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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 2, ‘an outermost surface’ should read “the outermost surface”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the whole surface" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear the relationship between “the whole surface” and the previous “a surface” (line 16). The claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the laminations “at least one polymer and/or copolymer with at least one hydroxyl group” twice in lines 3-4 and lines 5-6. The recitations are unclear. The claim 13 is indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2014/0113115) in view of Richert et al. (US 9,310,676).
Regarding claims 1, 5, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1(b), 3, an in-mold decoration (IMD) method for producing a component using an IMD transfer film (e.g., item F10’ (i.e., transfer film) in Fig. 1(b) ([0273])), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a) providing the IMD transfer film (i.e., step 1 for film feed in Fig. 3) which comprises a carrier ply (i.e., item 12 (residual film) in Fig. 1(b) ([0275])) with at least one carrier layer and a transfer ply (i.e., item 11 (transfer layer) in Fig. 1 (b) ([0274])) arranged on the carrier ply, wherein the transfer ply has a protective layer composite (e.g., item L2’ in Fig. 1(b) ([0266])) comprising a first protective layer (i.e., L2b) and at least one receiving layer (e.g., item L2a in Fig. 1(b) ([0266])) for coating the transfer ply in a coatable region with at least one coating (e.g., the coating liquid for the IMD layer L2 is applied to the surface modifying layer L2a and the resulting coated film is cured by heating and drying (formation of L2b) ([0094], lines 6-9)), and wherein the at least one receiving layer is arranged on the first protective layer, and wherein the at least one receiving layer is arranged against a first surface of the transfer ply facing towards the carrier ply (as shown in Fig. 3 ([0093]));
b) arranging the transfer film in an injection mold (as shown in Fig. 3 in steps 1, 2, 3);
c) back-injection molding the transfer film arranged in the injection mold with a plastic injection-molding material, whereby a base body (i.e., resin in Fig. 3) is formed by the plastic injection-molding material, the base body being joined to at least one surface of the transfer ply facing away from the carrier ply (as shown in step 3 in Fig. 3 (i.e., molded article 13 has a resin base body));
d) detaching the carrier ply from the transfer ply joined to the base body (as shown in Fig. 3 (i.e., separating item 12 from item 13 having the base (resin) body) ([0051]));
e) applying at least one coating to a surface of the transfer ply opposite the base body, wherein the at least one coating is applied in a coated region which is arranged in the coatable region at least in regions or over the whole surface, and wherein the at least one coating is applied in the form of one or more printed layers (e.g., item L4 (print layer) in Fig. 1(b) ([0268]));
f) completely curing the first protective layer and the at least one coating, wherein the complete curing of the first protective layer and the at least one coating is carried out by means of UV irradiation, wherein the component has the at least one coating as an outermost surface (i.e., UV irradiation step in Fig. 3 and for example, formation of L2a and L2b) ([0094], lines 6-9)).
However, Ito does not specifically disclose that, one or more layers of the one or more printed layers comprise at least one UV printing ink and/or at least one UV ink.
In the same field pf endeavor, embossing, Richert discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7,
XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is applied and processes colors G to H are printed on the metal layer (col. 42, lines 26-32). Here, XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is considered as a UV ink.
Further, Richert discloses that, the forming of an optically variable image on the substrate may comprise depositing a curable compound, or composition on at least a portion of the substrate. The composition, generally a coating or lacquer may be deposited by means of gravure, flexographic, ink jet and screen process printing (col. 14, lines 14-18). The compositions comprise one or several monomers and oligomers containing at least one ethylenically unsaturated group which may include one or more olefinic double bonds (col. 14, lines 33-39) (related to claim 5).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Ito to have one or more layers of the one or more printed layers as Richert teaches that it is known to have XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F which is considered as a UV ink is applied and processes colors G to H are printed on the metal layer and the compositions of the UV ink include at least one ethylenically unsaturated group which may include one or more olefinic double bonds. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the formation of L2a and L2b comprises the one of outermost surface as the first protective layer ([0094], lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 3, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, in UV irradiation step, the complete curing of the first protective layer is carried out in step f) by means of UV irradiation (i.e., one type of electromagnetic radiation).
Regarding claim 4, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3 for Example 6, a printer layer L4 (VIC(Z) 710 black) were sequentially laminated on the anchor layer side of the films using a batch screen printer ([0246]).
Regarding claim 7, Ito does not explicitly disclose that, the coating or printing layers are partially carried out.
Richert discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is applied and processes colors G to H are printed on the metal layer (col. 42, lines 26-32).
Here, the hard lacquer coating C is considered as the equivalence to the first protective layer and the coating of ultraviolet curable composition (i.e., layer D) is considered as the equivalence to the receiving layer.
Richert discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is applied (i.e., the layer of metal F is applied to the transferred OVD image) and processes colors G to H are printed on the metal layer (col. 42, lines 26-32).
It is noticed that, in the teachings of Richert, these optical microstructured images are composed of a series of structured surfaces. These surfaces may have straight or curved profiles, with constant or random spacings, and may even vary from microns to millimeters in dimensions. Patterns may be circular, liner, or have no uniform pattern (col. 42, lines 51-57).
Thus, Richert discloses that, at least the application of optical microstructured images having varied patterns in a first region of the receiving layer D is carried out and the layer D is not applied to a second region of the protective layer composite C.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Ito to have one or more layers of the one or more printed layers as Richert teaches that it is known to have at least the application of optical microstructured images having varied patterns in a first region of the receiving layer D is carried out and the layer D is not applied to a second region of the protective layer composite C. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 8, Ito does not explicitly disclose that, the coating is modified or structured. Richert discloses that, an OVD is transferred into the surface of the UV primer using the embossing shim of the present invention and cured with ultraviolet light (col. 42, lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Ito to have one or more layers of the one or more printed layers as Richert teaches that it is known to have at least the transferred OVD images is cured with ultraviolet light before/during/after the application of the coating. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 9, Ito discloses that, it is possible to prevent the coated film (of the receiving layer L2a) after curing from having insufficient hardness or durability caused by an increase of the amount of solvent left unremoved during solvent drying ([0100], lines 1-5 from bottom). Thus, Ito discloses that, the receiving layer L2a has been produced with a merely physical drying system (after cured).
Regarding claim 10, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the IMD layer L2 including the receiving layer L2a contains an active energy beam-curable resin and a thermosetting resin ([0065]). The active energy beam-curable resin includes resins such as unsaturated polyester resin ([0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the first protective layer L2b (e.g., containing an active energy beam-curable resin) is UV crosslinkable and/or chemically crosslinkable polymer ([0068], [0233], [0261]).
Regarding claim 12, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the first protective layer L2b (e.g., containing an active energy beam-curable resin) is chemically crosslinkable polymer, e.g., multifunctional epoxy resin ([0233]).
Regarding claim 13, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the first protective layer L2b (e.g., containing an active energy beam-curable resin) is UV crosslinkable and/or chemically crosslinkable polymer ([0068], [0233], [0261]). The chemically crosslinkable polymer comprises a melamine resin and one hydroxyl group ([0072], [0083], [0084]).
Regarding claim 14, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the first protective layer L2b (e.g., containing an active energy beam-curable resin) is UV crosslinkable and/or chemically crosslinkable polymer having at least one chemically crosslinkable functional group, e.g., multifunctional epoxy resin ([0068], [0084], [0233], [0261]).
Regarding claim 15, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the first protective layer L2b (e.g., containing an active energy beam-curable resin) is a UV crosslinkable polymer comprising at least one hydroxyl group ([0072]).
Regarding claims 16, 17, Richert discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, a coating C of a hard lacquer such as polymethylmethacrylate is applied to release coat in a thickness in the range of 0.25 microns to 9 microns (overlapping the claimed range of 1 micron to 15 microns in claim 16).
An ultraviolet curable composition having a thickness of between 0.03 microns and 9 microns (overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 micron to 1 micron in claim 17) is applied to coating C (col. 42, lines 20-25).
Here, the hard lacquer coating C is considered as the equivalence to the first protective layer and the coating of ultraviolet curable composition (i.e., layer D) is considered as the equivalence to the receiving layer.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Richert overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Richert discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is applied (i.e., the layer of metal F is applied to the transferred OVD image) and processes colors G to H are printed on the metal layer (col. 42, lines 26-32).
It is noticed that, in the teachings of Richert, these optical microstructured images are composed of a series of structured surfaces. These surfaces may have straight or curved profiles, with constant or random spacings, and may even vary from microns to millimeters in dimensions. Patterns may be circular, liner, or have no uniform pattern (col. 42, lines 51-57).
Thus, Richert discloses that, at least the application of optical microstructured images having varied patterns in a first region of the receiving layer D is carried out and the layer D is not applied to a second region of the protective layer composite C.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Ito to have one or more layers of the one or more printed layers as Richert teaches that it is known to have the coating C of a hard lacquer such as polymethylmethacrylate is applied to release coat in a thickness in the range of 0.25 microns to 9 microns and the ultraviolet curable composition having a thickness of between 0.03 microns and 9 microns. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 18, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1(b) and 3, the transfer ply (e.g., item 11 in Fig. 1(b)) is detachable from the carrier ply (e.g., item 12 in Fig. 1(b) or 3) which includes a release layer L1 (as shown in Fig. 1(b)).
Regarding claim 19, Ito discloses that, the carrier ply ia arranged on the protective layer composite with an adhesive force of 0.12 or 0.13 N/cm – the peel force that is needed to separate the release layer from the protective layer composite ([0204], Table 2) (overlapping the claimed range 2 cN to 50 cN).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Ito overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1(b), the transfer ply has a decorative layer containing a decorative element (i.e., layer L4) on the side of the protective layer composite facing away from the carrier ply ([0115]).
Regarding claim 22, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1(b), an adhesion-promoter layer (i.e., layer L3) is arranged between the protective layer composite and the decorative element ([0102]).
Regarding claim 23, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1(b), the adhesion-promoter layer comprises an acrylic resin ([0102]).
Regarding claim 24, Ito does not teach that decorative layer L4 is any of the claimed types of layers/elements.
Richert discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is applied (i.e., the layer of metal F is applied to the transferred OVD image) and processes colors G to H are printed on the metal layer (col. 42, lines 26-32).
At least, the decorative layer based on the multiple printed layers includes color layers G, H, I, and J.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Ito to have one or more layers of the one or more printed layers as Richert teaches that it is known to have the decorative layer based on the multiple printed layers includes color layers G, H, I, and J. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 27, Ito does not specify the decorative layer L4 such as its color etc.
Richert discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is applied (i.e., the layer of metal F is applied to the transferred OVD image) and processes colors G to H are printed on the metal layer (col. 42, lines 26-32). Here, XYMARA 101 VMP (Vacuum Metallized Pigment) ink F is considered as a UV ink. At least, the decorative layers, based on the multiple printed layers, include color layers G, H, I, and J. Richert in the combination discloses, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate for UV curable varnish (ultraviolet activated primer) (col. 37, lines 38-45).
Further, Richert discloses that, the possibility of counterfeiting decreased further by adding thermos- or photochromic dyes, UV/IR fluorescent dyes, magnetic strips etc. into the OVD primer or ink (col. 43, lines 54-57).
At least, when the magnetic strips are applied into one of the decorative layers, the decorative layer is considered as one functional layer.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Ito to have one or more layers of the one or more printed layers as Richert teaches that it is known to have the decorative layer based on the multiple printed layers includes color layers G, H, I, and J and the one or more functional layers. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 28, Ito discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1(b), the transfer ply having a varnish layer (i.e., layer L5) forming a surface of the transfer ply facing away from the carrier ply ([0033], [0034], [0051], [0114], [0115], [0119]). Thus, the varnish layer L5 that forms a surface of the transfer ply comprises an adhesive.
Regarding claim 29, Ito discloses that, the varnish layer comprising an adhesive ([0033], [0034], [0051], [0114], [0115], [0119]) and the adhesive is a physically curing adhesive, e.g., thermally curing ([0119]).
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ito et al. (US 2014/0113115) and Richert et al. (US 9,310,676) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nagvekar (US 2008/0045618) and Torfs et al. (US 2017/0342282).
Regarding claim 6, Richert in the combination discloses, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate for UV curable varnish (col. 37, lines 38-45).
However, the combination does not disclose 2-(2-vinyloxyethoxy)ethyl acrylate,
diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide, and phenylbis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide for making a UV curable ink.
In the same field of endeavor, UV curable ink, Nagvekar discloses that, the UV curable ink includes components such as 2-(2-vinyloxyethoxy)ethyl acrylate ([0016], lines 11-12), diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide ([0025], line 1), and phenylbis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide ([0025], lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the UV curable ink including oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate as Nagvekar teaches that it is known to have the UV curable ink includes components such as 2-(2-vinyloxyethoxy)ethyl acrylate ([0016], lines 11-12), diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide ([0025], line 1), and phenylbis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide ([0025], lines 4-5). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
However, the combination does not disclose 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol (i.e., BHT (Butylated hydroxytoluene)) for the UV curable ink.
In the same field of endeavor, UV curable inkjet ink, Torfs discloses that, the UV curable ink 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol (i.e., BHT (Butylhydroxytoluene) (Table 9 and [0179])).
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the UV curable ink including oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate as Torfs teaches that it is known to have the UV curable ink includes 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol (i.e., BHT (Butylated hydroxytoluene)). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ito et al. (US 2014/0113115) and Richert et al. (US 9,310,676) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kosaka et al. (US 2003/0108727).
Regarding claim 20, the combination does not explicitly disclose the receiving layer having a roughness Ra in a range of from 1 nm to 250 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, transfer sheet or film, Kosaka discloses that, a transfer film wherein Ra roughness of the transfer layer is at most 200 nm ([0013]) (overlapping the claimed range of 1 nm to 250 nm).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kosaka overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the transfer ply as Kosaka teaches that it is known to have the receiving layer of the transfer film having a roughness Ra in a range of from 1 nm to 250 nm. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ito et al. (US 2014/0113115) and Richert et al. (US 9,310,676) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2007/0069418).
Regarding claims 25, 26, the combination does not disclose the transfer ply including one or more functional layers containing at least one functional element on the side of the protective layer composite facing away from the carrier ply.
In the same field of endeavor, in mold decoration, Liao discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2a, a transfer film includes a functional layer containing a functional element on a side of a durable layer facing away from the carrier layer (ABSTRCT, [0018], [0024]), the functional element being a resistor, an antenna, a capacitor, or LED ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the transfer ply as Liao teaches that it is known to have a transfer film includes a functional layer containing a functional element on a side of a durable layer facing away from the carrier layer (ABSTRCT, [0018], [0024]), the functional element being a resistor, an antenna, a capacitor, or LED ([0018]). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights