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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/23/2026 has been entered.
The objections over the Drawings presented in the Office Action mailed 8/28/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 9/23/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) presented in the Office Action mailed 8/28/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 9/23/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the Office Action mailed 8/28/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 9/23/2026. The examiner notes that new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the amendment filed 9/23/2026 are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 lines 7-8 “the unmasked portion” should be --the light transmissive portion--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-15, 18, 19 , 23, and 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 9 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 9 lines 16- recite the limitation “the light passing from the B-surface through the light-transmissive portion to the A-surface”. However, Claim 9 also recites on lines 2-4 “an optical plastic comprising an A-surface and a B-surface opposite the A-surface; a graphical mask disposed on the B-surface, the graphical mask comprising a light-blocking portion that comprises a light-blocking paint and a light transmissive portion”. Therefore, the light-transmissive portion is disposed on the B-surface of the optical plastic, and the portions are aligned sequentially as the A-surface of the optical plastic, the B-surface of the optical plastic, and the graphical mask including the light-transmissive portion. It is unclear as to how the light path is aligned such that “light passing from the B-surface through the light-transmissive portion to the A-surface” since it appears this requires light pass first through the B-surface, then the light-transmissive portion, then the A-surface. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the light passes through each the B-surface, the A-surface, and the light-transmissive portion though without a required order. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the intended path of light passing through the light-transmissive portion and/or other surfaces of the multi-layer display element, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With further regards to Claim 9 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 9 lines 16-18 recite the limitation “the external optical signal passing from the A-surface through the light-transmissive portion to the B-surface and to the sensor”. However, Claim 9 also recites on lines 2-4 “an optical plastic comprising an A-surface and a B-surface opposite the A-surface; a graphical mask disposed on the B-surface, the graphical mask comprising a light-blocking portion that comprises a light-blocking paint and a light transmissive portion”. Therefore, the light-transmissive portion is disposed on the B-surface of the optical plastic, and the portions are aligned sequentially as the A-surface of the optical plastic, the B-surface of the optical plastic, and the graphical mask including the light-transmissive portion. It is unclear as to how the path of the external optical signal is aligned such that “the external optical signal passing from the A-surface through the light-transmissive portion to the B-surface” since it appears this requires the external optical signal to pass first through the A-surface, then the light-transmissive portion, then the B-surface. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the external optical signal passes through each the A-surface, the B-surface, and the light-transmissive portion though without a required order, and to the sensor. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the intended path of the external optical signal passing through the light-transmissive portion and/or other surfaces of the multi-layer display element and to the sensor, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 15 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 15 line 7 recites the phrasing “the molding, masking, and coating produce the multi-layer display element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “coating” in the language, and it is unclear as to what aspects of a coating step are required by the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the method of producing a multi-layer display element includes a step of coating at least one portion of the multi-layer display element with at least one layer of a material. The applicant is encouraged to provide proper antecedent basis for all limitations in the claims and clarify the required coating step of the method of Claim 15.
With regards to Claim 24, lines 2-4 recite the limitation “the unmasked optical path is further configured to transmit an external optical or infrared signal”. It is unclear as to what further step(s) is/are required in order to configure the unmasked optical path to transmit an external optical or infrared signal, such as, e.g., a step of aligning components of the multi-layer display element, a step of selecting a particular material for a component of the multi-layer display element, etc.
Furthermore, Claim 24 lines 4-6 recite the limitation “the external optical or infrared signal passing from the A-surface through the unmasked optical path to the B-surface and to a sensor positioned adjacent the B-surface. However, Claim 24 depends from Claim 15, which recites on lines also recites on lines 2-5 “molding an optical-grade resin into a plastic comprising an A-surface and a B-surface opposite the A-surface; masking the B-surface of the plastic component with a light-blocking material to form a light-blocking portion and a light-transmissive portion”, and Claim 24 depends from Claim 23, which recites on lines 2-3 “the masking forms an unmasked optical path through the light-transmissive portion”. Therefore, the light-transmissive portion is disposed on the B-surface of the optical plastic, and the portions are aligned sequentially as the A-surface of the optical plastic, the B-surface of the optical plastic, and the light-transmissive portion forming the unmasked optical path. It is unclear as to how the path of the external optical or infrared signal is aligned such that “the external optical or infrared signal passing from the A-surface through the unmasked optical path to the B-surface” since it appears this requires the external optical signal to pass first through the A-surface, then the light-transmissive portion, then the B-surface.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the unmasked optical path of the multi-layer display element produced by the method of Claim 23 is capable of transmitting an external optical or infrared signal such that the external optical or infrared signal passes through each the A-surface, the B-surface, and the light-transmissive portion though without a required order, and to the sensor. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the required steps of the method of Claim 24 pertaining to the configuration of the unmasked optical path, and the intended path of the external optical or infrared signal passing through the unmasked optical path and/or other surfaces of the multi-layer display element and to the sensor, fully supported by the original disclosure.
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 15, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see the translation attached to the Office Action mailed 8/28/2026 for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 15 as best understood by the examiner (please see the above discussion of the rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), Wachinger discloses a method of producing a multi-layer display element comprising: molding an optical-grade resin into a plastic component [12] comprising an A-surface and a B-surface opposite the A- surface (see bottom of page 5 and Figures 2 and 3); and masking the B-surface of the plastic component [12] with a light-blocking material to form a light-blocking portion [20] and a light-transmissive portion [22] defining a negative shape of a graphic (see top half of page 5 and Figure 2; due to the alignment of the graphic portion [18] with opaque portion [20] and the alignment of the light source [24] with the light-transmitting portion [22], the graphical mask substantially defines a negative shape of a graphic); and wherein the molding, masking, and coating (see middle of page 3) produce the multi-layer display element such that, when the multi-layer display element is positioned adjacent a light source [24] with the B-surface facing the light source [24] and the light source [24] is not illuminated, the light-blocking material [20] is not visible through the A-surface and the A- surface appears continuous (see middle of page 5; the examiner notes that Wachinger substantially discloses the method steps forming the structure as recited in the claim, which is understood by the examiner to provide the resulting functionality of when the light source is not illuminated the light-blocking material is not visible through the A-surface and the A-surface appears continuous), and, when the light source [24] is illuminated, light emitted by the light source [24] passes through the light-transmissive portion and the plastic component to display the graphic through the A-surface (see middle of page 5).
With regards to Claim 19, Wachinger discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 15.
Wachinger further discloses the masking of the B-surface of the plastic component comprises over-molding the plastic component with an opaque plastic (see bottom of page 4 and top of page 5).
With regards to Claim 23, Wachinger discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 15.
Wachinger further discloses the masking forms an unmasked optical path through the light-transmissive portion [22] (see bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 and Figure 2), and wherein light emitted by a light source [24] positioned adjacent the B-surface passes along the unmasked optical path from the B-surface through the A-surface while the light-blocking portion [20] blocks the light (see top of page 5 and Figure 2).
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 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemmrich et al. (US 2022/0227312) in view of Okuda et al. (US 2024/0073153).
With regards to Claim 1, Zemmrich et al. discloses a multi-layer display element comprising: a first layer comprising an optical plastic [1] having an outer surface and an inner surface opposite the outer surface (see paragraph 80 and Figure 1; the element [1] is a polycarbonate and is transparent and is substantially an optical plastic and will substantially include an outer surface on a side [A] as seen in Figure 1 and an inner surface on a side on which portion [3,2] is disposed, see Figure 1); a third layer [2,3] comprising a graphical mask [2] disposed on the inner surface of the optical plastic [1] (see paragraphs 72 and 46), the graphical mask comprising a light-blocking portion [2] (see paragraph 74) that comprises a light-blocking paint (see paragraphs 46 and 80) and a light-transmissive portion defining a negative shape of a graphic (see paragraph 80 and Figure 1); at least one interactive component comprising a light source positioned adjacent the inner surface of the optical plastic [1] (see paragraph 76); and wherein, when the light source is not illuminated the graphical mask is not visible through the outer surface and the outer surface appears continuous (see paragraph 77), and when the light source is illuminated, light emitted by the light source passes through the light-transmissive portion, the optical plastic [1], to display the graphic through the outer surface (see paragraph 76).
Zemmrich et al. does not explicitly disclose a second layer comprising a matte varnish coated on the outer surface of the optical plastic, and when the light source is illuminated, light emitted by the light source passes through the matte varnish.
Okuda et al. teaches a second layer [40] comprising a matte varnish coated on the outer surface of the optical plastic [20] (see paragraph 57 and Figure 8A), and when the light source is illuminated, light [Li] emitted by the light source passes through the matte varnish [40] (see Figure 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Zemmrich et al. to include a second layer comprising a matte varnish coated on the outer surface of the optical plastic, and when the light source is illuminated, light emitted by the light source passes through the matte varnish, as taught by Okuda et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to include a visually and tactually perceivable roughness on the multi-layer display element (see Okuda et al. paragraph 57).
With regards to Claim 2, Zemmrich et al. and Okuda et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Zemmrich et al. further discloses a fourth layer comprising a touch screen interface (see paragraph 21).
With regards to Claim 5, Zemmrich et al. and Okuda et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Zemmrich et al. further discloses the at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source includes a plurality of light sources (see paragraph 76; at least one light source can be provided for each symbol portion of the multi-layer display element, thereby substantially a plurality of light sources is disclosed), wherein the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum (see paragraph 76).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemmrich et al. (US 2022/0227312) as modified by Okuda et al. (US 2024/0073153), further in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2021/0347260).
With regards to Claim 3, Zemmrich et al. and Okuda et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Zemmrich et al. does not disclose at least one haptic feedback actuator device.
Lambricht et al. teaches at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Zemmrich et al. and Okuda et al. to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (see Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
With regards to Claim 4, Zemmrich et al., Okuda et al., and Lambricht et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 3.
Zemmrich et al. does not disclose the at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators.
Lambricht et al. teaches the at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Zemmrich et al. and Okuda et al. to include the at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (see Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
Claims 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden et al. (US 2008/0157605) in view of Okuda et al. (US 2024/0073153).
With regards to Claim 9 as best understood by the examiner (please see the discussion of the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), Bowden et al. discloses a multi-layer display element comprising: an optical plastic [252] comprising an A-surface [212] (see paragraphs 37, 38, and 40 and Figure 3) and a B-surface opposite the A-surface (see Figure 3; the B-surface has portion [254] substantially disposed thereon); a graphical mask [254,256] disposed on the B-surface (see paragraphs 39, 41, and 43 and Figures 3 and 4B), the graphical mask [254,256] comprising a light-blocking portion [254] that comprises a light-blocking paint (see paragraph 40 and Figure 3; the portions of the mask including the opaque paint substantially comprise a light-blocking paint) and a light transmissive portion [256] (see paragraph 41 and Figure 3); at least one interactive component comprising a light source [258] positioned adjacent the B- surface (see paragraphs 43 and 44 and Figure 3); and a sensor [230] (see paragraph 37 and Figure 3) positioned adjacent the B-surface and in optical alignment with the unmasked portion (the examiner notes “the unmasked portion” is understood to be a typographical error and refers to the light transmissive portion [256], see Figure 3), wherein the A-surface [212] is an outer surface of the optical plastic [252] and the B-surface is an inner surface of the optical plastic [252] (see paragraph 37 and Figure 3), wherein the A-surface comprises a varnish (see paragraph 38), and wherein the light-transmissive portion [256] is configured to transmit light emitted by the light source [258], the light passing from the B-surface through the light- transmissive portion [256] to the A-surface [212] (see paragraphs 41, 43, and 44, and Figures 3 and 4B; the light substantially passes through each the light-transmissive portion [256], the B-surface, and the A-surface [212]), and transmit an external optical signal, the external optical signal passing from the A-surface through the light-transmissive portion [256] to the B-surface and to the sensor (see paragraphs 41 and 46; the light-transmissive portion [256] provides an optical pathway through which an external optical signal is substantially capable of passing through the A-surface [212], light transmissive portion [256], and the B-surface and of passing to the sensor [230] substantially aligned with the optical pathway), and wherein the light-blocking portion [254] is configured to block the light emitted by the light source [258] and the external optical signal (see paragraph 39; the light-blocking portion [254] is opaque and will therefore substantially be configured to block the light emitted by the light source [258] and an external optical signal).
Bowden et al. does not explicitly disclose the varnish is a matte varnish.
Okuda et al. teaches the A-surface (comprising an outer surface of the optical plastic [20], see Figure 8A) comprises a matte varnish [40] comprising a matte varnish (see paragraph 57 and Figure 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the varnish of Bowden et al. to include a matte varnish, as taught by Okuda et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to include a visually and tactually perceivable roughness on the multi-layer display element (see Okuda et al. paragraph 57).
With regards to Claim 10, Bowden et al. and Okuda et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Bowden et al. further discloses the light-transmissive portion [256] defines a negative shape of a graphic (see paragraphs 44 and 45 and Figure 4B).
With regards to Claim 11, Bowden et al. and Okuda et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Bowden et al. further discloses a touch screen interface (see paragraphs 32 and 33).
With regards to Claim 14, Bowden et al. and Okuda et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Bowden et al. does not explicitly disclose the at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source includes a plurality of light sources, wherein the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum. However, Bowden et al. does disclose activating a light source when a corresponding sensor is triggered (see Bowden et al. paragraph 44) utilizing a plurality of light sources in a multi-layer display element for illuminating separate user-control elements for different functions (see Bowden et al. paragraphs 48 and 52). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to utilize a plurality of light sources, wherein the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum in order to allow for a user to have multiple user-control elements for different functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source of Bowden et al. to include a plurality of light sources, wherein the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for a user to have multiple user-control elements for different functions (see Bowden et al. paragraphs 48 and 52), activating the separate user-control elements upon sensing a user (see Bowden et al. paragraph 44).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowden et al. (US 2008/0157605) as modified by Okuda et al. (US 2024/0073153), further in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2021/0347260).
With regards to Claim 12, Bowden et al. and Okuda et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 11.
Bowden et al. does not disclose at least one haptic feedback actuator device.
Lambricht et al. teaches at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Bowden et al. and Okuda et al. to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (see Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
With regards to Claim 13, Bowden et al., Okuda et al., and Lambricht et al. teach the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 12.
Bowden et al. does not disclose the at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators.
Lambricht et al. teaches the at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Bowden et al. and Okuda et al. to include the at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (see Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see the translation attached to the Office Action mailed 8/28/2026 for reference to pages) in view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0024378).
With regards to Claim 18, Wachinger discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 15.
Wachinger does not disclose the masking of the B-surface of the plastic component comprises laser-etching a light-blocking paint onto the B-surface of the plastic component.
Yang et al. teaches masking of a surface of the plastic component comprises laser-etching a light-blocking paint onto the surface of the plastic component (see paragraphs 8 and 46 and Figure 11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of masking of the B-surface of the plastic component of Wachinger to comprise laser-etching a light-blocking paint onto the B-surface of the plastic component, as taught by Yang et al. One would have been motivated to do SO in order to create a mask using a pattern/image (see Yang et al. paragraph 46) with substantially high precision.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see the translation attached to the Office Action mailed 8/28/2026 for reference to pages) in view of Bowden et al. (US 2008/0157605).
With regards to Claim 24 as best understood by the examiner (please see the above discussion of the rejection of Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), Wachinger discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 23.
Wachinger further discloses the unmasked optical path is further configured to transmit an external optical or infrared signal (see top of page 5; the materials of the unmasked optical path are substantially capable of transmitting an external optical or infrared signal).
Wachinger does not disclose the external optical or infrared signal passing from the A-surface through the unmasked optical path to the B-surface and to a sensor positioned adjacent the B-surface.
Bowden et al. teaches the unmasked optical path (comprising an unmasked optical path through the light-transmissive portion [256], see Figure 3) is further configured to transmit an external optical or infrared signal, the external optical or infrared signal passing from the A-surface through the unmasked optical path to the B-surface and to a sensor [230] (see paragraphs 33, 41, and 46; the light-transmissive portion [256] provides an optical path through which an external optical or infrared signal is substantially capable of passing through the A-surface [212], light transmissive portion [256], and the B-surface and of passing to the sensor [230] substantially aligned with the optical pathway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of producing a multi-layer display element of Wachinger to include the unmasked optical path is further configured to transmit an external optical or infrared signal, the external optical or infrared signal passing from the A-surface through the unmasked optical path to the B-surface and to a sensor positioned adjacent the B-surface, as taught by Bowden et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to include a sensor assisting a user with an operation (see Bowden et al. paragraph 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner responds below.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that amended Claim 1 requires a matte varnish coated on the outer surface and amended Claim 15 recites “coating the A-surface…with a matte clearcoat varnish” while Wachinger discloses no such coating, and the Lambricht, Eppers, and Yu references do not cure the deficiencies of Wachinger in disclosing or teaching the limitations of the amended claims, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Zemmrich et al., utilized in the present Office Action to address the amended limitations of Claim 1. The examiner further notes that the applicant appears to be arguing limitations (i.e. “coating the A-surface…with a matte clearcoat varnish”) not included in Claim 15 as filed 9/23/2026. Please see the above discussion of the rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as pertains to the limitation of Claim 15 line 7 of “the molding, masking, and coating”. As best understood by the examiner, the Wachinger reference does substantially disclose the limitations of Claim 15, discussed above in the rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
