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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 21 April 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the foreign documents submitted are not copies of the foreign documents listed on said IDS. Rather, these are machine translations of the respective foreign documents listed. The filed documents should be listed as NPL documents on the IDS, while copies of the cited foreign documents should be listed under foreign patent documents and a copy of each filed as well. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim 18 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation recites: “...about 5 lumens to about 50 lumens...” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it is not clear about what lumen level the level must be in order to be “about” 5 or “about” 50. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as being between 5 lumens and 50 lumens. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Swedenburg et al. (US 2014/0066048 A1, herein referred to as: Swedenburg).
Regarding claim 1, Swedenburg discloses a mirror assembly (Figs. 1-11) comprising: a mirror (Fig. 5) comprising: a face (162, 502) and a reflective layer (conductive layer 170, paragraph [0038]) located on a rear side of the mirror (as shown in Fig. 1C), wherein: the reflective layer is partitioned (via 164, 204, 304, 411, 421, 431, and/or 404) to have at least one touch area (e.g., 164 and 166, collectively, in Fig. 1C, or the area partitioned by 204 in Fig. 2, or the area partitioned by 304 in Fig. 3, or the area partitioned by 404 in Fig. 4) in a predefined location of the reflective layer (as shown in Fig. 1C); and the touch area defined by the reflective layer being removed from the rear side of the mirror in a predefined shape (as shown in Figs. 1C-4); and a touch controller (188) adhered to the rear side of the mirror (via 180) and comprising at least one light source (184), wherein: the touch controller (188) is configured to be positioned over the at least one touch area (as shown in Fig. 1C) and be responsive to user touch (via 190); and light emitted by the at least one source light passes through the at least one touch area (via 164, 204, 304, and/or 404, and/or via a light guiding layer and optical fibers) such that the light is visible and usable to the user (e.g., as described in paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Swedenburg discloses (Figs. 1-11) the touch controller includes at least one touch pad (190) responsive to user touch (as described in paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, Swedenburg discloses (Figs. 1-11) the at least one touch pad comprises a capacitive touch pad (as described in paragraph [0036]).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedenburg, in view of Branham et al. (US 2018/0292079 A1, herein referred to as: Branham).
Regarding claims 2-4, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach a frame having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror and configured to be attached to a structure, wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame (as recited in claim 2); wherein a light assembly is positioned within the frame and operatively connected to the touch controller (as recited in claim 3); wherein the light assembly comprises an light emitting diode (LED) strip (as recited in claim 4).
Branham teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-3) a frame (12) having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror (15, i.e., the both shapes are rectangular and have at least an interface surface for coupling one on the other, and thus have a shape that corresponds to one another) and configured to be attached to a structure (e.g., a wall surface, via 26, 28), wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame (as shown in Figs. 1-3, the rear surface of mirror 15 is either directly or indirectly coupled to the front side of the frame 12); wherein a light assembly (14) is positioned within the frame (12) and operatively connected to the touch controller (paragraphs [0016]- [0017], and [0022]); wherein the light assembly comprises an light emitting diode (LED) strip (paragraphs [0016]- [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of a frame having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror and configured to be attached to a structure, wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame (as recited in claim 2); wherein a light assembly is positioned within the frame and operatively connected to the touch controller (as recited in claim 3); wherein the light assembly comprises an light emitting diode (LED) strip (as recited in claim 4), such as taught or suggested by Branham, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing, or otherwise improving, the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment in which the device can be mountable to vertical surfaces for various lighted mirror applications).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedenburg.
Regarding claim 7, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 1C, that the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises an LED.
Swedenburg alternatively teaches (Fig. 7B) the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises an LED (772, 774, and/or 775).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises an LED, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Swedenburg, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the size of the device, and/or improving the efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Swedenburg at least teaches the predefined shape is selected from a group of shapes including: a circular shape (each corner of the areas is rounded, and thus, has a circle shape), a bulb-like shape, a 4-point star shape, a square shape (the straight sides, particularly in Fig. 4, represent a square shape), a hexagon shape, an octagon shape, a 12-point star shape and a triangular shape. To the extent the shapes are intended to be complete shapes, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach complete shapes (i.e., a complete circle, or a complete square with right angled corners).
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of the predefined shape is selected from a group of shapes including: a circular shape, a bulb-like shape, a 4-point star shape, a square shape, a hexagon shape, an octagon shape, a 12-point star shape and a triangular shape (to the extent the shapes are intended to be complete shapes), since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably motivated to increase the marketability of the device (e.g., by providing embodiments having differing shape configurations for the touch area to broaden aesthetic appeal to a wider or varied base of consumers).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedenburg, in view of Brennan (US 2014/0226318 A1).
Regarding claims 8-10, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach that the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises a single LED rated at 40 lumens (as recited in claim 8); wherein the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises two LEDs, wherein each of the two LEDs is rated at 20 lumens (as recited in claim 9); wherein the at least one light built disposed in the touch controller comprises at least one LED rated between 5 lumens and 50 lumens (as recited in claim 10).
Brennan teaches or suggests (paragraph [0023]) the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises a single LED rated at 40 lumens (paragraph [0023]); wherein the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises two LEDs (Fig. 8, 114, a light or light(s) can be utilized), wherein each of the two LEDs is rated at 20 lumens (paragraph [0023] and Fig. 8, 114, a light or light(s) can be utilized that have a lumen output in the range of 15-50 lumens, and thus, 20 lumens); wherein the at least one light built disposed in the touch controller comprises at least one LED rated between 5 lumens and 50 lumens (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises a single LED rated at 40 lumens (as recited in claim 8); wherein the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises two LEDs, wherein each of the two LEDs is rated at 20 lumens (as recited in claim 9); wherein the at least one light built disposed in the touch controller comprises at least one LED rated between 5 lumens and 50 lumens (as recited in claim 10), such as taught or suggested by Brennan, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device, and/or providing an embodiment in which the device can be utilized for nighttime lighting applications, and/or provide a lighting level desired for the suited application).
Claims 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedenburg, in view of Branham.
Regarding claim 12, Swedenburg teaches or suggests a mirror assembly (Figs. 1-11) comprising: a mirror (Fig. 5) comprising: a face (162, 502) and a reflective layer (conductive layer 170, paragraph [0038]) located on a rear side of the mirror (as shown in Fig. 1C), wherein: the reflective layer is partitioned (via 164, 204, 304, 411, 421, 431, and/or 404) to have at least one touch area (e.g., 164 and 166, collectively, in Fig. 1C, or the area partitioned by 204 in Fig. 2, or the area partitioned by 304 in Fig. 3, or the area partitioned by 404 in Fig. 4) in a predefined location of the reflective layer (as shown in Fig. 1C); and the touch area defined by the reflective layer being removed from the rear side of the mirror in a predefined shape (as shown in Figs. 1C-4); and a touch controller (188) adhered to the rear side of the mirror (via 180) and comprising at least one light source (184), wherein: the touch controller (188) is configured to be positioned over the at least one touch area (as shown in Fig. 1C) and be responsive to user touch (via 190); and light emitted by the at least one source light passes through the at least one touch area (via 164, 204, 304, and/or 404, and/or via a light guiding layer and optical fibers) such that the light is visible and usable to the user (e.g., as described in paragraph [0036]).
Swedenburg does not explicitly teach that a frame comprises a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror, the frame configured to be attached to a structure, wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame.
Branham teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-3) a frame (12) having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror (15, i.e., the both shapes are rectangular and have at least an interface surface for coupling one on the other, and thus have a shape that corresponds to one another) the frame configured to be attached to a structure (e.g., a wall surface, via 26, 28), wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame (as shown in Figs. 1-3, the rear surface of mirror 15 is either directly or indirectly coupled to the front side of the frame 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of a frame comprises a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror, the frame configured to be attached to a structure, wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame, such as taught or suggested by Branham, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing, or otherwise improving, the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment in which the device can be mountable to vertical surfaces for various lighted mirror applications), and/or provide a feature to retain, position, and protect all of the additional components of the mirror assembly therein.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach a light assembly positioned within the frame and operatively connected to the touch controller (as recited in claim 13); wherein the light assembly comprises an LED strip (as recited in claim 14).
Branham teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-3) a light assembly (14) is positioned within the frame (12) and operatively connected to the touch controller (paragraphs [0016]- [0017], and [0022]); wherein the light assembly comprises an light emitting diode (LED) strip (paragraphs [0016]- [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of a light assembly is positioned within the frame and operatively connected to the touch controller; wherein the light assembly comprises an light emitting diode (LED) strip, such as taught or suggested by Branham, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing, or otherwise improving, the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment in which the device can be mountable to vertical surfaces for various lighted mirror applications).
Regarding claim 15, Swedenburg teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the touch controller includes at least one touch pad (190) responsive to user touch (as described in paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 16, Swedenburg teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the at least one touch pad comprises a capacitive touch pad (as described in paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 1C, that the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises an LED.
Swedenburg alternatively teaches (Fig. 7B) the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises an LED (772, 774, and/or 775).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises an LED, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Swedenburg, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the size of the device, and/or improving the efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 19, Swedenburg at least teaches the predefined shape includes at least one of a circular shape (each corner of the areas is rounded, and thus, has a circle shape), a bulb-like shape, a 4-point star shape, a square shape (the straight sides, particularly in Fig. 4, represent a square shape), a hexagon shape, an octagon shape, a 12-point star shape and a triangular shape. To the extent the shapes are intended to be complete shapes, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach complete shapes (i.e., a complete circle, or a complete square with right angled corners).
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of the predefined shape includes at least one of a circular shape, a bulb-like shape, a 4-point star shape, a square shape, a hexagon shape, an octagon shape, a 12-point star shape and a triangular shape (to the extent the shapes are intended to be complete shapes), since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably motivated to increase the marketability of the device (e.g., by providing embodiments having differing shape configurations for the touch area to broaden aesthetic appeal to a wider or varied base of consumers).
Regarding claim 20, Swedenburg teaches or suggests a mirror assembly (Figs. 1-11) comprising: a mirror (Fig. 5) comprising: a face (162, 502) and a reflective layer (conductive layer 170, paragraph [0038]) located on a rear side of the mirror (as shown in Fig. 1C), wherein: the reflective layer is partitioned (via 164, 204, 304, 411, 421, 431, and/or 404) to have at least one touch area (e.g., 164 and 166, collectively, in Fig. 1C, or the area partitioned by 204 in Fig. 2, or the area partitioned by 304 in Fig. 3, or the area partitioned by 404 in Fig. 4) in a predefined location of the reflective layer (as shown in Fig. 1C); and the touch area defined by the reflective layer being removed from the rear side of the mirror in a predefined shape (as shown in Figs. 1C-4); and a touch controller (188) adhered to the rear side of the mirror (via 180) and comprising at least one light source (184), wherein: the touch controller (188) is configured to be positioned over the at least one touch area (as shown in Fig. 1C) and be responsive to user touch (via 190); and light emitted by the at least one source light passes through the at least one touch area (via 164, 204, 304, and/or 404, and/or via a light guiding layer and optical fibers) such that the light is visible and usable to the user (e.g., as described in paragraph [0036]).
Swedenburg does not explicitly teach a frame having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror and configured to be attached to a structure, wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame; wherein a light assembly is positioned within the frame and operatively connected to the touch controller.
Branham teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-3) a frame (12) having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror (15, i.e., the both shapes are rectangular and have at least an interface surface for coupling one on the other, and thus have a shape that corresponds to one another) and configured to be attached to a structure (e.g., a wall surface, via 26, 28), wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame (as shown in Figs. 1-3, the rear surface of mirror 15 is either directly or indirectly coupled to the front side of the frame 12); wherein a light assembly (14) is positioned within the frame (12) and operatively connected to the touch controller (paragraphs [0016]- [0017], and [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of a frame having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the mirror and configured to be attached to a structure, wherein the rear side of the mirror is attached to a front side of the frame; wherein a light assembly is positioned within the frame and operatively connected to the touch controller, such as taught or suggested by Branham, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing, or otherwise improving, the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment in which the device can be mountable to vertical surfaces for various lighted mirror applications).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swedenburg, in view of Branham, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Brennan (US 2014/0226318 A1).
Regarding claims 18, Swedenburg does not explicitly teach that the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises at least one LED rated between 5 lumens and 50 lumens (as recited in claim 10).
Brennan teaches or suggests (paragraph [0023]) the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises at least one LED rated between 5 lumens and 50 lumens (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Swedenburg and incorporated the teachings of the at least one light built into the touch controller comprises at least one LED rated between 5 lumens and 50 lumens, such as taught or suggested by Brennan, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency of the device, and/or providing an embodiment in which the device can be utilized for nighttime lighting applications, and/or provide a lighting level desired for the suited application).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20220214034-A1 to Yao, US-20170199576-A1 to Schmitz-Le Hanne, US-8099247-B2 to Mischel, Jr., pertinent to the frame and lighting assembly features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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 (571) 272-7044. 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights