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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2024, 01/05/2026, 04/17/2026 and 05/07/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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, 4 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242).
Regarding claim 1, Ando discloses an antireflective member (Figure 1) comprising a hardcoat layer ([0034] discloses: 2A, hard coat layer) and a low refractive index layer ([0034] discloses: 3, low refractive index layer) on a substrate ([0034] discloses: 1, transparent support) in the order presented (Figure 1 depicts: hard layer and low refractive index layer disposed on substrate, respectively), wherein the antireflective member has
a maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction of 0.85 or less ([0168] discloses: dynamic friction coefficient is 0.03 to 0.15, which falls within the claimed range; Examiner notes that this range is considerably under the claimed max of the range and is considered to exhibit these properties under the required testing optimization variables):
Ando fails disclose wherein the antireflective member has a luminous reflectance Y value of 0.60% or less, as measured at an incident angle of light of 5 degrees from the low refractive index layer side; and a friction measurement test from a first outward path to a 20,000th outward path, as calculated by the following first measurement
<First Measurement>
the antireflective member is fixed on a stand that can travel back and forth in a horizontal direction; the antireflective member is fixed to the stand such that the substrate side faces the stand side; furthermore, a cylindrical felt member with a bottom diameter of 12.7 mm is brought into contact with a surface of the antireflective member on the low refractive index layer side; with the felt member in a fixed position and with a load of 1.47 N applied to the antireflective member by the felt member, the stand to which the antireflective member is fixed is moved back and forth in a horizontal direction at a rate of 100 mm/see for a distance of 50 mm for an outward path and 50 mm for a homeward path; the back-and-forth movement is performed 20,000 times; in each outward path of the 20,000 back-and-forth movements, a frictional force in a moving direction applied to the felt member is measured for every 0.02 seconds; friction forces at 15 points measured from 0.17 seconds to 0.45 seconds out of 0 seconds to 0.50 seconds, which is a moving time for each outward path, are considered to be dynamic friction forces; based on the dynamic friction forces at 15 points, an average value of dynamic friction force for each outward path is calculated; and the average value of dynamic friction force for each outward path is divided by the load to calculate the coefficient of dynamic friction from a first outward path to a 20,000th outward path. Ando and Kobayashi are related because both disclose antireflection members.
Kobayashi teaches wherein the antireflective member has
a luminous reflectance Y value of 0.60% or less, as measured at an incident angle of light of 5 degrees from the low refractive index layer side (using values from Table 3: at 5° incidence angle, a reflectance Y of 0.49, which falls within the claimed range). Ando and Nair are related because both disclose antireflective members.
The modified Ando does not expressly disclose the <First Measurement> process described (Examiner notes that the felt size, load, stroke length, speed and cycle count are merely measurement parameters for evaluating a known surface durability/friction property. They do not impart structure to the antireflective member and do not change the optical antireflection functionality). However, optimizing testing variables would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would be involved routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Nair discusses in [0149] that felt pad abrasion testing is standard for coating abrasion resistance, wherein the test is defined by felt pad dimensions, applied load, stroke length, stroke speed, cycle definition, and optical performance after abrasion. Thus, applicants felt-stroke conditions are a known type of parameterized abrasion/friction durability test for coated optical surfaces. Changing the variables such as: felt pad/member geometry, load, stroke length, stroke speed, number of cycles, rubbing/reciprocation conditions etc., and the results being abrasion resistance, surface wear, transmission/reflectance change and dynamic friction/slip durability etc. Therefore, the claimed use of an optical system requirement <First Measurement> test variables, for abrasion resistance represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 1, wherein a slope of a regression line, as calculated by a least squares method based on the following first scatter diagram, is 8.0×10.sup.−5 or less:
<First Scatter Diagram>
a scatter diagram, with respect to the first measurement, in which plotting is made with the number of outward paths on a horizontal axis and the coefficient of dynamic friction from a first outward path to a 2000th outward path on a vertical axis (Claim 1 already requires the maximum coefficient of dynamic friction to be 0.85 or less during the first measurement, the coefficient also physically should not be negative, so all plotted y-values are bounded between about 0 and 0.85; with 20,000 x-values, the largest possible positive least-squares slope for any data bounded from 0 to 0.85 is about 6.38 x 10-5, therefore claim 4 is considered to be a mathematical explanation of claim 1, just another data processing property of the same friction test, and therefore the same rejection of claim 1’s <First Measurement>, also applies here).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Ando discloses a polarizing plate comprising a polarizer ([0025] discloses: a polarizing plate), a first transparent protective plate disposed on one side of the polarizer, and a second transparent protective plate disposed on the other side of the polarizer, wherein any one of the first transparent protective plate and the second transparent protective plate is the antireflective member according to claim 1, and the antireflective member is disposed such that a surface thereof on the substrate side faces the polarizer side ([0025] discloses: polarizing plate having two surfaces sandwiched between protection films, wherein one of the protection films is the anti-reflection film; [0036] teaches: film includes 1, transparent support, 2A, hardcoat layer and 3, refractive index film; Examiner notes that because Ando teaches the low refractive index layer is disposed as the outermost layer of the anti-reflection film, the opposite side of the anti-reflection film is the transparent support side, therefore, when Ando’s antireflection film is used as one of the protection films sandwiching the polarizing film, the anti-reflection film is disposed such that the surface on the transparent support/substrate side faces the polarizer side).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Ando discloses an image display panel comprising a display element and an optical film disposed on a light-emitting surface side of the display element ([0002] teaches: display devices such as CRT, PDP, ELD and LCD, an anti-reflection film is typically display on an outermost surface of the display; [0027] discloses: LCD display device, with anti-reflection film as top surface layer), wherein the image display panel comprises the antireflective member according to claim 1 as the optical film ([0036] discloses: anti-reflection film formed by laminating a transparent support, a hard coat layer, and a low refractive index layer as the outermost layer), the antireflective member is disposed such that a surface thereof on the low refractive index layer side faces the opposite side to the display element, and the antireflective member is disposed on an outermost surface (Examiner notes that because Ando teaches the low refractive index layer as the outermost layer of the anti-reflection film is provided as the top surface layer/outermost surface of the display; considered disposing the antireflective member such that the low refractive index layer side faces outward, opposite the display element side).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Ando discloses an image display device comprising the image display panel according to claim 13, the antireflective member being disposed on an outermost surface ([0002] teaches: display devices such as CRT, PDP, ELD and LCD, an anti-reflection film is typically display on an outermost surface of the display; [0027] discloses: LCD display device, with anti-reflection film as top surface layer).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Ando discloses an antireflective article, wherein the antireflective member according to claim 1 is disposed on a member (Ando’s display device) such that a surface thereof on the low refractive index layer side faces the opposite side to the member ([0036] discloses: anti-reflection film formed by laminating a transparent support, a hard coat layer, and a low refractive index layer as the outermost layer; considered facing opposite of the member), and the antireflective member is disposed on an outermost surface ([0027] discloses: LCD display device, with anti-reflection film as top surface layer; Examiner notes that because Ando teaches the low refractive index layer is the outermost layer of the anti-reflection film, and teaches the anti-reflection film is disposed as the top surface layer of the display device; therefore considered disposing the antireflective member such that the low refractive index layer side faces outward, opposite the display device/member side).
Regarding claim 16, Ando discloses a method for selecting an antireflective member, the method comprising
determining whether or not the following (1) to (3) are satisfied, and selecting one that satisfies the following (1) to (3):
(1) being an antireflective member (Figure 1) comprising a hardcoat layer ([0034] discloses: 2A, hard coat layer) and a low refractive index layer ([0034] discloses: 3, low refractive index layer) on a substrate ([0034] discloses: 1, transparent support) in the order presented (Figure 1 depicts: hard layer and low refractive index layer disposed on substrate, respectively); and
(3) having a maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction as calculated by the following first measurement, of 0.85 or less ([0168] discloses: dynamic friction coefficient is 0.03 to 0.15, which falls within the claimed range; Examiner notes that this range is considerably under the claimed max of the range and is considered to exhibit these properties under the required testing optimization variables):
Ando fails disclose wherein the antireflective member has a luminous reflectance Y value of 0.60% or less, as measured at an incident angle of light of 5 degrees from the low refractive index layer side; and a friction measurement test from a first outward path to a 20,000th outward path, as calculated by the following first measurement
<First Measurement>
the antireflective member is fixed on a stand that can travel back and forth in a horizontal direction; the antireflective member is fixed to the stand such that the substrate side faces the stand side; furthermore, a cylindrical felt member with a bottom diameter of 12.7 mm is brought into contact with a surface of the antireflective member on the low refractive index layer side; with the felt member in a fixed position and with a load of 1.47 N applied to the antireflective member by the felt member, the stand to which the antireflective member is fixed is moved back and forth in a horizontal direction at a rate of 100 mm/see for a distance of 50 mm for an outward path and 50 mm for a homeward path; the back-and-forth movement is performed 20,000 times; in each outward path of the 20,000 back-and-forth movements, a frictional force in a moving direction applied to the felt member is measured for every 0.02 seconds; friction forces at 15 points measured from 0.17 seconds to 0.45 seconds out of 0 seconds to 0.50 seconds, which is a moving time for each outward path, are considered to be dynamic friction forces; based on the dynamic friction forces at 15 points, an average value of dynamic friction force for each outward path is calculated; and the average value of dynamic friction force for each outward path is divided by the load to calculate the coefficient of dynamic friction from a first outward path to a 20,000th outward path. Ando and Kobayashi are related because both disclose antireflection members.
Kobayashi teaches wherein the antireflective member has
a luminous reflectance Y value of 0.60% or less, as measured at an incident angle of light of 5 degrees from the low refractive index layer side (using values from Table 3: at 5° incidence angle, a reflectance Y of 0.49, which falls within the claimed range). Ando and Nair are related because both disclose antireflective members.
The modified Ando does not expressly disclose the <First Measurement> process described (Examiner notes that the felt size, load, stroke length, speed and cycle count are merely measurement parameters for evaluating a known surface durability/friction property. They do not impart structure to the antireflective member and do not change the optical antireflection functionality). However, optimizing testing variables would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would be involved routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Nair discusses in [0149] that felt pad abrasion testing is standard for coating abrasion resistance, wherein the test is defined by felt pad dimensions, applied load, stroke length, stroke speed, cycle definition, and optical performance after abrasion. Thus, applicants felt-stroke conditions are a known type of parameterized abrasion/friction durability test for coated optical surfaces. Changing the variables such as: felt pad/member geometry, load, stroke length, stroke speed, number of cycles, rubbing/reciprocation conditions etc., and the results being abrasion resistance, surface wear, transmission/reflectance change and dynamic friction/slip durability etc. Therefore, the claimed use of an optical system requirement <First Measurement> test variables, for abrasion resistance represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wakizaka et al. (US 2019/0011604).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 1.
Ando fails to disclose a device wherein the maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction is 0.35 or more and 0.85 or less. Ando and Wakizaka are related because both disclose antireflection members.
Wakizaka teaches a device wherein the maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction is 0.35 or more and 0.85 or less ([0629] teaches: dynamic friction coefficient examples of the samples were 0.50 and 0.48, which fall within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of Wakizaka and provide disclose a device wherein the maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction is 0.35 or more and 0.85 or less. Doing so would allow for a workable balance of reducing rubbing damage and sufficient surface friction for operability, thereby improving the overall performance of the antireflective member.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Fuchida et al. (WO 2023037704, Examiner has provided a PDF translation).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 1.
Ando fails to disclose a member wherein with respect to the first measurement, a difference between the coefficient of dynamic friction at the first outward path and the maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction is 0.60 or less. Ando and Fuchida are related because both disclose optical members.
Fuchida teaches a member with a difference between the coefficient of dynamic friction at the first outward path (Examiner notes that this is considered the, before test, coefficient of dynamic friction) and the maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction (Examiner notes that this is considered to be the, after test, coefficient of dynamic friction) is 0.60 or less ([0005] teaches: absolute value of the difference in the dynamic friction coefficient before and after the sliding test are both 0.03 or less).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of Fuchida and provide a member with a difference between the coefficient of dynamic friction at the first outward path and the maximum value of coefficient of dynamic friction is 0.60 or less. Doing so would maintain surface lubricity, scratch resistance and touch operability, thereby improving the overall durability of the optical system.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shin et al. (US 2023/0183271).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 1.
Ando fails to disclose a member wherein the low refractive index layer contains a binder resin and hollow particles. Ando and Shin are related because both disclose antireflection members.
Shin teaches a member wherein the low refractive index layer contains a binder resin and hollow particles ([0090] teaches: low refractive layer may include a curable binder resin, and fine particles, e.g., hollow silica).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of Shin and provide disclose a member wherein the low refractive index layer contains a binder resin and hollow particles. Doing so would allow for achieving both a low refractive index and abrasion resistance, thereby improving the overall durability and performance of the antireflective member.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 5, comprising, as the binder resin, a cured product of a bifunctional or higher functional and trifunctional or lower functional(meth)acrylate-based compound (Shin: [0146] teaches: examples of a cured product of a bifunctional = diacrylate, trifunctional= triacrylate, functional(meth)acrylate-based compounds; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 5, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 5, comprising, as the hollow particles, hollow silica particles ([0090] teaches: low refractive layer may include fine particles, e.g., hollow silica; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242) in view of Shin et al. (US 2023/0183271), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Seo et al. (US 11,112,599).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 5.
Ando fails to disclose a member comprising, as the binder resin, a cured product of polysilsesquioxane. Ando and Seo are related because both disclose antireflective members.
Seo teaches a member comprising, as the binder resin, a cured product of polysilsesquioxane (claim 1 teaches: a binder resin including a polysilsesquioxane; Col. 19, lines 41-42 teach: curing of the low refractive index layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of Seo and provide a member comprising, as the binder resin, a cured product of polysilsesquioxane. Doing so would allow for improving abrasion resistance and durability of the low refractive index layer while maintaining optical transparency, thereby improving the overall performance and reliability of the antireflective member.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yoshihara et al. (US 2009/0176084).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 1.
Ando does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of F elements is 19.0 atomic % or more and 27.0 atomic % or less, as obtained by analyzing a surface area of the low refractive index layer by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. However, optimizing atomic F elements ratio would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would be involved routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Yoshihara teaches in at least the abstract, a fluorine leveling agent migrated into low IR-layer and the fluorine/silicon leveling agents are uniformly distributed at the low IR-surface with concentration controlled amounts of leveling agents (i.e., 0.01wt%-5wt%, and results can be measured in XPS), the agent affects: slidability, antifouling properties, fingerprint wiping, transparency, and opacity/haze and too much can cause phase separation, therefore the art clearly recognizes that surface F/silicon amount measured by XPS affects the desired result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to keep a ratio of F elements is 19.0 atomic % or more and 27.0 atomic % or less, as obtained by analyzing a surface area of the low refractive index layer by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Horio et al. (US 7,990,617).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 1.
Ando does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of Si elements attributed to an organosilicon compound is 4.8 atomic % or more and 15.0 atomic % or less, as obtained by analyzing a surface area of the low refractive index layer by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. However, optimizing the amount of Si elements attributed to an organosilicon compound at the surface of the low refractive index layer would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would be involved routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, in Col. 28 and 29, Horio teaches measuring the percentage presence of organosilicon atoms at the outermost surface of the low refractive index layer by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, while excluding inorganic silicon and teaches organosilicon atom percentages within the claimed range; the agent affects: slidability, antifouling properties, fingerprint wiping, transparency, and opacity/haze, establishes organosilicon atomic percentage as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose wherein a ratio of Si elements attributed to an organosilicon compound is 4.8 atomic % or more and 15.0 atomic % or less, as obtained by analyzing a surface area of the low refractive index layer by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2009/0135356) in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0019605) in view of Nair et al. (US 2017/0141242), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2025/0093553).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ando discloses the antireflective member according to claim 1.
Ando fails to disclose a member having a haze of 1.0% or less according to JIS K7136: 2000. Ando and Tanaka are related because both disclose optical/antireflective members for display applications.
Tanaka teaches a member having a haze of 1.0% or less ([0059] teaches: haze of the film, is typically 0.05% or less) according to JIS K7136: 2000 ([0080] teaches: haze measured by JIS K7316, considered an equivalent test to the 2000 model).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando in view of Tanaka and provide a member having a haze of 1.0% or less according to JIS K7136: 2000. Doing so would allow for reduced light scattering, whitening, and image blurring, thereby improving transparency, image clarity, and visibility of the display while maintaining the antireflective function of the member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hoshino et al. (US 2022/0033600), Washio (US 2020/0282710) and Ikeda et al. (US 2007/0146887) disclose hardcoat multilayer films but fail to exhibit the correct antireflective fiction components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights