DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 10,760,157 B2 (“157 Patent”). 157 Patent issued on September 1, 2020 with claims 1-10 from application 15/673,381 filed on August 9, 2017, which claims priority to 62/372,343 filed on August 9, 2016.
This application was filed on July 15, 2025. Since this date is after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Furthermore, the present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application is a continuation reissue of reissue application 17/900,534 (now US RE50,498 E). 157 Patent is also the subject of reissue application 17/900,464 (now US RE50,260 E).
This application presents broadened claims, which are permitted because Applicant filed these claims and demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 157 Patent (see claims filed on August 31, 2022 in parent reissue application 17/900,534).
The most recent amendment was filed on July 15, 2025. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-10: Canceled
Claims 11-21: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
157 Patent (US 10,760,157 B2)
Sumant (US 2017/0011914 A1)
Xu (US 2015/0218694 A1)
Carlisle (US 2005/0031785 A1)
US RE50,260 E
US RE50,498 E
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Examiner objects to the specification and reissue declaration.
Claims 11-21 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sumant.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant in view of Xu.
Claims 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant in view of Carlisle.
Claims 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 14, 13, 14, 15, 11, 17-19, 14, and 20, respectively of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,260 E in view of Sumant.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,260 E.
Claims 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 3, 4, 5, 1, 7-9, 12, and 10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,498 E in view of Sumant.
Summary of the Claims
157 Patent is directed to a transparent display including a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on a glass substrate. Claim 11, the only independent claim, is representative:
11. (New) A transparent display comprising:
a glass substrate; and
a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on the glass substrate, wherein the nanocrystalline
diamond film comprises a grain size less than one micrometer;
wherein the transparent display transmits at least 80% of light comprising a wavelength of 550 nm; and
wherein the transparent display transmits a reduced percentage of light relative to transmission of the light comprising the wavelength of 550 nm, and
wherein the light that is transmitted at the reduced percentage comprises one or more of:
light comprising a wavelength within a range from 350 nm to 450 nm; or
light comprising a wavelength within a range from 750 nm to 850 nm.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Certificate of Correction in Parent Reissue
This reissue application is a continuation reissue of US RE50,498 E. 157 Patent is also the subject of US RE50,260 E. The prior reissue patents have issued without the cross reference to this reissue application of the family, which is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.177(a). Accordingly, Applicant must request a Certificate of Correction in the prior reissue patents to insert language in the first sentence of the specification, such as:
“Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of patent US 10,760,157 B2. The reissue applications are US RE50,260 E, US RE50,498 E, and 19/270,186.”
Specification
Examiner objects to the amendment to the specification filed on July 15, 2025 because it does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173. More specifically, the new text relative to the patent must be fully underlined. Correction is required.
Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application (i.e., “Reissue Application
Declaration by the Inventor filed on July 15, 2025) is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP
§ 1414). The following is Applicant’s statement describing at least one error upon which reissue
is based:
PNG
media_image2.png
106
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A claim of a reissue application enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent if it is
broader in at least one respect, even though it may be narrower in other respects. See, e.g., 37
CFR 1.175(b). For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the
scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that
the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the
reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to
satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is
sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word,
phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original
patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
The current statement’s general reference to “seeking broader protection to protect
overlooked aspects” is insufficient. Rather, Applicant may quote an actual word or phrase from
patent claim 1 that is no longer recited in the new claims and state how it renders the original
patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid (e.g., by making the patent unduly narrow).
In a subsequent declaration, Applicant should specifically identify at least one originally claimed
word or phrase that is omitted in the reissue claims; identify a claim being broadened by this
reissue (e.g., claim 1); and further state that the originally claimed word or phrase causes the
patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by claiming less than the patentee had the
right to claim in the patent. Applicant must submit a new declaration correcting the above
deficiencies as no proper declaration has been yet entered in this application.
The “Reissue Application Declaration by the Assignee” and “Supplemental Declaration by the Assignee” both filed on July 15, 2025 are also defective because contrary to the checked box next to the statement “The application for the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest” on page 2 of “Reissue Application Declaration by the Assignee,” the application for 157 Patent was filed by the inventors and not filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest (see Application Data Sheet filed on August 9, 2017 in 15/673,381). Therefore, since this application is a broadening reissue application not filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest, a proper reissue declaration in this application must be executed by the inventors, not the assignee. See 37 CFR 1.175.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 11-21 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sumant.
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding independent claim 11, Sumant discloses a transparent display (Figure 1; paragraph [0003]) comprising:
a glass substrate (i.e., Sumant discloses glass and particular types of glass materials such as fused silica; paragraphs [0031] and [0044); and
a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on the glass substrate (paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and [0044]),
wherein the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a grain size less than one micrometer (e.g., “a grain size in the range of 10 nm to 200 nm”; paragraph [0030]);
wherein the transparent display transmits at least 80% of light comprising a wavelength of 550 nm (i.e., Figure 3 shows at least 80% transmission of light at 550 nm; paragraph [0045]); and
wherein the transparent display transmits a reduced percentage of light relative to transmission of the light comprising the wavelength of 550 nm, and wherein the light that is transmitted at the reduced percentage comprises one or more of: light comprising a wavelength within a range from 350 nm to 450 nm; or light comprising a wavelength within a range from 750 nm to 850 nm (i.e., Figure 3 shows less than 80% transmission of light between 350 nm to 450 nm; paragraph [0045]).
PNG
media_image3.png
449
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Sumant discloses that the nanocrystalline diamond film is deposited on to the glass substrate with a reactor that is operated at temperatures less than 450 degrees Celsius (paragraphs [0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Sumant discloses that the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a thickness of less than one μm (e.g., Sumant discloses a thickness “between 30 nms to about 150 nms” and a particular example “having a thickness of about 80 nm”; paragraphs [0041] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 17, Sumant discloses that the glass substrate comprises fused silica (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Sumant discloses that the glass substrate comprises quartz (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 19, Sumant discloses that the glass substrate comprises sapphire (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claims 12-14, 20, and 21, Sumant discloses a nanocrystalline diamond film deposited on to the glass substrate (paragraph [0041]) and the claims are anticipated by Sumant for the same reasons as claim 11 because claims 12-14, 20, and 21 only recite the process by which the product is made. Sumant does not specifically disclose that the nanocrystalline diamond film is seeded on to the substrate with a small grain nanocrystalline diamond solution comprising the grain size, wherein the grain size is 10 nm wide or less (claims 12 and 20); that the film is deposited with a hot filament reactor (claim 13); or that the glass substrate is seeded with nanocrystalline diamond prior to the film being deposited (claim 14); or that the film is deposited using source gases comprising: methane at a concentration of 3 standard cubic centimeters per minute (SCCM); hydrogen at a concentration of 4 SCCM; and argon at a concentration of 300 SCCM (claim 21). However, the claimed product comprising a nanocrystalline diamond film deposited on to the glass substrate is the same as that of Sumant but produced by a different process. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant in view of Xu.
Again, the applied reference, Sumant, has a common joint inventor with the instant
application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art
under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). See additional discussion above with respect to the rejection of claim
1.
Regarding claim 13, Sumant discloses a transparent display as discussed above with regard to claim 1, including a nanocrystalline diamond film deposited on to the glass substrate (Sumant, paragraph [0041]), but Sumant does not specifically disclose that the film is deposited with a hot filament reactor. However, Xu teaches a nanocrystalline diamond film deposited on a substrate that is related to the one disclosed by Sumant, wherein the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a thickness between 10 nm and 1 μm (e.g., Xu teaches a nanocrystalline diamond film thickness between 1 nm and 1μm; Xu, paragraphs [0022], [0028], and [0061]). Insofar as the structure implied by the process steps somehow differs from the structure of the product already taught by Sumant, Xu further teaches that the film is deposited with a hot filament reactor (Xu, paragraph [0090]).Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to deposit the film onto the substrate with a hot filament reactor as taught Xu in the display disclosed by Sumant as a known substitution for the deposition method disclosed by Sumant that would have obtained the predictable result of effectively depositing the diamond film (i.e., Xu teaches that hot filament is one of several known deposition methods and can be substituted for the microwave plasma method disclosed by Sumant; Xu, paragraph [0090]).
Claims 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant in view of Carlisle.
Again, the applied reference, Sumant, has a common joint inventor with the instant
application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art
under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). See additional discussion above with respect to the rejection of claim
1.
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 20, Sumant discloses a transparent display as discussed above with regard to claim 1, including a nanocrystalline diamond film deposited on to the glass substrate comprising a grain size less than one micrometer (e.g., “a grain size in the range of 10 nm to 200 nm”; paragraph [0030 (Sumant, paragraph [0041]), but Sumant does not specifically disclose that the glass substrate is seeded with nanocrystalline diamond prior to the film being deposited. However, Carlisle teaches a nanocrystalline diamond film deposited on a substrate that is related to the one disclosed by Sumant, wherein the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a thickness between 10 nm and 1 μm (e.g., Carlisle teaches a nanocrystalline diamond film thickness of 0.8 μm; Carlisle, paragraphs [0003]-[0004] and [0033]). Insofar as the structure implied by the process steps somehow differs from the structure of the product already disclosed by Sumant, Carlisle further teaches that the substrate is seeded with nanocrystalline diamond prior to the nanocrystalline diamond film being deposited on to the substrate (Carlisle, paragraphs [0016]-[0019], [0030], and [0033]) and that the nanocrystalline diamond film is seeded on to the substrate with a small grain nanocrystalline diamond solution comprising the grain size, and wherein the grain size is 10 nm wide or less (Carlisle, paragraphs [0004], [0024], and [0030]). Regarding claims 12, 14, and 20, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to seed the substrate with nanocrystalline diamond as taught by Carlisle in the display disclosed by Sumant, in order to advantageously reduce the total time to create the diamond film (Carlisle, paragraph [0030]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 14, 13, 14, 15, 11, 17-19, 14, and 20, respectively of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,260 E in view of Sumant.
Regarding independent reissue claim 11 and dependent reissue claim 16, although the recited elements are not identical to the elements of claim 11 of US RE50,260 E, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reissue claims 1 and 16 essentially recite a subset or broadened version of the limitations recited in claim 11 of US RE50,260 E, including a glass substrate, a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on the glass substrate, wherein the transparent display transmits at least 80% of light comprising a wavelength of 550 nm; and wherein the transparent display transmits a reduced percentage of light relative to transmission of the light comprising the wavelength of 550 nm, and wherein the light that is transmitted at the reduced percentage comprises one or more of: light comprising a wavelength within a range from 350 nm to 450 nm; or light comprising a wavelength within a range from 750 nm to 850 nm. Reissue claim 16 further recites that the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a thickness of less than one μm, which is also covered by claim 11 of US RE50,260 E.
Reissue claims 11 and 16 additionally recite that “the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a grain size less than one micrometer,” which is not recited in claim 11 of US RE50,260 E. However, Sumant discloses a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on a glass substrate wherein the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a grain size less than one micrometer (e.g., “a grain size in the range of 10 nm to 200 nm”; paragraph [0030]; see also paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and [0044]). Given claim 11 of US RE50,260 E, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 11 and 16 by slightly changing the wording of limitations and/or removing limitations and further providing a grain size less than one micrometer as taught by Suamnt to provide a nanocrystalline diamond film with higher thermal conductivity and efficient heat spreading properties (Sumant, paragraph [0087]).
Dependent reissue claims 12-15 and 17-21 recite substantially similar limitations as dependent claims 14, 13, 14, 15, 17-19, 14, and 20, respectively, of US RE50,260 E and are rejected under obviousness-type double patenting over those claims in view of Sumant for the same reasons as parent reissue claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,260 E.
Additionally, regarding independent reissue claim 1, although the recited elements are not identical to the elements of claim 21 of US RE50,260 E, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reissue claim 1 essentially recites a subset or broadened version of the limitations recited in claim 21 of US RE50,260 E, including a glass substrate, a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on the glass substrate, wherein the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a grain size less than one micrometer; wherein the transparent display transmits at least 80% of light comprising a wavelength of 550 nm; and wherein the transparent display transmits a reduced percentage of light relative to transmission of the light comprising the wavelength of 550 nm, and wherein the light that is transmitted at the reduced percentage comprises one or more of: light comprising a wavelength within a range from 350 nm to 450 nm; or light comprising a wavelength within a range from 750 nm to 850 nm. Given claim 21 of US RE50,260 E, it would have been obvious to create reissue claim 1 by slightly changing the wording of limitations and/or removing limitations.
Claims 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 3, 4, 5, 1, 7-9, 12, and 10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. US RE50,498 E in view of Sumant.
Regarding independent reissue claim 1 and dependent reissue claim 16, although the recited elements are not identical to the elements of claim 1 of US RE50,498 E, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reissue claims 1 and 16 essentially recite a subset or broadened version of the limitations recited in claim 1 of US RE50,498 E, including a glass substrate, a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on the glass substrate, wherein the transparent display transmits at least 80% of light comprising a wavelength of 550 nm; and wherein the transparent display transmits a reduced percentage of light relative to transmission of the light comprising the wavelength of 550 nm, and wherein the light that is transmitted at the reduced percentage comprises one or more of: light comprising a wavelength within a range from 350 nm to 450 nm; or light comprising a wavelength within a range from 750 nm to 850 nm. Reissue claim 16 further recites that the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a thickness of less than one μm, which is also covered by claim 1 of US RE50,498 E.
Reissue claims 1 and 16 additionally recite that “the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a grain size less than one micrometer,” which is not recited in claim 1 of US RE50,498 E. However, Sumant discloses a nanocrystalline diamond film formed on a glass substrate wherein the nanocrystalline diamond film comprises a grain size less than one micrometer (e.g., “a grain size in the range of 10 nm to 200 nm”; paragraph [0030]; see also paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and [0044]). Given claim 11 of US RE50,260 E, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 11 and 16 by slightly changing the wording of limitations and/or removing limitations and further providing a grain size less than one micrometer as taught by Suamnt to provide a nanocrystalline diamond film with higher thermal conductivity and efficient heat spreading properties (Sumant, paragraph [0087]).
Dependent reissue claims 12-15 and 17-21 recite substantially similar limitations as dependent claims 12, 3, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, and 10, respectively, of US RE50,498 E and are rejected under obviousness-type double patenting over those claims in view of Sumant for the same reasons as parent reissue claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this reissue application is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to Examiner Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023; the Examiner’s supervisor, SPE Patricia Engle at (571) 272-6660; or the Central Reexamination Unit at (571) 272-7705.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights