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
Claim 16 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16, 18-21, 23-24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ambur et el. (US 20170068030 A1) in view of Sato (US 20150346386 A1), Kobayashi (WO 2021124645 A1) and Han et al. (US 20220099974 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ambur discloses in at least figure 6, an optical stack (optical stack 610 fig. 6)
comprising:
an optical lens (optical lens 612 fig. 6);
a reflective polarizer (reflective polarizer 627 fig. 6) disposed on (reflective polarizer 627 is
disposed on the quarter wave retarder 625 and second major surface 614 of the optical lens 612 fig. 6),
and substantially conforming to (reflective polarizer 627 can be formed with the first quarter wave plate
625 col. 19 lines 15-18 and is disposed on second major surface 614 of the optical lens 612 fig. 6), a
major surface (second major surface 614 fig. 6) of the optical lens (optical lens 612 fig. 6), the reflective
polarizer (reflective polarizer 627 fig. 6) substantially reflecting light having a first polarization state
(reflective polarizer 627 reflects light with a reflects light having an orthogonal second polarization state
paragraph [0090]) and substantially transmitting light having an orthogonal second polarization state
(the multilayer reflective polarizer 627 substantially transmits light having a first polarization state that
is orthogonal to the second polarization state paragraph [0090]).
Ambur does not disclose, an optical lens having an optical retardance of greater than 10 nm in a
largest optically active region of the optical lens; and
a same principal axis of the optical retardance being aligned with a same one of the first and
second polarization states to within about 6 degrees at the first location,
wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance has a first orientation at the first location, and wherein a first region of the optical lens is a circular region substantially centered on the first location and having a diameter D1 of at least 50% of a diameter DO of the largest optically active region of the optical lens, and an average in the first region of a magnitude of an angle of the same principal axis relative to the first orientation is less than 4 degrees.
However Sato discloses in at least figure 3, an optical lens (the optical element according to one
embodiment of the invention is optimum as a mobile phone camera lens paragraph [0085]) having an
optical retardance (the retardation measured at an Re measurement point [Bl situated at the center of
the lens is referred to as Re[B] paragraph [0100]) of greater than 10 nm (the retardation is 30 nm or
more for examples evaluated as B, paragraph [0102] including example 13 table 2) at a first location (the
center of the lens paragraph [0100]) in a largest optically active region (an optical element obtained by
forming the optical polymer according to the embodiments of the invention has a large optically
effective area paragraph [0172] and the center of the lens is the largest area of the lens fig. 3) of the
optical lens (the optical element according to one embodiment of the invention is optimum as a mobile
phone camera lens paragraph [0085]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an optical lens with a retardance as taught by Sato in the optical stack of
Ambur. A small retardation represents low birefringence (paragraph [0103]).
Additionally Kobayashi discloses in at least figure 4, a same principal axis of the optical retardance (slow axis as shown below in fig. 4, the arrows indicate the direction of the lagging axis in that region paragraph [0045]) being aligned with (the polarization axis of the first linear polarizer 3 can be arranged to be substantially parallel to the slow phase axis of the base film 8A paragraph [0042]), a same one of the first and second polarization states (first polarization axis as shown below in fig. 4) to within about 6 degrees (polarization axis of the first linear polarizer 3 becomes approximately perpendicular or approximately parallel to the slow phase axis of the base film 8A paragraph [0042]) at the first location (the slow axis is parallel to the base film 8A in the center of the film as shown below in fig. 4 and the first location is the center of the lens taught above by Sato).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a slow axis parallel to a polarization axis as taught by Kobayashi in the optical
stack of Ambur. When the slow axis is parallel to the polarization axis the polarization state of the light
that has passed through the first linear polarizer 3 is not disturbed (paragraph [0042] of translation).
Further Han discloses in at least figure 10, wherein the same principal axis (rotation angle of 601 and 602 are different paragraph [0092]) of the optical retardance (when the micro-nano structure units with different rotation angles are designed to form a two-dimensional planar structure in a specific arrangement mode, the amplitude, phase, polarization or the like of the incident light can be flexibly regulated paragraph [0088]) has a first orientation (601 angle as shown below in fig. 10) at the first location (first location as shown below in fig. 10), and wherein a first region (first region S1 fig. 10) of the optical lens (the multifocal display based on the super lens in the embodiments of the present disclosure divides the super lens 60 into two regions paragraph [0091]) is a circular region (the shape of the first region s1 may be set to be a circle paragraph [0105]) substantially centered on (the first region S1 is centered on the first location as shown below in fig. 10) the first location (first location fig. 10) and having a diameter D1 (D1 as shown below in fig. 10) of at least 50% (D1 is 50% of D2 as shown below in fig. 10) of a diameter DO (D2 as shown below in fig. 10) of the largest (the second regions S2 is the largest region of super lens 60 fig. 10) optically active region (second region S2 fig. 10) of the optical lens (the multifocal display based on the super lens in the embodiments of the present disclosure divides the super lens 60 into two regions paragraph [0091]), and an average in the first region (first region S1 fig. 10) of a magnitude of an angle (the 601 angle is the same in the first region S1 as shown below in fig. 10) of the same principal axis (rotation angle of 601 and 602 are different paragraph [0092]) relative to the first orientation (601 angle as shown below in fig. 10) is less than 4 degrees (the 601 angle for each unit 601 is less than 4 degreases from the 601 angle in the first location as shown below in fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
624
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use curricular regions as taught by Han in the optical stack of Ambur. Because of the first micro-nano structure units 601 distributed in the first region s1, and the second micro-nano structure units 602 distributed in the second region s2, the light intensities of the first image and the second image seen by the human eyes are consistent (paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein a maximum thickness of the optical lens is less than 1 cm.
However Sato further discloses, wherein a maximum thickness of the optical lens (the optical
element according to one embodiment of the invention is optimum as a mobile phone camera lens
paragraph [0085]) is less than 1 cm (the maximum thickness is 0.5 mm fig. 3).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an optical lens with a thickness as taught by Sato in the optical stack of Ambur.
When the optical lens has a non-uniform thickness, the thickness of the thickset part of the lens is preferably set particularly preferably Tl/T2 ~ 2.5 where Tl is the edge thickness and T2 is the thickest
part of the lens (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein a maximum thickness of the optical lens is less than 0.6 cm
and the optical retardance of the optical lens at the first location is greater than 14 nm.
However Sato further discloses, wherein a maximum thickness of the optical lens (the optical
element according to one embodiment of the invention is optimum as a mobile phone camera lens
paragraph [00851) is less than 0.6 cm (the maximum thickness is 0.5 mm fig. 3) and the optical
retardance (the retardation measured at an Re measurement point [Bl situated at the center of the lens
is referred to as Re[Bl paragraph [01001) of the optical lens (the optical element according to one
embodiment of the invention is optimum as a mobile phone camera lens paragraph [00851) at the first
location (center of the lens paragraph [01001) is greater than 14 nm (the retardation is 30 nm or more
for examples evaluated as B, paragraph [01021 including example 13 table 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an optical lens with a thickness and retardance as taught by Sato in the optical
stack of Ambur. A small retardation represents low birefringence (paragraph [01031).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein a maximum thickness of the optical lens is less than 0.4 cm
and the optical retardance of the optical lens at the first location is greater than 20 nm.
However Sato further discloses, wherein a maximum thickness of the optical lens (the optical
element according to one embodiment of the invention is optimum as a mobile phone camera lens
paragraph [00851) is less than 0.4 cm (the maximum thickness is 0.5 mm fig. 3) and the optical
retardance (the retardation measured at an Re measurement point [Bl situated at the center of the lens
is referred to as Re[Bl paragraph [01001) of the optical lens (the optical element according to one
embodiment of the invention is optimum as a mobile phone camera lens paragraph [0085]) at the first
location (center of the lens paragraph [0100]) is greater than 20 nm (the retardation is 30 nm or more
for examples evaluated as B, paragraph [0102] including example 13 table 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an optical lens with a thickness and retardance as taught by Sato in the optical
stack of Ambur. A small retardation represents low birefringence (paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance is a slow axis
and the same one of the first and second polarization states is the first polarization state.
However Kobayashi further discloses, wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance
is a slow axis (slow phase axis of the base film 8A paragraph [0042] of translation) and the same one of
the first and second polarization states is the first polarization state (polarization axis of the first linear
polarizer 3 paragraph [0042] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a slow axis parallel to a polarization axis as taught by Kobayashi in the optical
stack of Ambur. When the slow axis is parallel to the polarization axis the polarization state of the light
that has passed through the first linear polarizer 3 is not disturbed (paragraph [0042] of translation).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance has an
orientation within about 3 degrees of the same one of the first and second polarization states for each
location in at least 30% of the first region of the optical lens.
However Kobayashi further discloses, wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance
(slow axis as shown below in fig. 4, the arrows indicate the direction of the lagging axis in that region
paragraph [0045]) has an orientation within about 3 degrees (the polarization axis of the first linear
polarizer 3 can be arranged to be substantially parallel to the slow phase axis of the base film 8A
paragraph [0042]) of the same one of the first and second polarization states (first polarization axis of
the first linear polarizer 3 paragraph [0042] of translation) for each location in at least 30% (the slow axis
is parallel to the first polarization state in at least 30% of the center region as shown below in fig. 4) of a
first region (center region as shown below in fig. 4) of the optical lens (first region of the optical lens
taught above by Sato).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a slow axis parallel to a polarization axis as taught by Kobayashi in the optical
stack of Ambur. When the slow axis is parallel to the polarization axis the polarization state of the light
that has passed through the first linear polarizer 3 is not disturbed (paragraph [0042] of translation).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance has an
orientation within about 3 degrees of the same one of the first and second polarization states for each
location in at least 60% of the first region of the optical lens.
However Kobayashi further discloses, wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance
(slow axis as shown below in fig. 4, the arrows indicate the direction of the lagging axis in that region
paragraph [0045]) has an orientation within about 3 degrees (the polarization axis of the first linear
polarizer 3 can be arranged to be substantially parallel to the slow phase axis of the base film 8A
paragraph [0042]) of the same one of the first and second polarization states (first polarization axis of
the first linear polarizer 3 paragraph [0042] of translation) for each location in at least 60% (the slow axis
is parallel to the first polarization state in at least 60% of the center region as shown below in fig. 4) of a
first region (center region as shown below in fig. 4) of the optical lens (first region of the optical lens
taught above by Sato).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a slow axis parallel to a polarization axis as taught by Kobayashi in the optical
stack of Ambur. When the slow axis is parallel to the polarization axis the polarization state of the light
that has passed through the first linear polarizer 3 is not disturbed (paragraph [0042] of translation).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and Ambur further discloses, wherein the optical lens (lens 610 fig. 7) comprises at least one of polycarbonate (an injection mold polycarbonate resin was used to form the lens on the film paragraph [0216]), polystyrene (not required by claim), polyester (not required by claim), amorphous polyolefin (not required by claim), or styrene methyl methacrylate (not required by claim).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambur et el. (US
20170068030 A1) in view of Sato (US 20150346386 A1), Kobayashi (WO 2021124645 A1) and Han et al. (US 20220099974 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 11314097 B2).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the optical lens comprises a polymeric lens insert molded
onto the reflective polarizer.
However Ouderkirk discloses in at least figure 10, wherein the optical lens (optical lens 210 fig.
1) comprises a polymeric lens insert molded onto (the reflective polarizer 220 may be a polymeric
multilayer optical film polarizer and is integral to optical assembly 200 with optical lens 210 col. 3 lines
22-29) the reflective polarizer (reflective polarizer 220 fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a polymetric lens as taught by Le in the optical stack of Ambur. The reflective
polarizer 220 substantially transmitting light having a first polarization state and substantially reflecting
light having an orthogonal second polarization state (col. 3 lines 24-27).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambur et el. (US
20170068030 A1) in view of Sato (US 20150346386 A1), Kobayashi (WO 2021124645 A1) and Han et al. (US 20220099974 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Ozawa (US 20110090432 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the same principal axis of the optical retardance is a fast axis
and the same one of the first and second polarization states is the first polarization state.
However Ozawa discloses in at least figure 2, wherein the same principal axis of the optical
retardance is a fast axis (delay axis or fast axis paragraph [0009] is the first axis Pl fig. 5) and the same
one of the first and second polarization states is the first polarization state (transparent axis of the first
polarization plate paragraph [0009]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a fast axis as taught by Le in the optical stack of Ambur. A delay axis of the
plate-like base within a plane which is in parallel with the liquid crystal panel is in parallel with the
transparent axis of the first polarization plate (paragraph [0009]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambur et el. (US
20170068030 A1) in view of Sato (US 20150346386 A1), Kobayashi (WO 2021124645 A1) and Han et al. (US 20220099974 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Khan (CN 110703444 B) and Haag et al. (US 20210116747 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein when the optical stack is disposed adjacent an absorbing
polarizer with the optical lens disposed between the reflective and absorbing polarizers, the absorbing
polarizer substantially absorbing light having the second polarization state and substantially transmitting
light having the first polarization state, an optical transmittance through the optical stack and the
absorbing polarizer of a substantially collimated light having the second polarization state and incident
on the reflective polarizer is less than about 0.5%, the substantially collimated light filling at least the
first region of the largest optically active region of the optical lens.
However Khan discloses in at least figure 7, wherein when the optical stack (lens 54 and
reflective polarizer 30 fig. 7) is disposed adjacent (lens 54 and reflective polarizer 30 are disposed
adjacent to linear polarizer 34 fig. 7) an absorbing polarizer (linear polarizer 34 absorbs light paragraph
[0060] of translation) with the optical lens (lens 54 fig. 7) disposed between (lens 54 is disposed
between the reflective polarizer 30 and linear polarizer 34 fig. 7) the reflective (reflective polarizer 30
fig. 7) and absorbing polarizers (linear polarizer 34 absorbs light paragraph [0060] of translation), the
absorbing polarizer (linear polarizer 34 absorbs light paragraph [0060] of translation) substantially
absorbing light having the second polarization state (the linear polarizer 34 absorbs light from the
environment, which has a polarization state that will be reflected by the reflective polarizer 30
paragraph [0060] of translation) and substantially transmitting light having the first polarization state
(Light from an environment having a polarization state transmitted by linear polarizer 34 paragraph
[0060] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use an absorbing polarizer as taught by Khan in the optical stack of Ambur. The
linear polarizer 34 helps to act as a cleaning polarizer to improve the image quality from the pixel array
14, while reducing the brightness of the image light presented to the user's eye by a small
amount(paragraph [0060] of translation).
Additionally Haag discloses in at least figure 10, an optical transmittance (block state
Page 14 transmission fig. 8A) through the optical stack (optical stack 1010 fig. 10) and the absorbing polarizer (an absorbing polarizer bonded to and substantially co-extensive with the reflective polarizer paragraph [0020]) of a substantially collimated light (light ray 1037 is substantially collimated fig. 10) having the second polarization state (light ray 1037 has a polarization along the pass axis (a) for reflective polarizer 1027 paragraph [0136]) and incident on (light ray 1037 is incident on the reflective polarizer 1027 fig. 10) the reflective polarizer (reflective polarizer 1027 fig. 10) is less than about 0.5% (the block state transmission is 0% below 800 nm), the substantially collimated light (light ray 1037 is substantially collimated fig. 10) filling at least (light ray 1037 is incident on the lenses 1012 fig. 10) the first region (taught above by Sato) of the largest optically active region (taught above by Sato) of the optical lens (lenses 1012 fig. 10).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a transmittance as taught by Haag in the optical stack of Ambur. When an
absorbing polarizer is present the transmittance is less than about 0.1% (paragraph [0020]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambur et el. (US
20170068030 A1) in view of Sato (US 20150346386 A1), Kobayashi (WO 2021124645 A1) and Han et al. (US 20220099974 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Namiki et al. (US 20220081510 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the optical lens comprises polyester.
However Namiki discloses wherein the optical lens comprises polyester (the resin for optical
lens materials can contain polyester paragraph [0095]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a lens made with polyester as taught by Namiki in the optical stack of Ambur.
Using polyester can make the lens thin (paragraph [0095]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambur et el. (US
20170068030 A1) in view of Sato (US 20150346386 A1), Kobayashi (WO 2021124645 A1) and Han et al. (US 20220099974 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Jibu et al (US 20200094500 A1).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the optical lens comprises amorphous polyolefin.
However Jibu discloses in at least figure 1, wherein the optical lens (scanning lens 6 fig. 1)
comprises amorphous polyolefin (scanning lens 6 is a scanning lens formed of a resin constituted by
amorphous polyolefin paragraph [0022]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a lens made with amorphous polyolefin as taught by Jibu in the optical stack of
Ambur. Using amorphous polyolefin allows the scanning lens to have excellent image forming
characteristics (paragraph [0062]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambur et el. (US
20170068030 A1) in view of Sato (US 20150346386 A1), Kobayashi (WO 2021124645 A1) and Han et al. (US 20220099974 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Kikuchi et al. (US 20120224267 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Ambur, Sato, Kobayashi and Han, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Ambur does not disclose, wherein the optical lens comprises styrene methyl methacrylate.
However Kikuchi discloses in at least figure 3B, wherein the optical lens (core lens 1 fig. 3B)
comprises styrene methyl methacrylate (Examples of the material for the core lens 1 include a styrenemethyl methacrylate copolymer paragraph [0030]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a lens made with styrene methyl methacrylate as taught by Kikuchi in the
optical stack of Ambur. The index of refraction of the material of the core lens 1 and the index of
refraction of the material of the covering plastic 14 may be adjusted by dispersing inorganic particulates
in one of these materials (paragraph [0030]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horikoshi (US 20150062701 A1) discloses a display device with a lens that has multiple regions with different axis orientations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
