DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phrases which can be implied, and legal phraseology often used in patent claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The originally filed abstract is respectfully suggested to be amended as shown below:
-- An optical stack for use with an illuminated data display. The stack having the following layers: an opaque layer defining one or more openings therein, a diffuser layer disposed overlying the openings, a fiber optic glass layer overlying the diffuser layer, and transparent protective layer overlying the fiber optic glass layer. An illumination source is
disposed within the one or more openings, and illumination from the illumination source
propagates from the illumination source through the diffuser layer, through the fiber optic layer, and through the protective layer. --
Drawings
The replacement drawings received on 10/20/2025 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the light absorptive coating, the light filter coating, and the tint coating reduce the amount of illumination from the illumination source that passes through the transparent protective layer”. The claim language suggests the claim includes all three coatings: the light absorptive coating, the light filter coating, and the tint coating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 9, 15-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461), and in view of HENSON (US 2005/0140270) and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042).
Regarding claim 1, WHITEHEAD discloses an optical stack for use with an illuminated data display, comprising: in a stacked relationship:
an opaque layer (19, Fig.2) defining one or more openings (24, Fig.2) therein;
a diffuser layer (18, Fig.2) disposed overlying the openings;
a polarizer (20, Fig.2) layer overlying the diffuser layer;
a protective layer overlying the polarizer layer (as seen in Fig.2, the “protective layer” was considered to be the layer 32 because layer 32 was considered to performs the function of protecting the layers underneath; as seen in para[0025], since layer 22 is optional, there is an embodiment omitting the layer 22 where the protective layer 32 overlies the polarizer layer 20); and
wherein an illumination source (12, Fig.2) is disposed at the one or more openings, and wherein illumination from the illumination source propagates from the illumination source through the diffuser layer, through the fiber optic layer, and through the protective layer.
WHITEHEAD fails to disclose a fiber optic glass layer, a transparent protective layer overlying the fiber optic glass layer; wherein an illumination source is disposed within the one or more openings
However, HENSON discloses a fiber optic glass layer (130, Figs.3 and 5; para[0041]).
However, ARAKI discloses an illumination source (112, Fig.1) is disposed within an opening of an opaque layer (116, Fig.1).
Therefore, in view of HENSON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fiber optic glass layer as taught by HENSON between the diffuser layer and the protective layer of WHITEHEAD in order to direct light of the illumination source as a light guide.
Therefore, in view of ARAKI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an illumination source within an opening as taught by ARAKI to the illumination source of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON in order to provide an alternative opaque layer where the opaque layer directs light into the other layers.
Regarding “a transparent protective layer overlying the fiber optic glass layer”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the opacity of the protective layer can be selected such that the protective layer is made of a typical transparent material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transparency to the protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to provide an alternative opacity to the protective layer for a desired application. As a result, the transparent protective layer would have overlayed the fiber optic glass layer
Regarding claim 2, WHITEHEAD further discloses wherein the illumination source (12, Fig.2) comprises one or more light emitting diodes (para[0017]).
Regarding claim 3, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI as discussed above for claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the one more light emitting diodes are electrically connected to a printed circuit board, and wherein the opaque layer is attached to or in proximate relation to the printed circuit board.
However, ARAKI further discloses the one more light emitting diodes (112, Fig.1) are electrically connected to a printed circuit board (111, Fig.1), and the opaque layer (116, Fig.1) is in proximate relation to the printed circuit board.
Therefore, in view of ARAKI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a PCB as taught by ARAKI to the LEDs of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to electrically and mechanically connect the LEDs.
Regarding claim 9, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI as discussed above for claim 1 fails to discloses wherein a material of the transparent protective layer comprises plexiglass, acrylic or glass.
Regarding “a material of the transparent protective layer comprises plexiglass, acrylic or glass”, while WHITEHEAD is silent on the material of the protective layer 32, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a composition including plexiglass, acrylic, or glass are typical materials for an optical layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plexiglass, an acrylic or a glass to the transparent protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to provide a typical material for the transparent protective layer.
Regarding claim 15, WHITEHEAD further discloses wherein light from the illumination source (12, Fig.2) is spread or diffused as the light propagates through the diffuser layer (18, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 16, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein light from the diffuser layer propagates substantially vertically through the fiber optic glass layer (as seen in para[0041] of HENSON, the fiber optic glass layer 130 was considered to propagate light through the optical fiber in a vertical orientation).
Regarding claim 17, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose wherein a thickness of the diffuser layer is determined such that light from one illumination source that illuminates a first segment does not propagate horizontally to illuminate a proximate second segment.
Regarding “a thickness of the diffuser layer is determined such that light from one illumination source that illuminates a first segment does not propagate horizontally to illuminate a proximate second segment”, the limitation was considered to optimize the dimensions and properties of the diffuser layer based on a desired application. As a result, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions of the diffuser layer for optimization such that the illumination achieves a desired result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness of the diffuser layer such that light from one illumination source illuminating a first segment does not propagate horizontally to illuminate a proximate second segment to the optical stack of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to provide a light distribution pattern for a desired application.
Regarding claim 22, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose wherein a thickness of the opaque layer is about 2.5 mm.
Regarding “a thickness of the opaque layer is about 2.5 mm”, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to select a thickness of the opaque layer to adjust the distance between the illumination source and the optical stack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness of the opaque layer is about 2.5 mm to the opaque layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to select a thickness for the opaque layer for a desired application.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270) and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and in view of CURTIS (US 9,741,273).
Regarding claim 4, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose wherein one of the one or more openings defines a segment of a number or of a letter, or defines a pointer, a needle, tick marks, or a graphical shape.
However, CURTIS discloses openings (110, 113, Fig.1) defines a segment a letter or a graphical shape (Fig.4).
Therefore, in view of CURTIS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate openings defining a graphical shape as taught by CURTIS to the openings of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to form a display.
Regarding claim 5, WHITEHEAD further discloses wherein the optical stack provides uniform brightness across the segment (para[0002]).
Regarding claim 6, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and CURTIS as discussed above for claim 4 further discloses wherein the one or more openings define a plurality of segments (as seen in Fig.4 of CURTIS, the openings 110, 113 defines segments).
WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and CURTIS fails to disclose and wherein a thickness of the diffuser layer is about 10% to about 50% of a smallest distance between two segments.
Regarding “a thickness of the diffuser layer is about 10% to about 50% of a smallest distance between two segments”, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to select a thickness of the diffusion layer to adjust the degree of diffusion and scattering of the light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness of the diffuser layer is about 10% to about 50% of a smallest distance between two segments to the diffuser layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and CURTIS in order to select a thickness for the diffusion layer for a desired application.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270) and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and in view of HELSTERN (US 5,913,617).
Regarding claim 7, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose wherein the optical stack and the illumination source are disposed in an enclosure, such that the transparent protective layer is disposed within an opening in the enclosure and light from the illumination source is visible through the transparent protective layer.
However, HELSTERN discloses an optical stack (24, Fig.5) and an illumination source (16, Fig.5) are disposed in an enclosure (12, Fig.5).
Therefore, in view of HELSTERN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an enclosure as taught by HELSTERN to the optical stack and the illumination source of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to provide a support for the optical stack. As a result, the transparent protective layer would have been disposed within an opening in the enclosure and light from the illumination source would have been visible through the transparent protective layer.
Regarding claim 8, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and HELSTERN as discussed above for claim 7 further discloses wherein the optical stack is recessed below a surface of the enclosure (as seen in Fig.5 of HELSTERN, the optical stack 24 is recessed below a top surface of the enclosure 12) such that the transparent protective layer is below the surface of the enclosure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270), ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and HELSTERN (US 5,913,617), and EBERWEIN (US 2006/0080874).
Regarding claim 10, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and HELSTERN fails to disclose a seal material disposed between the enclosure and the transparent protective layer.
However, EBERWEIN discloses a seal material (22, Fig.1A) disposed between an enclosure (20, Fig.1A) and a protective layer (11, Fig.1A).
Therefore, in view of EBERWEIN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a seal material as taught by EBERWEIN between the enclosure and the transparent protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and HELSTERN in order to prevent dust or moisture from entering into the enclosure.
Claims 11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270) and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and in view of PATRICK (US 6,158,156).
Regarding claim 11, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose wherein the transparent protective layer comprises one or more of an antireflective coating, a light absorptive coating, a light filter coating, and a tint coating.
However, PATRICK discloses a layer (2, Figs.1-2) includes a tint coating (6, Fig.2; as seen in col.3, lines 28-32 and claim 14, a layer 6 is a tint coating 6)
Therefore, in view of PATRICK, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a tint coating as taught by PATRICK to the protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order for the tint coating to absorb ambient light to show a graphic.
Regarding claim 20, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose a coating layer on the transparent protective layer for attenuating predetermined wavelengths of light.
However, PATRICK discloses a coating layer (6, Fig.2; as seen in col.3, lines 28-32 and claim 14, a layer 6 is a tint coating 6) on a layer (2, Fig.2) for attenuating predetermined wavelengths of light (as seen in Figs.7-8, when the light source 14 is off, the coating layer 6 attenuates wavelengths of light A such that a graphic is shown).
Therefore, in view of PATRICK, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a coating layer for attenuating predetermined wavelengths of light as taught by PATRICK to the transparent protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order for the tint coating to absorb ambient light to show a graphic.
Regarding claim 21, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose a coating layer on the transparent protective layer for attenuating light striking the protective layer from a predetermined direction.
However, PATRICK discloses a coating layer (6, Fig.2; as seen in col.3, lines 28-32 and claim 14, a layer 6 is a tint coating 6) on a layer (2, Fig.2) for attenuating light striking the layer from a predetermined direction (as seen in Figs.7-8, when the light source 14 is off, the coating layer 6 attenuates light A such that a graphic is shown).
Therefore, in view of PATRICK, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a coating layer for attenuating light as taught by PATRICK to the protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order for the tint coating to absorb ambient light to show a graphic.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270), ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and PATRICK (US 6,158,156), and FUJITA (US 6,517,213).
Regarding claim 12, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and PATRICK as discussed above for claim 11 discloses the tint coating (6, Fig.2 of PATRICK) reduce the amount of illumination from the illumination source.
WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and PATRICK fails to discloses wherein the light absorptive coating and the light filter coating reduce the amount of illumination from the illumination source that passes through the transparent protective layer.
However, FUJITA discloses a light absorptive layer (22, Fig.2) and a light filter layer (23, Fig.2; see col.11, lines 4-19).
Therefore, in view of FUJITA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light absorptive layer and a light filter layer as taught by FUJITA to the optical stack of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, and PATRICK in order to adjust the optical properties of the graphic.
Regarding claim 13, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, PATRICK, and FUJITA as discussed above for claim 12 further discloses wherein the tint coating (6, Fig.2 of PATRICK reduces light transmission.
WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, PATRICK, and FUJITA fails to disclose wherein the tint coating reduces light transmission by about 50%.
Regarding “wherein the tint coating reduces light transmission by about 50%”, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to select the degree of tint to adjust the light transmission percentage for a desired application. A tint coating allows for different graphics to be shown while the light source is off in addition to concealing the light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tint coating reduces light transmission by about 50% the tint coating of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, PATRICK, and FUJITA in order to adjust the light transmission percentage for a desired application.
Regarding claim 14, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, PATRICK, and FUJITA fails to disclose wherein an amount of light attenuation provided by the tint coating is determined based on a required brightness of light produced by the illumination source and exiting the protective layer.
Regarding “an amount of light attenuation provided by the tint coating is determined based on a required brightness of light produced by the illumination source and exiting the protective layer”, the limitation was considered to optimize the properties of the tint coating based on a desired application. As a result, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the properties of the ting coating for optimization such that the illumination achieves a desired result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an amount of light attenuation provided by the tint coating based on a required brightness of light produced by the illumination source and exiting the protective layer to the optical stack of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON, ARAKI, PATRICK, and FUJITA in order to provide a light distribution pattern for a desired application.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270) and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and in view of REINAUER (US 2021/0088209).
Regarding claim 18, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to discloses wherein the fiber optic glass layer comprises a fused plurality of vertically aligned glass fibers, wherein light from the diffuser layer enters a bottom surface of the plurality of glass fibers and exits a top surface of the plurality of glass fibers.
However, REINAUER discloses a fused plurality of vertically aligned glass fibers (“fuse” was interpreted as to join or form a single entity; as seen in Fig.1a, optical fibers 2 were considered to be fused or joined with the material 3 to form a single entity; the optical fibers 2 were considered to be vertically aligned with respect to the viewer 5 looking down onto the optical fibers 2).
Therefore, in view of REINAUER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fused plurality of vertically aligned glass fibers as taught by REINAUER to the fiber optic glass layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to direct light of the illumination source as a light guide. As a result, light from the diffuser layer would have entered a bottom surface of the plurality of glass fibers and exited a top surface of the plurality of glass fibers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270) and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and in view of NIELD (US 2005/0135749).
Regarding claim 19, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI fails to disclose a first optical bonding material for bonding an upper surface of the fiber optic glass layer to the transparent protective layer, and a second optical bonding material for bonding a lower surface of the fiber optic glass layer to the diffuser layer.
However, NIELD discloses an optical bonding material (122, Fig.11) for bonding an optical fiber (26, Fig.11).
Therefore, in view of NIELD, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an optical bonding material as taught by NIELD to the fiber optic glass layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI such that the fiber optic glass layer is bonded to the transparent protective layer and the diffuser layer in order to secure, bond, and connect the fiber optic glass layer.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461) modified by HENSON (US 2005/0140270) and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042), and in view of ERLENDSSON (US 5,009,019)
Regarding claim 23, WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI discloses a silkscreen layer disposed either or both above and below the transparent protective layer.
However, ERLENDSSON discloses a silkscreen layer (6, Fig.2; col.3, lines 45-50) disposed above a protective layer (4, Fig.2).
Therefore, in view of ERLENDSSON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a silkscreen layer as taught by ERLENDSSON above the transparent protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by HENSON and ARAKI in order to provide a graphic.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITEHEAD (US 2007/0268461), and in view of CURTIS (US 9,741,273), HENSON (US 2005/0140270), and ARAKI (US 2015/0329042).
Regarding claim 24, WHITEHEAD discloses an optical stack for use with an illuminated data display, comprising: in a stacked relationship;
one or more cavities (24, Fig.2), with each cavity bounded by an opaque material layer (19, Fig.2);
a diffuser layer (18, Fig.2) disposed overlying the one or more cavities;
a polarizer layer (20, Fig.2) overlying the diffuser layer;
a protective layer overlying the polarizer layer (as seen in Fig.2, the “protective layer” was considered to be the layer 32 because layer 32 was considered to performs the function of protecting the layers underneath; as seen in para[0025], since layer 22 is optional, there is an embodiment omitting the layer 22 where the protective layer 32 overlies the polarizer layer 20); and wherein an illumination source (12, Fig.2) is disposed at the one or more openings, and wherein illumination from the illumination source propagates from the illumination source through the diffuser layer, through the polarizer layer, and through the protective layer.
WHITEHEAD fails to disclose a clear or translucent material defining one or more cavities therein, a fiber optic glass layer, a transparent protective layer overlying the fiber optic glass layer; wherein an illumination source is disposed within the one or more openings
However, CURTIS discloses a clear or translucent material (115, Fig.1; col.6, lines 35-44) defining one or more cavities (113, Fig.1) therein.
However, HENSON discloses a fiber optic glass layer (130, Figs.3 and 5; para[0041]).
However, ARAKI discloses an illumination source (112, Fig.1) is disposed within an opening of an opaque layer (116, Fig.1).
Therefore, in view of CURTIS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a clear or translucent material defining one or more cavities as taught by CURTIS to the optical stack of WHITEHEAD in order to diffuse the light of the illumination source.
Therefore, in view of HENSON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fiber optic glass layer as taught by HENSON between the diffuser layer and the protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by CURTIS in order to direct light of the illumination source as a light guide.
Therefore, in view of ARAKI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an illumination source within an opening as taught by ARAKI to the illumination source of WHITEHEAD modified by CURTIS and HENSON in order to provide an alternative opaque layer where the opaque layer directs light into the other layers.
Regarding “a transparent protective layer overlying the fiber optic glass layer”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the opacity of the protective layer can be selected such that the protective layer is made of a typical transparent material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transparency to the protective layer of WHITEHEAD modified by CURTIS, HENSON, and ARAKI in order to provide an alternative opacity to the protective layer for a desired application. As a result, the transparent protective layer would have overlayed the fiber optic glass layer
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200116326, US 20160185284, US 20200116913, US 20230290293, US 4106231, US 4141058, US 5951150, US 4924612, US 20180065547, US 3562746, and US 5678335 discloses an opaque layer, a diffuser layer, an optical layer, a protective layer, and an illumination source
Examiner’s Comment
It is noted that the features of the applicant’s invention are recited in separate dependent claims. It is suggested to incorporate a combination of the features to the independent claims in order for the claims to reflect the applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/J.M.E/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights