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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to CN202111189979.8, with a filing date of 10/12/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2024, 07/05/2024 and 06/17/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10, 18-20 in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 12/02/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Fig.1 – Fig.7; Figures, when the labeling includes a letter, must use upper case lettering. Example: FIG. 2 .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretations
Regarding Claim 4 - the end range values of surface compressive stress of the first surface compressive stress layer (700 MPa to 1200 MPa) and the end range values of surface compressive stress of the second surface compressive stress layer (300 MPa to 850 MPa) are inclusive.
Regarding Claim 7 - the phrase “lithium aluminum silicate glass” is understood to mean “lithium alumino-silicate glass”, where elements of lithium, aluminum, and silicon are in oxide form.
Regarding Claim 8 - sodium calcium silicate glass and soda-lime glass are considered the same type of glass, as “soda” is used for sodium and “lime” is used for calcium in the glass melting industry.
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 10 and 19 is/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.
Regarding Claim 10 – claiming that “a bending strength of the glass substrate is 1000 MPa to 2100
MPa” renders the claim indefinite, as one skilled in the art would know that glass bending strength
depends on glass thickness, where the instant claim does not claim a glass thickness nor does the claim
from which the instant claim depends.
Regarding Claim 19 -
the term “close” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term
“close” 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. The location of the second surface compressive stress layer is rendered
indefinite. For the purposes of prior art and prosecution, the Examiner understands the term
“close” to mean “closer”, in that the second surface compressive stress layer is “closer” to the
electronic equipment.
the term “far away” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term
“far away” 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. The location of the first surface compressive stress layer
is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of prior art and prosecution, the Examiner understands
the term “far away” to mean “farther away”, in that the first surface compressive stress layer is
“farther away” from the electronic equipment.
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, 4-5, 7-8, 9, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated USPGPUB 20170247291 by Hatano et. al. (herein “Hatano”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Hatano teaches a glass substrate with two surfaces each having a compressive stress layer disposed on opposite sides of the glass substrate (Fig 2), wherein one layer has a higher surface compressive strength and a smaller depth of layer (“second surface”) than the other layer (“first surface”) (P0041, Fig 2).
NOTE: The labels of the “FIRST SURFACE” and “SECOND SURFACE” in Hatano are used to simply differentiate between two surfaces of a substrate in relation to strengthening processes and anticipate the oppositely named claimed surfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4 - Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches wherein,
a surface compressive stress of the first surface compressive stress layer is 700 MPa to 1200 MPa; [0046], “ The surface compressive stress CS2 of the second surface (claimed first surface) is not particularly limited so long as CS2 is higher by at least 50 MPa than the surface compressive stress CS1 of the first surface. However, from the standpoint of bending resistance, CS2 is preferably 700 MPa or higher.”
and a surface compressive stress of the second surface compressive stress layer is 300 MPa to 850 MPa; [0045], “The surface compressive stress CS1 of the first surface (claimed second surface) is not particularly limited so long as CS1 is lower by at least 50 MPa than the surface compressive stress CS2 of the second surface. However, from the standpoint of scratch resistance, CS1 is preferably 300 MPa or higher.”
Regarding Claim 5 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches wherein,
a ratio of the surface compressive stress of the first surface compressive stress layer to the surface compressive stress of the second surface compressive stress layer is greater than or equal to 1.2. ;; [0046], [0045], “CS2 is preferably 700 MPa or higher”, “CS1 is preferably 300 MPa or higher”. Therefore, 700 MPa/300 MPa = 2.33 ≥ 1.2.
Regarding Claim 7 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches wherein,
the thickness t of the glass substrate is 0.1 mm to 5 mm; [0115], “First, a glass having the composition shown below was produced…so that the glass had a thickness of 0.85 mm.”
Regarding Claim 8 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches wherein,
a material of the glass substrate comprises one or more of lithium aluminum silicate glass, sodium calcium silicate glass, and soda-lime glass; [0057], [0058], “The glass substrate to be used for this embodiment is not particularly limited so long as the glass substrate is capable of undergoing ion exchange. For example, use can be made of a glass substrate suitably selected from among soda-lime glass, aluminosilicate glass, borosilicate glass, aluminoborosilicate glass, and the like”, “Examples of the composition of the glass substrate for use in this embodiment include a glass having a composition which includes, in terms of mol %, 50-80% SiO2, 0.1-30% Al2O3, 3-30% Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-25% MgO, 0-25% CaO, and 0-5% ZrO2.” Here, lithium is in the alumino silicate glass composition which would also satisfy a glass composition that is a lithium aluminum silicate glass.
Regarding Claim 9 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches wherein,
the first surface compressive stress layer and/or the second surface compressive stress layer are obtained by performing chemical strengthening or physical tempering on a glass substrate; [0037], “The chemically strengthened glass of the present invention is a chemically strengthened glass having a first surface and a second surface which faces the first surface, in which the first surface has a depth of (compressive) stress layer DOL1 which is larger by at least 3 μm than a depth of (compressive) stress layer DOL2 of the second surface, the second surface has a surface compressive stress CS2 which is higher by at least 50 MPa than a surface compressive stress CS1 of the first surface…”
Regarding Claim 18 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches wherein,
an electronic device, comprising an electronic component and a glass cover plate covering the
electronic component, the glass cover plate comprising the glass substrate according to claim 1;
[0111], “The chemically strengthened glass of the present invention is useful as, for example,
the cover glasses of personal digital assistants such as cell phones and smartphones and of
display devices, e.g., those of TV's, personal computers, and touch panels.” It would be
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the devices above contain electrical
components that are covered by a cover glass.
Regarding Claim 20 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 18 above teach all of the limitations of claim 18.
Hatano teaches wherein,
the glass cover plate is a screen cover plate and/or a back cover plate of the electronic device;
[0111], “The chemically strengthened glass of the present invention is useful as, for example,
the cover glasses of personal digital assistants such as cell phones and smartphones and of
display devices, e.g., those of TV's, personal computers, and touch panels.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20170247291
by Hatano et. al. (herein “Hatano”) and in further view of CN 111302654A (as submitted in the IDS dated
06/17/2025) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced
herein) by Hu et. al (“herein” Hu).
Regarding Claim 2 - Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches using electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA) to quantify an integral from the outermost surfaces of an edge of a glass substrate, to a depth of 80um but fails to teach,
a ratio of an absolute value of a difference between a compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer and a compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer to the compressive stress integral of any surface compressive stress layer is less than or equal to 5%.
In a similar endeavor of asymmetric strengthened glass substrates, Hu teaches an asymmetric compressive curve and depth of layer (See Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
615
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further Hu teaches the compressive stress of surface layer 3 (considered the second layer in regard to Claim 1) is 50-200MPa (lines 235-237), that one of layers 3 and 4 (considered the first layer in regard to Claim 1) must be at least 600MPa (lines 228-230), and where layer 3 has larger depth of layer than layer 4 (considered the first compressive surface DOL is less than the second compressive surface DOL per Claim 1). Hue further cites the difference between layer 3 and layer 4 compressive stress integrals is more than 10%.
Hu discloses the claimed invention except for compressive stress integrals of 5% or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize for compressive stress integrals of 5% or less , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize for compressive stress integrals for the purpose of improving drop resistance (line 86) for thin glass (line 52) as the compressive stress depth that can be obtain (compressive stress depth is part of the compressive stress integral) is very limited (lines 55-58) as noted by Hu. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 3 – Hatano and Hu in the rejection of claim 2 above teach all of the limitations of claim
2.
Hatano teaches using electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA) to quantify an integral from the outermost surfaces of an edge of a glass substrate, to a depth of 80um but fails to teach a), b) or c) below;
a) when the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer obtained is less than the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer, the ratio of the absolute value of the difference between the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer and the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer to the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer is less than or equal to 5%.
when the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer obtained is greater than the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer, the ratio of the absolute value of the difference between the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer and the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer to the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer is less than or equal to 5%;
when the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer obtained is equal to the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer, the ratio of the absolute value of the difference between the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer and the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer to the compressive stress integral of the first surface compressive stress layer or the compressive stress integral of the second surface compressive stress layer is less than or equal to 5%; The difference between any two values that are equal is inherently zero, which translates to the to an inherent ratio of zero as in the instant claim.
Hu teaches that , among the two surface layers 3 and 4 of the single-sided superior compressive stress glass, at least one surface layer has a compressive stress of at least 600 MPa or more. In addition, the absolute value of the difference between the compressive stresses of the two surface layers is less than or equal to 500Mpa on the basis that the difference between the compressive stress integrals of the two surface layers is more than 10% (lines 228-232). Here either surface 3 or 4 could have the higher surface compressive stress (600Mpa) while the other layer has the lower surface compressive stress. As well as both layers could have the same surface compressive stress, as the compressive stress difference between the two layers “is less than 500MPa” which includes the value zero.
Hu provides an example where the layer 3 (considered the second compressive layer) compressive integral being greater than layer 4 (considered the first compressive layer) compressive integral and the difference is 10% (lines 215-223). Here, layer 3 has the lower surface compressive stress which translates to a higher compressive integral which is also shown in Fig. 1, i.e. the side that has the lower surface compressive stress has the higher compressive stress integral. Hence, all conditions of a), b and c) of the claimed invention Hu discloses except for compressive stress integrals of 5% or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize for compressive stress integrals of 5% or less , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize for compressive stress integrals for the purpose of improving drop resistance (line 86) for thin glass (line 52) as the compressive stress depth that can be obtain (compressive stress depth is part of the compressive stress integral) is very limited (lines 55-58) as noted by Hu. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claims 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20170247291
by Hatano et. al. (herein “Hatano”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20210139371A1 (as submitted in
the IDS dated 06/17/2025) by Luzzato et. al (herein “Luzzato”)
Regarding Claim 6 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Hatano teaches a glass thickness [0115] and depth of first compressive layer and second
compressive layer (Table1 , Table 3, Table 5), Hatano fails to teach on the whole wherein,
when a thickness of the glass substrate is t, a depth of the first surface compressive stress layer is greater than or equal to 0.004 mm and is less than or equal to 0.1t;
and the depth of the second surface compressive stress layer is greater than or equal to 0.085 mm and less than or equal to 0.6t.
In a similar endeavor of asymmetrical chemical strengthening, Luzzato teaches an asymmetrical
compressive stress profile as in Fig. 24 below, where, as similar to Claim 1 (reverse),
the first surface compressive layer is denoted by 2410 (CS2)
DOL 1 is denoted by DOL2 in Luzzato
second surface compressive layer is denoted by 2406 (CS1)
DOL 2 is denoted by DOL1 in Luzzato
where aspects of the profile meet Claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
504
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Luzzato teaches glass thickness range of less than 5mm and in most cases between 0.3-2.5mm as a general range ([0074]) and further targets a specific thickness of 1mm as it this thickness relates to rounded edge geometries for a cover glass, as rounded edges are an aspect of the reference ([106]). Further, Luzzato cites an asymmetrical chemical strengthening process where DOL 1 (which is DOL 2 in Luzzato) to be from 10-50um and DOL 2 (which is DOL 1 in Luzzato) as 75-175um ([0200]).
t = 1.00mm, then .1t = 100um, .6t = 600um
DOL 1 = 10-50um
DOL 2 = 75-175um
Per the instant claim,
DOL 1 ≥ 4um ≤ 100um, where DOL 1 = 10-50um
85um ≥ DOL 2≤ 600um, where DOL 2 = 75-175um
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to target the cover glass thickness, DOL 1 and DOL 2 of Luzzato in the glass substrate of Hanato, as one would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of identifying the glass article to use for the desired utility based on dimensions, thickness and how much stress the glass can withstand, as noted by Luzzato ([0074], [0123], Fig. 8) and to achieve a deeper depth of compression, and thereby facilitate a glass article's ability to resist failure ([0198]). Further, in relation to the DOL 1 and DOL 2 values, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Luzzato’s DOL 1 and DOL 2 range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10 – Hatano in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hatano teaches that external forces on the surface of a cover glass cause tensile stress on
the back side of the cover glass due to bending and suggests the compressive stress on the back surface
of the cover glass be “high” but does not suggest a bending strength needed for the cover glass
([0009]). Hanato fails to teach,
wherein a bending strength of the glass substrate is 1000 MPa to 2100 MPa.
Luzzato further cites the CS2 value of 2410, where side 2410 is the interior surface of the cover glass
(faces the device), to be from 600-800MPa [0200]. As well, in regard to Fig. 7A,
that compressive stress profile peaks are at the surfaces of the glass cover, so by translation, the CS2
value in Fig. 24 is a compressive stress profile peak. Continuing, that the peaks at the surface of the glass
cover provides an indication of the bending stress a glass article can absorb prior to failure, indicating
the compressive stress value of 800MPa on 2410 could be considered the bending stress ([0114]).
Luzzato discloses the claimed invention except for 1000MPa – 2100MPa. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
have optimized for bending strength of the glass substrate, since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the bending stress, as related
to the peak compressive of the interior side of the cover glass, for the purpose of identifying the glass
article to use for the desired utility based on dimensions, thickness and how much stress the glass can
withstand, as noted by Luzzato ([0074], [0123], Fig. 8). Where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation. Further, it is known in the art that bending stress is related to glass thickness. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the
relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims (FP 7.43).
Claim 19 would be allowable for ,
in the glass substrate, the second surface compressive stress layer is close to the electronic
component, and the first surface compressive stress layer is far away from the electronic
component.
Hatano teaches that the second surface compressive layer is farther away from the electronic
component and the first surface compressive layer is closer to the electronic component, i.e. the
opposite orientation of the cover glass in relation to an electronic component of the claim. Hatano
teaches that in order for the exposed surface of a cover glass to have flaw resistance, that the DOL of
the exposed surface should be larger (than the non-exposed/back surface in a display device) and that
the compressive stress should be higher on the back surface (as compared to the exposed surface). This
description aligns with Annotated Fig. 2 from Claim 1. Hence the larger DOL in Annotated Fig. 2 is DOL2
of the second surface compressive layer, which would be the exposed surface farther away from the
electronic device ([0009]).
Hu teaches that the second surface compressive layer is farther away from the electronic
component and the first surface compressive layer is closer to the electronic component, i.e. the
opposite orientation of the cover glass in relation to an electronic component of the claim. Hu teaches
asymmetric chemical strengthening where one side has large compressive stress depth to one side
thereby having a higher crack pressing layer, and thus has a high drop resistance, implying the large
compressive stress depth is the outer surface when in an electronic device. The larger DOL in Annotated
Fig. 2 is DOL2 of the second surface compressive layer.
Luzzato teaches that the second surface compressive layer is farther away from the electronic
component and the first surface compressive layer is closer to the electronic component, i.e. the
opposite orientation of the cover glass in relation to an electronic component. Luzzato teaches an
asymmetric chemical strengthening [0196] where maximizing the depth of compression (DOL) provides
the ability to resist failure by induction (i.e. dropping) ([0197]) and that depth of compression layer
provides against impact resistance [0114], implying the larger depth of compression layer is the outer
surface, father away from an electronic component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741