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 2-5 and 8-20 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.
In claims 2, 5, 13, 18, and 20, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. See Amgen, Inc. v.Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Court held that claims reciting “at least about” were invalid for indefiniteness where there was close prior art and there was nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term “about.”); Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (the phrases “relatively shallow,” “of the order of,” “the order of about 5mm,” and “substantial portion” were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended.).
Claim 3 claims “an upper layer … having an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the upper layer” and “a lower layer … having an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the lower layer.” However, “the folding area of the upper layer” and “the folding area of the lower layer” have improper antecedent basis, and it is unclear from Figures 1-5 of the instant application how the edge portions of the upper and lower layers protrude from the folding area considering the edge portions are located within the folding area (see Figures 4-5). For the purposes of examination, the cited limitations will be interpreted as --an upper layer … having an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the uppersurface surface
Claim 10 claims “disposing an upper layer including an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the upper layer on the upper surface of the substrate” and “disposing a lower layer including an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the lower layer on the lower surface of the substrate.” However, “the folding area of the upper layer” and “the folding area of the lower layer” have improper antecedent basis, and it is unclear from Figures 1-5 of the instant application how the edge portions of the upper and lower layers protrude from the folding area considering the edge portions are located within the folding area (see Figures 4-5). For the purposes of examination, the cited limitations will be interpreted as --disposing an upper layer , wherein an edge portion of the upper layer protrudes from the folding area of the upper surface-- and --disposing a lower layer , wherein an edge portion of the lower layer protrudes from the folding area of the lower surface --.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, and 11-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US Publication No. 2022/0308266, hereinafter “Kim ‘266”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘266 discloses a cover window (cover window 100) comprising: a folding area (folding portion B) and a non-folding area (non-folding portion A) arranged in a first direction (DR1); and groove patterns (grooves 100) formed on a substrate (glass 120) in the folding area (B), arranged in the first direction (DR1), and extending in a second direction (DR2) intersecting the first direction (DR1), wherein a central portion of the groove patterns (central portion of 100) is filled with a first resin (Figure 6, first layer 111), and an edge portion of the groove patterns (edges of 100) is filled with the first resin (111) and a second resin (112) different from the first resin (111).
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Kim ‘266 discloses the cover window according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein a viscosity of the first resin (111) is less than or equal to about 20 cp (see Paragraphs [0091]), and a viscosity of the second resin (112) is greater than or equal to about 2000cp (see Paragraphs [0093]).
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim ‘896 (US Publication 2022/0404869, hereinafter “Kim ‘869”)
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘869 discloses a cover window (Figures 5B, 9-10A, 11A, 12A, upper module UM) comprising: a folding area (FA2) and a non-folding area (NFA3, NFA4) arranged in a first direction (DR2); and groove patterns (GP) formed on a substrate (PG) in the folding area (FA2), arranged in the first direction (DR2), and extending in a second direction (DR1) intersecting the first direction (DR2), wherein a central portion of the groove patterns (central portion of PP1 of GP) is filled with a first resin (FL1; see Paragraphs [0123]), and an edge portion of the groove patterns (edges of GP) is filled with the first resin (FL1) and a second resin (FL2) different from the first resin (FL1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘869 discloses the cover window according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the groove patterns (GP) comprise: first groove patterns (PP1) spaced apart from each other and formed on an upper surface of the substrate (PG-F); and second groove (PP2) patterns spaced apart from each other and formed on a lower surface of the substrate (PG-B).
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘869 discloses the cover window according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein the first groove patterns (PP1) and the second groove patterns (PP2) are alternately arranged in the first direction (DR2; see Figures 9-12A).
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.
Claims 3-5, 8-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘869 (US Publication 2022/0404869) in view of Takahashi (US Publication 2016/0266671).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Kim ‘869 discloses the cover window according to claim 1, but does not disclose an upper layer disposed on an upper surface of the substrate and having an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the upper layer; and a lower layer disposed on a lower surface of the substrate and having an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the lower layer, wherein a gap between the edge portion of the upper layer and the edge portion of the lower layer is filled with the second resin.
However, Takahashi teaches a cover window (Figures 23D-23C, cover glass 20) comprising an upper layer (upper film 81) disposed on an upper surface of the substrate (upper surface of base member 22) and having an edge portion (edge of 81) protruding from an area of the upper layer (portion of 81 overlapping 22); and a lower layer (lower film 82) disposed on a lower surface of the substrate (lower surface of 22) and having an edge portion (edge of 82) protruding from an area of the lower layer (portion of 82 overlapping 22), wherein a gap (space between 81 and 82) between the edge portion of the upper layer (edge of 81) and the edge portion of the lower layer (edge of 82) is filled with the second resin (26, corresponding to FL in Kim ‘869).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the upper and lower layers of Takahashi to the substrate of Kim ‘869 and to have reinforced the edges of the substrate to be recessed from the edges of the upper and lower layers, as taught in Takahashi. Doing so would have increased the durability of the cover window by reinforcing its edges with a resin material (see Paragraphs [0010]-[0013] in Takahashi).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified reinforcing portion 26 in Takahashi to be comprised of the second resin taught in Kim ‘869, based on its suitability for its intended use, here being a durable, resin material used to protect cover glass. MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the cover window according to claim 3, and further teaches (in Takahashi) wherein a length of the edge portion of the upper layer (edge of 81) and a length of the edge portion of the lower layer (edge of 82) in the second direction are same (see Figures 7A-7B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the upper and lower layers to extend the same length, as taught in Figures 7A-7B in Takahashi, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship between the upper and lower layers considering doing so would have resulted in a uniformly shaped cover glass (see Figures 7A-7B in Takahashi).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the cover window according to claim 4, and further teaches wherein each of the length of the edge portion of the upper layer (edge of 81) and the length of the edge portion of the lower layer (edge of 82) is less than or equal to about 50 μm (see Paragraph [0118]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified lengths of the edge portions to be “about 50 μm”, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range between the upper and lower layers considering doing so would have resulted in a slimmer edge boundary requiring less resin material (see Paragraph [0118] in Takahashi).
Regarding claim 8, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the cover window according to claim 3, and further teaches wherein the upper layer (81) comprises: an upper adhesive layer (see Paragraphs [0119]-[0124]) disposed on the upper surface of the substrate (upper surface of base unit 22, 30); and a protective layer (81) disposed on the upper adhesive layer (see Paragraphs [0119]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the cover window according to claim 3, and further teaches wherein the lower layer (82) comprises: a lower adhesive layer (see Paragraphs [0119]-[0124]) disposed on the lower surface of the substrate (surface of base unit 22, 30); and a release layer (82) disposed on the lower adhesive layer (see Paragraphs [0119]-[0124]; see Figures 23A-23D).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Kim ‘869 discloses a method of manufacturing a cover window (Figure 5, UM; see also Figures 9-13) including a folding area (FA2) and a non-folding area (NFA3, NFA4) arranged in a first direction (DR2), the method comprising: forming first groove patterns (PP1) spaced apart from each other on an upper surface (PG-F) of a substrate (PG) in the folding area (FA2), forming second groove patterns (PP2) spaced apart from each other on a lower surface (PG-B) of the substrate (PG) in the folding area (FA2); filling the first groove patterns (PP1) with a first resin (FL1); filling the second groove patterns (PP2) with the first resin (FL2; see Paragraphs [0121]-[0123], wherein FL1 and FL2 can be comprised of the same material).
Kim ‘869 does not disclose disposing an upper layer including an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the upper layer on the upper surface of the substrate; disposing a lower layer including an edge portion protruding from the folding area of the lower layer on the lower surface of the substrate; and filling a gap between the edge portion of the upper layer and the edge portion of the lower layer with a second resin different from the first resin.
However, Takahashi teaches disposing an upper layer (81) including an edge portion (edge of 81) protruding from an area of the upper layer (portion of 81 corresponding to 22) on the upper surface of the substrate (upper surface of 22); disposing a lower layer (82) including an edge portion (edge of 82) protruding from an area of the lower layer (portion of 82 corresponding to 22) on the lower surface of the substrate (lower surface of 22); and filling a gap (see Figures 23A-23D) between the edge portion of the upper layer and the edge portion of the lower layer with a second resin (reinforcing portion 26) different from the first resin (see Paragraphs [0103] in Takahashi; see Paragraphs [0121]-[0123] in Kim ‘869).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the upper and lower layers of Takahashi to the substrate of Kim ‘869 and to have modified the edges of the substrate to be recessed from the edges of the upper and lower layers and filled with a resin material, as taught in Takahashi. Doing so would have increased the durability of the cover window by reinforcing its edges with a resin material (see Paragraphs [0010]-[0013] in Takahashi).
Regarding claim 11, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the method according to claim 10, and further teaches (in Kim ‘869) wherein the first groove patterns (PP1) and the second groove patterns (PP2) are alternatively arranged in the first direction (DR2) and extend in a second direction (DR1) intersecting the first direction (DR2).
Regarding claim 18 (as best understood), Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the method according to claim 10, and further teaches (in Takahashi) wherein each of a length of the edge portion of the upper layer (edge of 82) and a length of the edge portion of the lower layer (edge of 82) is in a range of about 1.5 mm to about 4 mm (see Paragraph [0118], 1mm being about 1.5mm).
Alternatively, claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘266 (US Publication No. 2022/0308266) in view of Kim ‘869 (US Publication 2022/0404869).
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘266 discloses a cover window according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the groove (110) patterns comprise: first groove patterns (see Figures 2-3) spaced apart from each other and formed on an upper surface of the substrate (upper surface of 120).
Kim ‘266 does not disclose second groove patterns spaced apart from each other and formed on a lower surface of the substrate.
However, Kim ‘869 teaches groove patterns (Figures 9-10A, groove patterns GP) formed on a substrate (pattern glass PG) in the folding area (folding area FA2) wherein the groove patterns (GP) comprise: first groove patterns (pattern parts PP1) spaced apart from each other (see Figures 9-10A) and formed on an upper surface of the substrate (upper surface PG-F); and second groove patterns (pattern parts PP2) spaced apart from each other and formed on a lower surface of the substrate (lower surface PG-L).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate to include the second, alternating groove patterns on the lower surface, as taught in Kim ‘869, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of establishing a folding area for a glass cover window. Doing so would have also enhanced the flexibility and durability by reducing stress during folding and improving impact resistance (see Paragraph [0211] in Kim ‘869).
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘266 in view of Kim ‘869 teaches the cover window according to claim 6, and further teaches (in Kim ‘869) wherein the first groove patterns (PP1) and the second groove patterns (PP2) are alternately arranged in the first direction (DR2, corresponding to DR1 in Kim ‘266).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘869 (US Publication 2022/0404869), Takahashi (US Publication 2016/0266671), and in further view of Kim ‘266 (US Publication No. 2022/0308266).
Regarding claim 12, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the method according to claim 10, and further teaches (in Kim ‘869) wherein a central portion of the first groove patterns (center of PP1) and a central portion of the second groove patterns (center of PP2) are filled with the first resin (FL1, FL2), but does not teach wherein an edge portion of the first groove patterns and an edge portion of the second groove patterns are filled with the first resin and the second resin.
However, Kim ‘226 teaches groove patterns (grooves 100) formed on a substrate (glass 120) in the folding area (B), wherein a central portion of the groove patterns (central portion of 100) is filled with a first resin (Figure 6, first layer 111), and an edge portion of the groove patterns (edges of 100) is filled with the first resin (111) and a second resin (112) different from the first resin (111).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge of the groove patterns of Kim ‘869 as modified by Takahashi to be filled with the first and second resin taught in Kim ‘226, and to have modified the second resin filling the gap between the upper and lower layers to be the second resin taught in Kim ‘226. Filling the edges of the groove patterns with the first and second resin would have provided the folding area with resins having a different storage modulus to prevent damaged/cracking overtime (see Paragraph [0053], [0088]-[0101] in Kim ‘226). Substituting the second resin in Takahashi for the second resin in Kim ‘226 would have been obvious based on its suitability for its intended use, here being a durable, resin material used to protect a cover glass. MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly teach wherein a viscosity of the first resin is less than or equal to about 20 cp, and a viscosity of the second resin is greater than or equal to about 2000cp.
However, Kim ‘226 teaches wherein a viscosity of a first resin (111) is less than or equal to about 20 cp (see Paragraphs [0091]), and a viscosity of a second resin (112) is greater than or equal to about 2000cp (see Paragraphs [0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the first and second resins of Kim ‘869 as modified by Takahashi for the first and second resins taught in Kim ‘226, based on their suitability for their intended use, here being a durable, resin material used to protect a cover glass. MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Regarding claim 14, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first resin is discharged from a first filler disposed above the first groove patterns and the second groove patterns.
However, Kim ‘226 teaches wherein the first resin (Figure 14, resin 111, 300) is discharged from a first filler (inkjet 160) disposed above the groove patterns (110; see Figure 14 and Paragraph [0121]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the first dispenser of Kim ‘226 to fill the first and second groove patterns of Kim ‘869 as modified by Takahashi, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of filling groove patterns in a cover glass with resin (see Figure 14 and Paragraph [0121] in Kim ‘226).
Regarding claim 15, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi and Kim ‘226 teaches the method according to claim 14, and further teaches (in Kim ‘226) wherein the first filler (160) is an inkjet printing device (see Paragraph [0121]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘869 (US Publication 2022/0404869), Takahashi (US Publication 2016/0266671), and in further view of Lee (US Publication No. 2020/0295283).
Regarding claim 16, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the method according to claim 10, and suggests wherein the second resin (26 in Takahashi) is discharged from a second filler (see Figure 7A and Paragraph [0186]) disposed at a side of the first groove patterns (PP1 in Kim ‘869) and the second groove patterns (PP2 in Kim ‘869).
However, Lee explicitly teaches a second resin being discharged from a second filler (jetting device JT).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the jetting device to dispense the second resin of Kim ‘869 as modified by Takahashi, as taught in Lee, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of dispensing resin (see Paragraphs [0148]-[0152] in Lee).
Regarding claim 17, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi and Lee teaches the method according to claim 16, and further teaches (in Lee) wherein the second filler (JT) is a jetting valve (see Paragraphs [0148]-[0152] in Lee).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘869 (US Publication 2022/0404869), Takahashi (US Publication 2016/0266671), and in further view of Yug (US Publication No. 2020/0333845).
Regarding claim 19, Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi teaches the method according to claim 10, but does not teach cutting the edge portion of the upper layer and the edge portion of the lower layer along a cutting line.
However, Yug discloses a method of producing a cover window (WM) comprising an upper layer (WPF) and a lower layer (WBS), wherein the method includes cutting the edge portion of the upper layer (WPF) and the edge portion of the lower layer (WBS) along a cutting line (CL2; see Figures 13-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the methods of cutting the cover window along a cut line, as taught in Yug. Doing so would have ensure the cover window was the same size/fit perfectly with the display module (see Paragraph [0166] in Yug).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘869 (US Publication 2022/0404869), Takahashi (US Publication 2016/0266671), Yug (US Publication No. 2020/0333845), and in further view of Wang (US Publication No. 2024/0049406).
Regarding claim 20 (as best understood), Kim ‘869 in view of Takahashi and Yug teaches the method according to claim 19, but does not explicitly teach wherein after the cutting of the edge portion of the upper layer and the edge portion of the lower layer, each of a length of the edge portion of the upper layer and a length of the edge portion of the lower layer is less than or equal to about 50 μm.
However, Wang teaches a cover window (comprised of support layer 1, glue layer 2, protection film 3, and reinforcing layer 4) including an edge portion of a lower layer (portion of 3, 4 corresponding to gap 14), wherein the finished length (Figure 2, width B) of the edge portion of the layer (portion of 3, 4 corresponding to gap 14) is less than or equal to about 50 μm (see Paragraph [0075], where B is less than 0.75 mm).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the finished edge portions of the upper and lower layers in Kim ‘869 as modified by Takahashi and Yug to be less than or equal to about 50 μm, as suggested in Wang, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have provided a second resin thickness sufficient to protect from external force damage (see Paragraph [0075] in Wang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Han (US Publication No. 2018/0097197), Kim (US Publication No. 2019/0250665), Kang (US Publication No. 2022/0399521) Kim (US Patent No. 10490771), Smeeton (US Patent No. 11048295), Hong (US Patent No. 11050039), Yang (US Patent No. 12013729), and Xiao (US Patent No. 12443237) also teach elements of the claimed device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc