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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the Claims as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/22/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 8/19/2026.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as presented in the Office Action mailed 6/22/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 8/19/2026. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the amendment filed 8/19/2026 are presented below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second layer comprising the grained matte finish being formed in the outer surface of the optical plastic of the first layer of Claim 1 lines 2-5, the steps of both molding an optical-grade resin into a plastic component comprising an A-surface and a B-surface opposite the A-surface with the molding forming a grained matte finish and coating the A-surface of the plastic component with a matte clearcoat varnish of Claim 17 lines 1-2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to Claim 17 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 17 line 2 recites the limitation “further comprising coating the A-surface of the plastic component with a matte clearcoat varnish”. Claim 17 depends from Claim 15, which recites on lines 2-3 the step of “molding an optical-grade resin into a plastic component comprising an A-surface and a B-surface opposite the A-surface, wherein the molding forms a grained matte finish”. Therefore, the scope of Claim 17 includes a step of molding which forms a grained matte finish and a step of coating the A-surface with a matte clearcoat varnish, such that the method includes both molding a grained matte finish and applying a matte clearcoat varnish. However, while the original disclosure acknowledges an embodiment utilizing a grained matte finish formed during molding (see, e.g., Specification paragraphs 10 and 40), and an embodiment applying a matte clearcoat varnish to a molded optical-grade resin (see, e.g., Specification paragraph 41), an embodiment including both a molded grained matte finish and an applied matte clearcoat varnish is not disclosed. Therefore, such limitations of Claim 17 constitute new matter.
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 9-14 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 4-5 recite the limitation “a graphical mask disposed on the B-surface, the graphical mask comprising a light-blocking portion and an unmasked portion”. It is unclear as to how the graphical mask includes an unmasked portion. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the graphical mask comprises a light-blocking portion and a portion not blocking light. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the relationship between the graphical mask and the unmasked portion, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With further regards to Claim 9 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 9 lines 14-17 recite the limitation “the unmasked portion is configured…to transmit an optical signal incident on the A-surface through the B-surface to the sensor”. It is unclear as to whether the optical signal is intended to be part of the invention (i.e., the multi-layer display element requires an optical signal, optical signal source, etc.), or whether the optical signal is external to the invention and the unmasked portion is required to be capable of transmitting an external optical signal to the sensor. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the unmasked portion forming part of the graphical mask disposed on the B-surface of the optical plastic (see Claim 9 lines 4-5) is configured to transmit an optical signal incident on the A-surface of the optical plastic through the B-surface. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the unmasked portion has a configuration such that an external optical signal which is incident on the A-surface of the optical plastic and exits the optical plastic through the B-surface is capable of being transmitted through the unmasked portion to the sensor. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the relationship between the optical signal and the requirements of the graphical mask, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 24, lines 2-3 recites the limitation “the unmasked portion also transmits an optical or infrared signal incident on the A-surface from the A-surface through the B-surface to a sensor positioned adjacent the B-surface”. It is unclear as to whether the optical or infrared signal is required to be part of the method of Claim 24 (i.e., whether the method of producing the multi-layer display element requires a step of passing an optical or infrared signal) or whether the ability of the unmasked optical path to transmit the optical or infrared signal is intended to be a resulting functionality of the unmasked optical path formed by the method of Claim 23 or whether Claim 24 intends to further include a step for providing such functionality to the unmasked optical path of Claim 23. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the unmasked optical path formed in the step of masking the B-surface with a light-blocking material is capable of transmitting an optical or infrared signal incident on the A-surface from the A-surface through the B-surface, when the A-surface and B-surface are surfaces of the plastic component and the masking step masks the B-surface with alight-blocking material to form a light-blocking portion and light transmissive portion (see Claim 15 lines 2-5). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the step of masking forms an unmasked optical path through the light-transmissive portion, which is capable of allowing an external optical or infrared signal to pass through the light-transmissive portion to the sensor, the optical or infrared signal originating external to the multi-layer display element and incident on the multi-layer display element at the A-surface of the plastic component and exits the plastic component on the B-surface. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the relationship between the unmasked optical path with the optical or infrared signal and pertains to the method of producing a multi-layer display element, fully supported by the original disclosure.
Applications filed after March 15th 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 1, Wachinger discloses a multi-layer display element comprising: a first layer comprising an optical plastic [12] having an outer surface and an inner surface opposite the outer surface (see bottom of page 4 and Figure 2); a second layer comprising a grained matte finish [34] formed in the outer surface of the optical plastic [12] (see middle of page 5, bottom half of page 5, and Figure 2); a third layer comprising a graphical mask [18,20,22] (see bottom of page 4 and top half of page 5 and Figure 2) disposed on the inner surface of the optical plastic [12], the graphical mask comprising 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); at least one interactive component comprising a light source [24] positioned adjacent the inner surface of the optical plastic [12] (see top half of page 5 and Figure 2; the light source [24] is substantially nearby the inner surface of the optical plastic [12]); and wherein, when the light source [24] is not illuminated the graphical mask [18,20,22] is not visible through the outer surface and the outer surface appears continuous (see middle of page 5; the examiner notes that Wachinger substantially discloses 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 graphical mask is not visible through the outer surface and the outer surface appears continuous), and when the light source [24] is illuminated, light emitted by the light source [24] passes through the light-transmissive portion [22], the optical plastic [12], and the grained matte finish [34] to display the graphic through the outer surface (see middle of page 5).
With regards to Claim 2, Wachinger discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Wachinger further discloses a fourth layer comprising a touch screen interface (see top half of page 3).
With regards to Claim 15, 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), wherein the molding forms a grained matte finish [34] (see top of page 3 and middle of page 5 and Figure 2); 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), wherein the molding and masking 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).
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2021/0347260).
With regards to Claim 3, Wachinger discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Wachinger does not explicitly 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 Wachinger 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, Wachinger and Lambricht et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 3.
Wachinger does not explicitly disclose at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators.
Lambricht et al. teaches 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 Wachinger to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device including 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of Eppers et al. (DE 102019208135; please see the translation attached to the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 5, Wachinger discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Wachinger further discloses the at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source includes a plurality of light sources (see top of page 4 and the Claims on page 7; at least one light source [24] is provided, which includes in its range a plurality of light sources),
Wachinger does not disclose the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum.
Eppers et al. teaches the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum (see top of page 4).
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 plurality of light sources of Wachinger to be independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum, as taught by Eppers et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a desired lighting effect across different areas of the multi-layer display element (see Eppers et al. bottom of page 3 and top of page 4).
Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see attached translation for reference to pages) in view of Yu et al. (WO 2020193135; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 9, Wachinger discloses a multi-layer display element comprising: an optical plastic [12] comprising an A-surface and a B-surface opposite the A-surface (see bottom of page 4 and Figure 2); a graphical mask [18,20,22] disposed on the B-surface (see bottom of page 4 and top half of page 5 and Figure 2), the graphical mask [18,20,22] comprising a light-blocking portion [20] and an unmasked portion [22] (see top half of page 5 and Figure 2); at least one interactive component comprising a light source [24] positioned adjacent the B-surface (see top half of page 5 and Figure 2; the light source [24] is substantially position near the B-surface); wherein the A-surface is an outer surface of the optical plastic [12] (see Figure 2) and the B-surface is an inner surface of the optical plastic [23] (see Figure 2), wherein the A-surface comprises a matte grain [34] or matte varnish (see middle of page 5, bottom half of page 5, and Figure 2), and wherein the unmasked portion [22] is configured to transmit light emitted by the light source [24] from the B-surface through the A-surface (see middle of page 5) and to transmit an optical signal incident on the A-surface through the B-surface (see middle of page 5; an optical signal incident on the A-surface through the B-surface will substantially pass through the unmasked portion [22]), and the light blocking portion [20] is configured to block the light emitted by the light source [24] and the optical signal (see middle of page 5; the light blocking portion [20] is made to be opaque and will therefore block the light emitted by light source [24] and the optical signal).
Wachinger does not explicitly disclose a sensor positioned adjacent the B-surface and in optical alignment with the unmasked portion, the unmasked portion is configured to transmit an optical signal incident on the A-surface through the B-surface to the sensor.
Yu et al. teaches a sensor [40] positioned adjacent the B-surface (comprising the inner surface of portion [20], see top of page 6 and Figure 1; sensor [40] is substantially positioned nearby the B-surface of portion [20]) and in optical alignment with the unmasked portion [31] (see middle of page 6 and Figure 1; the sensor [40] is substantially in optical alignment with unmasked portion [31]), the unmasked portion [31] is configured to transmit an optical signal incident on the A-surface through the B-surface to the sensor [40] (see middle of page 6 and Figure 1; unmasked portion [31] is a transparent region, which substantially configures it to transmit an optical signal incident on the A-surface through the B-surface to the sensor [40]).
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 Wachinger to include a sensor positioned adjacent the B-surface and in optical alignment with the unmasked portion, the unmasked portion is configured to transmit an optical signal incident on the A-surface through the B-surface to the sensor, as taught by Yu et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a user to control a functionality associated with the multi-layer display element (see Yu et al. middle of page 7).
With regards to Claim 10, Wachinger and Yu et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wachinger further discloses the unmasked portion [22] defines 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).
With regards to Claim 11, Wachinger and Yu et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wachinger further discloses a fourth layer comprising a touch screen interface (see top half of page 3).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see attached translation for reference to pages) as modified by Yu et al. (WO 2020193135; please see attached translation for reference to pages), further in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2021/0347260).
With regards to Claim 12, Wachinger and Yu et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 11.
Wachinger does not explicitly 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 Wachinger and Yu 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, Wachinger, Yu et al., and Lambricht et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 12.
Wachinger does not explicitly disclose at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators.
Lambricht et al. teaches 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 Wachinger and Yu et al. to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device including 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachinger (DE 102015006395; please see attached translation for reference to pages) as modified by Yu et al. (WO 2020193135; please see attached translation for reference to pages), further in view of Eppers et al. (DE 102019208135; please see the translation attached to the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 14, Wachinger and Yu et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Wachinger further discloses the at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source includes a plurality of light sources (see top of page 4 and the Claims on page 7; at least one light source [24] is provided, which includes in its range a plurality of light sources),
Wachinger does not disclose the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum.
Eppers et al. teaches the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum (see top of page 4).
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 plurality of light sources of Wachinger and Yu et al. to be independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum, as taught by Eppers et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a desired lighting effect across different areas of the multi-layer display element (see Eppers et al. bottom of page 3 and top of page 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 and 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to Claim 17 and claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of Claim 15 further comprising a step of coating the A-surface of the plastic component with a matte clearcoat varnish, as required by the claimed combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Harmelink and Eppers do not disclose the limitations of amended Claim 1, which now describes an optical plastic with a grained matte finish integral with and formed in the outer surface of that optical plastic during molding, the examiner notes that while the Harmelink and Eppers references are not utilized to address the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1 above, the applicant appears to be arguing limitations not required by the claim (i.e., the claim does not require the grained matte finish being integral with and formed in the outer surface of the optical plastic during molding). Should the applicant intend these limitations be required by the scope of the claim, amendments to the claim defining these requirements should be included in future amendments to ensure their inclusion in the claim scope.
With regards to the applicant’s argument pertaining to the limitations of amended Claim 9 that Harmelink does not teach a bidirectional, commonly aligned path required by the claim and the sensor [Sn/Sna] disclosed by Harmelink in Figure 16 does not describe an optical or infrared signal incident on the outer A-surface, transmitted through the same unmasked portion in the reverse direction, and received by a sensor adjacent the B-surface, the examiner notes that the Wachinger and Yu et al. references have been utilized in the present Office Action to address the limitations of amended Claim 9 (please see the above discussion of the disclosure and teachings of Wachinger and Yu et al. as pertains to the limitations of amended Claim 9). Furthermore, the examiner notes that the claim requires the unmasked portion be configured to transmit an optical signal to the sensor, but does not define the type of sensor, relationship between the sensor and the optical signal, or require an optical signal be transmitted (only that the unmasked portion is configured to transmit an optical signal). Should the applicant intend a particular relationship between the required components of the multi-layer display element pertaining to an optical signal and the sensor, language defining such relationship(s) should be included in the claim language in future amendments to ensure their inclusion in the claim scope.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Okuda’s cited structure is materially different from the method of amended Claim 15, which requires molding of optical-grade resin to form a grained matte finish integral with the A-surface, followed by masking the B-surface with the light-blocking material to form light-blocking and light-transmissive portions defining the negative graphic, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of amended Claim 15 over the Wachinger reference used herein to address the amended scope of Claim 15, and which addresses particularly the step of molding the optical-grade resin to form a grained matte finish.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Kotani, Yang, and Piccin do not disclose the required integral molded A-surface and rear-mask construction, the examiner notes that the amended scope of Claim 17 has been indicated as including allowable subject matter not taught by the prior art for including both a grained matte finish formed during a molding step and a step of applying a matte clearcoat varnish. Claims 23 and 24 include dependencies from Claim 17, and the applicant is additionally directed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights