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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “discharge circuit for comparing the first control signal and the second control signal” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a controller for controlling…” in claim 1 and “a controller configured to…” in claim 20 (Paragraphs [0055] and [0066] merely describe generic controllers, for example an integrated circuit, and thus this limitation is a computer implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm, however, no algorithm is disclosed.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a controller for controlling…” in claim 1 and “a controller configured to…” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any specific structure that performs the function in the claim. Specifically, since only generic controllers are disclosed, for example an integrated circuit, the limitation is a computer implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm. However, no algorithm is disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claims 1-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the claims and specification both recite “discharge circuit for comparing the first control signal and the second control signal” and “comparing, by the discharge circuit, the first control signal and the second control signal” and “a discharge circuit configured to compare the first control signal output from the controller and the second control signal output from the comparison circuit” however, the term “comparing” is being used while no actual comparing is taking place. See, for example, applicant’s Figure 10, the discharge circuit merely contains two transistors that each separately receive the claimed first control signal and the second control signal. The transistor each separately turn on/off based on these control signals. There is absolutely no “comparing” of the two control signals done in the discharge circuit. See below:
PNG
media_image1.png
481
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are rejected due to their dependency from the dependent claims, respectively.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret that the claims based on the teachings of the drawings and that the first and second control signals are not actually “compared” in the discharge circuit.
Claims 13 and 18-19 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because claims 1 and 14, from which claims 13 and 18-19 respectively depend, each recite that the discharging occurs, however, claims 13 and 19 each recite that the comparison circuit is turned off, where is the comparison circuit is turned off then the discharging cannot take place. Claim 18 recites “wherein the discharging the source driving voltage comprises not discharging the source driving voltage.” Thus, claims 13 and 18-19 make it unclear as to whether or not the discharging in claims 1 and 14 occur.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret that when the circuit is not discharging that the discharging does not occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. disclose a display device (Figure 1) comprising:
a display panel on which a plurality of subpixels are disposed (Figure 1, 110 is a display panel. See paragraphs [0012]-[0013], which explain there are a plurality of pixels 106 [subpixels].);
a data driving circuit for driving the display panel (Figure 1, 136 is a data driving circuit.);
a power management integrated circuit for supplying a source driving voltage to the data driving circuit (Figure 1, 150 is a power management integrated circuit, where paragraph [0012] explain that is provided power to 130, which includes 136, and thus supplies the source driving voltage.);
a controller for outputting a first control signal (Figure 1, 132 is a controller that output CT [first control signal], see paragraph [0015].);
a comparison circuit for comparing the source driving voltage and a reference driving voltage and outputting a second control signal (Figure 2, see also paragraph [0015], wherein C1 is a comparison circuit that compares the source driving voltage VCC and a reference voltage Vref and outputs a second control signal [the output of C1].); and
a discharge circuit for comparing the first control signal and the second control signal output from the comparison circuit and discharging the source driving voltage (Figure 2, LG1 and 1383 are the claimed discharge circuit, which “compares” CT and the output from C1, then controls the discharging of the source driving voltage from the pixels, se paragraph [0021], for example.).
Wei et al. fail to teach wherein the controller is for controlling the power management integrated circuit.
Hong et al. disclose a controller for controlling a power management integrated circuit (Figure 1 shows timing controller 106 and power management integrated circuit 118, and also see Figure 5, where the controller controls the power management integrated circuit.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Wei et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a display device comprising a controller and a power management integrated circuit, and Hong et al. performs the same function as it does separately of a controller controlling a power management integrated circuit.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the controller controlling the power management integrated circuit.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Wei et al. and Hong et al. disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the comparison circuit includes:
a first input terminal configured to receive the source driving voltage (Wei et al.: Figure 2, the terminal of C1 that receives VCC is a first input terminal.);
a second input terminal configured to receive the reference driving voltage (Wei et al.: Figure 2, the terminal of C1 that receives Vref is a second input terminal.); and
an output terminal for outputting the second control signal (Wei et al.: Figure 2, the terminal of C1 for output.).
Regarding claim 10, Wei et al. and Hong et al. disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to output a source driving voltage control signal to the power management integrated circuit (Hong et al.: In the combination made in claim 1, Figures 1 and 5 show that the controller 106 outputs a source driving voltage control signal to 118. See also paragraph [0034].),
wherein the power management integrated circuit is configured to control a voltage level of the source driving voltage based on the source driving voltage control signal (Hong et al.: Paragraph [0034], in the combination with Wei et al. as made in claim 1.).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 5 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161) and further in view of Huang (CN 109493817 A).
Regarding claim 2, Wei et al. and Hong et al. disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein the comparison circuit is configured to output the second control signal to the discharge circuit in response to the source driving voltage is greater than the reference driving voltage (Wei et al.: Paragraph [0016]).
Wei et al. and Hong et al. fail to teach wherein the comparison circuit is configured to output the second control signal in a high level state.
Huang discloses wherein a comparison circuit (Figure 2, 110) is configured to output a second control signal in a high level state to a discharge circuit in response to an input being greater than a reference (Figure 2, transistor M1 is turned off for discharging when the output of 110 is in a high level state in response to Vin being greater than V1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circuit teachings of Huang and apply them to the display device and discharging circuit as taught by the combination of Wei et al. and Hong et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to prevent the receiving drive chip of the drive circuit output voltage from being damaged (See the abstract of Huang.).
Regarding claim 3, Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang disclose the display device of claim 2, wherein the discharge circuit is configured to discharge the source driving voltage in response to receiving the second control signal in the high level state and the first control signal in a high level state (Huang: Figure 2 shows that P63 input to M2, so both M1 and M2 have to receive high level signals to turn on and thus cause discharge.).
Regarding claim 5, Wei et al. and Hong et al. disclose the display device of claim 1.
Wei et al. and Hong et al. fail to teach wherein the discharge circuit includes: a first discharge transistor configured to be supplied with the first control signal to a gate node; and a second discharge transistor configured to be supplied with the second control signal to a gate node.
Huang discloses wherein a discharge circuit includes:
a first discharge transistor configured to be supplied with the first control signal to a gate node (Figure 2, M1 is a first discharge transistor supplied with a first control signal to a gate node.); and
a second discharge transistor configured to be supplied with the second control signal to a gate node (Figure 2, M2 is a second discharge transistor supplied with a second control signal to a gate node.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circuit teachings of Huang and apply them to the display device and discharging circuit as taught by the combination of Wei et al. and Hong et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to prevent the receiving drive chip of the drive circuit output voltage from being damaged (See the abstract of Huang.).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161) and further in view of Huang (CN 109493817 A) and Sung et al. (US 2013/0147697).
Regarding claim 6, Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang disclose the display device of claim 5.
Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang fail to teach wherein the discharge circuit further includes a diode, and the first discharge transistor is electrically connected between the diode and the second discharge transistor.
Sung et al. disclose wherein a discharge circuit includes a diode (Figure 8 shows that a discharge circuit 124 includes a diode D12.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the diode teachings of Sung et al. in the discharge circuit taught by the combination of Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang such that the first discharge transistor is electrically connected between the diode and the second discharge transistor [since the diode would be connected to the top of the discharge circuit as in Figure 8 of Sung et al.]. The motivation to combine would have been in order to secure a stable discharging operation by ensuring the direction of the current can only flow one direction.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161) and further in view of Huang (CN 109493817 A) and Lee et al. (US 2014/0092075).
Regarding claim 7, Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang disclose the display device of claim 5.
Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang fail to teach wherein the discharge circuit further includes a resistance element, and the resistance element is electrically connected to a gate node of the second discharge transistor.
Lee et al. disclose a wherein a discharge circuit includes a resistance element, and the resistance element is electrically connected to a gate node of a discharge transistor (Figure 1 shows that there is a resistance element R2 connected to a gate of a discharge transistor.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the resistance teachings of Lee et al. and apply them to the second discharge transistor in the discharge circuit taught by the combination of Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang. The motivation to combine would have been in order to stabilize the entire circuit (See paragraph [0038] of Lee et al.).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161) and further in view of Huang (CN 109493817 A) and Harvey et al. (US 2015/0280422).
Regarding claim 8, Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang disclose the display device of claim 5.
Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang fail to teach wherein the comparison circuit includes a control discharge transistor electrically connected between the gate node of the second discharge transistor and an output terminal of the comparison circuit.
Harvey et al. disclose wherein a comparison circuit includes a control discharge transistor electrically connected between the gate node of a transistor and an output terminal of the comparison circuit (Figure 1 shows a comparison circuit 12 that includes a control discharge transistor 14, see paragraph [0009], that is electrically connected between a gate node of a transistor 40 and an output terminal of the comparison circuit 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the output transistor teachings of Harvey et al. in the discharge circuit taught by the combination of Wei et al., Hong et al. and Huang. The motivation to combine would have been to more accurately control the discharge operation and prevent any erroneous discharging from taking place.
Regarding claim 9, Wei et al., Hong et al., Huang and Harvey et al. disclose the display device of claim 8, wherein the control discharge transistor is configured to control the turned on or turned off of the comparison circuit according to the first control signal (In the combination, the signal to control turning on and off the control discharge transistor will be supplied from the controller, and thus will be the first control signal.).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161) and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0122512).
Regarding claim 11, Wei et al. and Hong et al. disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein a period during which the plurality of subpixels are driven includes:
an active period for displaying an image on the display panel (Wei et al.: Figure 3, P4 is an active period. See paragraph [0019].); and
a blank period (Wei et al.: Figure 3, P2-P3. See paragraphs [0017]-[0018].),
wherein the discharge circuit is configured to discharge the source driving voltage during the blank period (Wei et al.: Figure 3, discharge takes place during P2, see paragraph [0017].).
Wei et al. and Hong et al. fail to teach the blank period is for detecting characteristic values of the plurality of subpixels.
Lee discloses wherein a blank period is for detecting characteristic values of the plurality of subpixels (Figure 2, SENSE, and Figure 7 shows sensing during a blanking period.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Wei et al. and Hong et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a blank period, and Lee performs the same function as it does separately of sensing characteristic values of the plurality of subpixels during a blank period.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the blank period being for detecting characteristic values of the plurality of subpixels.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Wei et al., Hong et al. and Lee disclose the display device of claim 11, wherein the discharge circuit is configured to be supplied with the first control signal in a high level state during the blank period (In the combination, since discharging takes place during the blank period as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, then the first control signal CT will be “high” for performing the discharging during this period.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161) and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0122512) and Harvey et al. (US 2015/0280422).
Regarding claim 13, please refer to the rejection of claims 8-9, where Harvey et al. discloses of turning off the comparison circuit using a control discharge transistor, which as explained in the rejection of claim 9, the first control signal will turn off the transistor and thus the comparison circuit when at a low level state, which will occur during P3 in Figure 3 of Wei et al. which is during the blank period when discharging is not taking place.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2017/0092218) in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0113161) and further in view of Harvey et al. (US 2015/0280422).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
26 January 2026