and thereby a characteristic outcoupling property, in a way that total internal reflection is disturbed by refraction and/or reflection and a first outcoupling angular range is defined (as illustrated in Fig. 2B; para. 0045 – 0047); and
the plurality of outcoupling elements 901,921 is divided into (two) groups of outcoupling elements (as shown in Figs. 6A and 6B) , each group being complementary (e.g., mirrored) to each of the other groups and members of each group having a common characteristic blaze angle and therefore a common characteristic outcoupling property, with the common characteristic blaze angle and the common characteristic property differing from the characteristic blaze angles and outcoupling properties of members of the other groups (para. 0058 – 0061), thereby resulting in light being outcoupled with different angular distributions for different groups of outcoupling elements (“one or more prismatic blocks 100, can be added to a light panel to affect the uniformity of the luminance characteristic of the light panel. In some embodiments, the uniformity of the luminance characteristic can be controlled by varying the location and/or density of individually placed discrete turning features” at para. 0045).
Further for claim 1, Figure 6B of Chui shows that at least one outcoupling element (e.g., 901e) of a first group 901 of outcoupling elements is positioned spatially between at least two outcoupling elements 921d, 921eof a second group 921 of outcoupling elements.
Further for claim 18, Figure 6B of Chui shows that at least the blaze angle of one outcoupling element (e.g., 901e) of a first group 901 of outcoupling elements and at least the blaze angle of one outcoupling element (e.g., of 921d) a second group 921 of outcoupling elements are arranged along a same (horizontal) optical path for at least one light ray coupled into the light guide through a (left) lateral face.
Chui teaches that the disclosed light guide may be comprised in a display device (para. 0005, 0006, and 0036) and, hence, considers the visible range of wavelengths of operation (0.4 – 0.7 micrometers). Since the outcoupling elements 901,921 are to be separated from any other by a distance greater than the wavelength of light (to function as individual outcoupling elements, rather than optically merged/distributed outcoupling elements), Chui generally renders obvious that, for a majority of the outcoupling elements 901,921, any outcoupling element is separated from any other by at least one micrometer.
While Chui does not expressly quantify (i) spacings between the outcoupling elements and (ii) a transparency of the light guide, Fujita and Heber provide features (i) and (ii) respectively, as detailed below.
As for feature (i), Fujita discloses (Figs. 4, 5, 73, and 85; para. 0452 – 0486) a light guide having general features similar to those in Chui and comprising:
main faces (50,52 in Fig. 4), each main face having at least one edge surrounding it, the main faces being connected by lateral faces at the edges;
a plurality of three-dimensionally shaped light outcoupling elements (56 in Fig. 5; 4245 in Fig. 73) on at least one of the main faces and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces and the lateral faces, the light outcoupling elements being distributed according to a predetermined distribution pattern (Fig. 73);
wherein:
the distribution pattern is predetermined to result, for light 9from a light source 73a in Fig. 4) coupled into the light guide on at least one of the lateral faces and propagating within the light guide prior to entering or impinging on an outcoupling element (as shown in Fig. 4) on, in preferring one (e.g., 52) of the two main faces to couple out a higher quantity of light over the other (52) of the two main faces 50,52;
the outcoupling elements are provided with a longitudinal section in a plane (the plane of Fig. 4) perpendicular to at least one of the main faces 50,52, the longitudinal section being formed approximately like a polygon (e.g., a triangle) with at least three corners and at least three connecting lines connecting the corners (to form the triangular cross-sections in Fig. 4), with one of the at least three connecting lines being a selected line, which comprises at least a straight segment 57a;
an orientation of the straight segment 57a relative to the plane of the at least one main face defines a blaze angle and thereby a characteristic outcoupling property, in a way that total internal reflection is disturbed by refraction and/or reflection and a first outcoupling angular range is defined; and
the plurality of outcoupling elements 4245a,4245b,4245c (as denoted in Fig. 73) is divided into groups (with or without angular rotation, as illustrated in Fig. 73) of outcoupling elements, each group being complementary (e.g., mirrored) to each of the other groups and members of each group having a common characteristic blaze angle and therefore a common characteristic outcoupling property, with the common characteristic blaze angle and the common characteristic property differing from the characteristic blaze angles and outcoupling properties of members of the other groups, thereby resulting in light being outcoupled with different angular distributions for different groups of outcoupling elements.
Fujita quantifies (Fig. 31; para. 0076 and 0278) that, for a majority of the outcoupling elements (2037 in Fig. 31), any outcoupling element is separated from any other by at least one micrometer (e.g., PND – ND = 75 – 15 = 50 microns; para. 0076 and 0278).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, for a majority of the outcoupling elements in the light guide of Chui, any outcoupling element is separated from any other by at least one micrometer (greater than the wavelength of operation), as generally rendered obvious by Chui and expressly quantified by Fujita, in which case the outcoupling elements function as individual outcoupling elements, rather than optically merged/distributed outcoupling elements.
As for feature (ii), Chui intends to reduce optical loss in the light guide by using transparent materials (para. 0006 and 0007), but does not quantify a suitable/workable transparency level of the light guide. However, Heber discloses (Fig. 1 and 2; Abstract; para. 0019 – 0021, 0033 – 0039, and 0070 – 0072) a light guide 3 having general features similar to those in Chui and comprising:
main (top and bottom) faces, each main face having at least one edge surrounding it, the main faces being connected by lateral faces at the edges (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2); and
a plurality of light outcoupling elements 6 on at least one of the main faces and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces and the lateral faces, the light outcoupling elements being distributed according to a predetermined distribution pattern.
Heber states that the light guide 3 can be formed of low-loss material (para. 0030 and 0039) and be configured to have a transparency of at least 70% for light passing through the lightguide by the two main faces (Abstract; para. 0019 and 0031). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light guide of Chui can be configured to achieve a transparency of at least 70% which would further the goal of Chui to minimize optical loss.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers (Figs. 2B and 6 of Chui) the outcoupling angular distribution consists of the first angular range defined by a (positive) projection onto the plane of the longitudinal section and a second angular range defined by a (negative) projection onto the main face (note that the outcoupling elements 307 have a blaze angle different from (e.g., complementary to) a blaze angle of the outcoupling elements 308).
Regarding claim 3, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers (Fig. 2B of Chui) that the longitudinal section is formed like a polygon with three corners which are connected by three connecting lines, a first connecting line being a base line (horizontal segment) with a straight segment lying in a plane parallel to one of the main faces, a second connecting line 103 arranged in an angle (complementary to q1) between 85o and 90o to the first connecting line, and a third connecting line 105 connecting distant ends of the first and second connecting line, with the third connecting line 105 being the selected line and defining a characteristic outcoupling property by enclosing a blaze angle (complementary to q2) with the first connecting line. The Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers that the angle (complementary to q1) to the first connecting line can be less than 90o (para. 0047 of Chui).
It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (a particular wavelength(s) of operation, materials, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and that (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers the angle as a result-effective parameter that affects the outcoupling efficiency of the light guide.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers (para. 0276 and 0278 of Fujita) ranges of a maximum size of the outcoupling elements that at least overlap with the recited ranges and, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (a particular wavelength(s) of operation, materials, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and that (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers a maximum size of the outcoupling elements as a result-effective parameter that affects the outcoupling efficiency of the light guide.
Regarding claim 8, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers that the distribution pattern of the outcoupling elements on the at least one main face and/or within the volume of the light guide, the number of outcoupling elements, and their size can be predetermined/configured to yield an average haze of 30% or less on at least 50% on one of the main faces, the haze being measured according to ASTM D1003-13 (para. 0020 and 0074 of Heber; claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers that the outcoupling elements of at least one group of outcoupling elements can be configured to protrude out of or extend into at least one of the main faces and/or are shaped as microprisms (Fig. 2 of Chui).
Regarding claim 10, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers that the outcoupling elements of at least one group of outcoupling elements can be configured as cavities inside the light guide (Figs. 4 and 5 of Fujita; para. 0178 – 0180), the cavities being either evacuated or filled with a material (e.g., air) which has a refractive index and/or a haze value different from the refractive index or haze value, respectively, of a material of the light guide (transparent resin material; para. 0007 of Chui; para. 0406 of Fujita; para. 0035 of Heber).
Regarding claim 11, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers (e.g., para. 0005, 0006, 0055, and 0061 of Chui) a display screen, comprising (e.g., Fig. 4 of Heber):
the contemplated light guide 3 (para. 0073);
one or more light sources 4 (corresponds to 631 in Fig. 6 of Chui) emitting light to be coupled into the light guide 3 at least at one of the lateral faces (Fig. 4 of Heber; Fig. 6 of Chui), and
a transmissive display panel 5 located in front of the light guide 4 as seen from an observer (“an illuminating apparatus with an image generator 5 (hereinafter jointly represented under the term of the viewed “screen 1”) in B1 mode for a free viewing mode” at para. 0074 of Heber).
Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chui in view of Fujita, in view of Heber, and further in view of Tuohioja et al (US 2018/0088270 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 15, and 16, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers different shapes of outcoupling elements with a triangular cross-section, including shapes defined by straight lines and/or curved segments (Fig. 2 of Chui; Fig. 73 of Fujita). While the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination does not further detail such shapes, Tuohioja discloses (Figs. 1 – 4) a light guide comprising outcoupling elements 300 with a triangular cross-section and curved segments defined by a partial rotation of the longitudinal section in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal section around a center axis parallel to but outside of the longitudinal section, with an angle of partial rotation different from 0o. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the outcoupling elements of the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination can be shaped as illustrated by Tuohioja, as generally suggested by Fig. 73 of Fujita, in order to accommodate light from more than one light source with optimized uniformity of illumination and/or contrast ratio (Abstract of Tuohioja).
Further for claim 5, the outcoupling elements of the Chui – Fujita – Heber – Tuohioja combination as shaped such that the blaze angle varies continuously between two end positions of the partial rotation at least for the outcoupling elements of one of the groups of outcoupling elements.
Further for claim 15, selection/optimization of a suitable/workable angle would be well within ordinary skill in the art (which is noted as being high). It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (a particular wavelength(s) of operation, materials, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chui in view of Fujita, in view of Heber, and further in view of Park et al (US 2015/0168630 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers that the distribution pattern of the outcoupling elements on the at least one main face and /or within the volume of the light guide is predetermined to couple out light by the outcoupling elements with luminance uniformity (“the uniformity of the luminance characteristic can be controlled by varying the location and/or density of individually placed discrete turning features” at para. 0045 of Chui). While the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination neither quantifies uniformity and nor mentions a particular technique for measuring it, Park discloses (Figs. 9, 21, 41, and 42; para. 0225 – 0232) a light guide having general features similar to those in Chui and comprising:
main faces (identified as 110 and 120 in Fig. 1; para. 0094), each main face 110,120 having at least one edge (comprising 110a,110b) surrounding it, the main faces 110,120 being connected by lateral faces (comprising 130,140; para. 0094) at the edges (as seen in Fig. 1);
a plurality of three-dimensionally shaped light outcoupling elements 307,308 on at least one of the main faces (as in Figs. 2, 9, and 21) and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces and the lateral faces (as in Fig. 17), the light outcoupling elements 307,308 being distributed according to a predetermined distribution pattern (comprising at least two regions 127,128, as illustrated in Fig. 41; para. 0225);
wherein:
the distribution pattern 307,308 is predetermined to result, for light coupled into the light guide on at least one of the lateral faces (130 in Fig. 9) and propagating so as to be totally internally reflected (at angle q1) within the light guide (para. 0120) prior to entering or impinging on an outcoupling element (300 in Fig. 9 which corresponds to one of the light outcoupling elements 307,308 in Fig. 41) on, in preferring one (e.g., main face 1201 in Fig. 9) of the two main faces 110,1201 to couple out a higher quantity of light over the other (main surface 110 in Fig. 9) of the two main faces 110,1201;
the outcoupling elements 307,308 are provided with a longitudinal section in a plane (the plane of Figs. 9 and 21) perpendicular to at least one of the main faces 110,1201, the longitudinal section being formed approximately like a polygon (e.g., a triangle) with at least three corners and at least three connecting lines connecting the corners (to form the triangular cross-sections in Figs. 9 and 21), with one of the at least three connecting lines being a selected line (310 in Fig. 9; 313 in Fig. 21), which comprises at least a straight segment;
an orientation of the straight segment relative to the plane of the at least one main face defines a blaze angle (as shown in Figs. 9 and 21) and thereby a characteristic outcoupling property, in a way that total internal reflection is disturbed by refraction and/or reflection and a first outcoupling angular range q2 is defined (as illustrated in Figs. 9 and 21; para. 0120 and 0121); and
the plurality of outcoupling elements 307,308 is divided into groups (307 and 308) of outcoupling elements (in the regions 127 and 128 respectively) , each group being complementary (e.g., mirrored) to each of the other groups and members of each group having a common characteristic blaze angle and therefore a common characteristic outcoupling property, with the common characteristic blaze angle and the common characteristic property differing from the characteristic blaze angles and outcoupling properties of members of the other groups, thereby resulting in light being outcoupled with different angular distributions for different groups of outcoupling elements (“A plurality of diffusion patterns 307 may be disposed in the first region 127, and a plurality of diffusion patterns 308 may be disposed in the second region 128. The diffusion patterns 307 and the diffusion patterns 308 may be aligned in opposite directions. That is, the first region 127 including the diffusion patterns 307 may be a mirror image of the second region 128 including the diffusion patterns 308” at para. 0227).
Park quantifies that a target for uniformity may be set at at least 60% or higher (“a luminance uniformity of 80% or higher can be achieved. Therefore, a display device with improved display performance can be provided” at para. 0337 of Park). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light guide of the Chui can be optimized for luminance uniformity of at least 60%, as generally desired by Chui and exemplified by Park. The Chui – Fujita – Heber – Park combination considers that the luminance uniformity is measured by a two-dimensional intensity distribution (Fig. 64 of Park) that comprises at least 9 points. Selection of any other suitable measurement technique would be well within ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chui in view of Fujita, in view of Heber, and further in view of Fattal et al (US 2020/0116918 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination does not detail a pixel/sub-pixel structure of a display device comprising the contemplated light guide. However, Fattal discloses (Figs. 2A – 2C and 3; Abstract; para. 0043 – 0066) a multiview display device comprising a transmissive display panel 108 with pixels 106, and the light guide 110 with outcoupling elements 120, wherein a spatial extension of the outcoupling elements (s) is smaller than a spatial extension (D) of a pixel for each of the dimensions in a Cartesian space (defined by the plane of 108). The transmissive display panel 108 comprises pixels 106 which consist of subpixels 106’, and the light guide 110 comprising outcoupling elements 120, wherein the spatial extension (s) of the outcoupling elements 120 is smaller than a spatial extension (S) of a subpixel for each of the dimensions in a Cartesian space (para. 0054 and 0055; Eq. (1) of Fattal).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the display device of the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination can be configured in accordance with the teachings of Fattal in order to enable multiview display device (Abstract of Fattal).
Regarding claim 14, the Chui – Fujita – Heber – Fattal combination consider that the transmissive display panel 108 and the light guide 120 being separated only by an air layer (as in Fig. 2A of Fattal).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0099343 A1 Fig. 19
US 6,671,013 B1 Fig. 7
US 10,775,544 B2 Fig. 2
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896