DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 11,995,493 B2 (“493 Patent”). 493 Patent issued on May 28, 2024 with claims 1-19 from application 17/760,368 filed on August 9, 2022 as a 371 of PCT/US2021/017650 filed on February 11, 2021, and claims priority to 62/975,398 filed on February 12, 2020.
This application was filed on October 29, 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 presents narrowed claims. Broadened claims are not permitted in this reissue application because Applicant has not demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 493 Patent.
The most recent amendment was filed on October 29, 2025. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-19: Original
Claims 11 and 15: Amended
Claims 20-74: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
493 Patent (US 11,995,493 B2)
Takano (JP 2010092143 A)
Lolli (US 2011/0232824 A1)
Coleman (US 2007/0035466 A1)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Examiner objects to the claim amendment.
Claims 18, 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought.
Claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for not being the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Lolli.
Claims 8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Coleman.
Claims 20, 21, 24-55, and 58-72 are allowed.
Summary of the Claims
493 Patent is directed to a method of transferring an RFID inlay or plurality of RFID inlays. Claims 1, 20, 41, and 58 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method of transferring an RFID inlay, comprising:
securing an RFID inlay to a first substrate with a first adhesive;
providing a second substrate with a second adhesive and a liner;
separating the liner from the second substrate to expose the second adhesive;
bringing the RFID inlay into the vicinity of the second substrate;
securing the RFID inlay to the second substrate with the second adhesive;
dissociating the RFID inlay from the first substrate; and
securing a third substrate using an adhesive to the RFID inlay, after the RFID inlay is dissociated from the first substrate, to position the RFID inlay between the second substrate and the third substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Amendment
Examiner objects to the claim amendment filed on October 29, 205 because it does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued must be marked. Matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed by single brackets; and matter to be added by reissue must be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d) and MPEP 1453. More specifically, claims 20-74, being new relative to the patent, must be fully underlined. In claim 15, the deletion of the word “a” must be marked with single, not double, brackets.
Furthermore, Applicant must provide on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims. See 37 CFR 1.173(c). Applicant’s statement that “Support for the amendments to the claims can be found throughout the disclosure” in the remarks filed on October 29, 2025 is insufficient. Applicant must point specific locations in the 493 Patent disclosure that support each of the limitations added in new claims 20-74.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18, 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is not supported by the specification. Claim 18 recites “applying the second adhesive to the second substrate after unwinding the second substrate from the reel,” but parent claim 1 previously recites “separating the liner from the second substrate to expose the second adhesive.” 493 Patent does not describe an embodiment including both steps of separating a line from the second substrate to “expose” the second adhesive (that is already present on the second substrate) and additionally “applying” the second adhesive to the second substrate. 493 Patent instead discloses that “If the second substrate 22 is provided with a layer of adhesive 24 and a liner 38, the liner 38 may be unwound from the second substrate 22 onto a reel 40 to expose the adhesive 24. On the other hand, if the second substrate 22 does not include adhesive, an adhesive applicator 42 may be provided to apply adhesive 24 (e.g., in the form of a spray) to the second substrate 22 as the second substrate 22 is unwound from the reel 34.” 493 Patent, column 4, lines 49-57, emphasis added.
Claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are not supported by the specification. Claim 22, which depends on claim 20, recites “wherein the RFID adhesive comprises the second substrate adhesive and wherein securing the third substrate to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay comprises contacting the third substrate with the second substrate on which the second substrate adhesive is disposed.” Claim 56, which depends on claim 41, recites “wherein the RFID adhesive comprises the second adhesive and securing the third substrate to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay comprises contacting the third substrate with the second substrate on which the second adhesive is disposed.” Claim 73, which depends on claim 58, recites “wherein the RFID adhesive comprises the second adhesive and wherein securing the third substrate to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay comprises contacting the liner with the second substrate on which the second adhesive is disposed.”
Regarding claims 22, 56, and 73, 493 Patent does not describe securing a third substrate using an RFID adhesive comprising the second substrate adhesive. 493 Patent only discloses “a third substrate 50 (which may be a liner or back face provided as a web of material) is secured to the RFID inlay 10 (e.g., using an adhesive)” (493 Patent, column 5, lines 65-67, emphasis added) or “the liner 64 initially separated from the second substrate 22 is redirected back into the vicinity of the second substrate 22 and secured to the RFID inlay (e.g., using an adhesive that may be applied to the liner 64 between the time that the liner 6 is dissociated from the second substrate 22 and then brought back into the vicinity of the second substrate 22)” (493 Patent, column 7, lines 9-15, emphasis added).
493 Patent also does not disclose that securing the third substrate to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay comprises contacting the third substrate with the second substrate on which the second substrate adhesive is disposed. Figures 6 and 7 and the corresponding descriptions regarding third substrate 50 or liner 64 (493 Patent, column 5, lines 61-67; column 6, lines 1-21; column 8, lines 7-34) do not disclose that third substrate 50 or liner 64 contacts the second substrate 22 when it is secured to the RFID inlay 10.
Claims 23 and 74 depend on claims 22 and 73 respectively and are also not supported by the specification for at least the same reason as the parent claim. Furthermore, claim 23, 55, and 74 recite “wherein the RFID adhesive [further] comprises the first substrate adhesive,” which is also not supported by the specification. 493 Patent does not describe securing a third substrate using an RFID adhesive comprising the first substrate adhesive that secures the RFID inlay a first side of the first substrate. Again, see 493 Patent, column 5, lines 65-67 and column 7, lines 9-15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
the RFID adhesive comprises the second substrate adhesive and wherein securing the third substrate to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay comprises contacting the third substrate with the second substrate on which the second substrate adhesive is disposed; and/or
the RFID adhesive comprises the first substrate adhesive
See related discussion above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for details.
Claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for not being the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent. See MPEP 1412.01; United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668, 53 USPQ6 (1942); Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1352, 2019 USPQ2d 221227 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are directed to an invention including securing a third substrate using an RFID adhesive comprising the second substrate adhesive and wherein securing the third substrate to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay comprises contacting the third substrate with the second substrate on which the second substrate adhesive is disposed and/or securing a third substrate using an RFID adhesive comprising the first substrate adhesive. This invention is not clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
493 Patent describes the third substrate 50 or liner 64 as including “an adhesive” but does not disclose securing a third substrate using an RFID adhesive comprising the first or second substrate adhesives. 493 Patent only discloses “a third substrate 50 (which may be a liner or back face provided as a web of material) is secured to the RFID inlay 10 (e.g., using an adhesive)” (493 Patent, column 5, lines 65-67, emphasis added) or “the liner 64 initially separated from the second substrate 22 is redirected back into the vicinity of the second substrate 22 and secured to the RFID inlay (e.g., using an adhesive that may be applied to the liner 64 between the time that the liner 6 is dissociated from the second substrate 22 and then brought back into the vicinity of the second substrate 22)” (493 Patent, column 7, lines 9-15, emphasis added).
493 Patent also does not disclose that securing the third substrate to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay comprises contacting the third substrate with the second substrate on which the second substrate adhesive is disposed. Figures 6 and 7 and the corresponding descriptions regarding third substrate 50 or liner 64 (493 Patent, column 5, lines 61-67; column 6, lines 1-21; column 8, lines 7-34) do not disclose that third substrate 50 or liner 64 contacts the second substrate 22 when it is secured to the RFID inlay 10.
The inventions recited in claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are not clearly and unequivocally disclosed as an invention in the original patent. Even if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that other configurations of the third substrate and the RFID adhesive used for securing the third substrate would be possible, the claims are insufficient to comply with the standard for original patent set forth by the Federal Circuit.
Therefore, claims 22, 23, 56, 57, 73, and 74 are drawn to an invention comprising a newly claimed combination of features that are not disclosed as an invention separate from the original invention and do not satisfy the original patent requirement of 35 U.S.C. 251.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano.
Since Takano is in Japanese, references to its description below are made to the English-language machine translation mailed with this Office action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Takano discloses a method of transferring an RFID inlay (Figures 1 and 2A-C), comprising:
securing an RFID inlay (i.e., IC inlet 252, which includes a chip and an antenna; paragraph [0008]) to a first substrate (i.e., base sheet 227) with a first adhesive (paragraph [0046]);
providing a second substrate (i.e., base sheet 242) with a second adhesive and a liner (i.e., surface sheet 243; paragraph [0033]);
separating the liner from the second substrate to expose the second adhesive (paragraph [0056]);
bringing the RFID inlay 252 into the vicinity of the second substrate 242 (paragraph [0049]);
securing the RFID inlay 252 to the second substrate 242 with the second adhesive (paragraph [0057]);
dissociating the RFID inlay from the first substrate (paragraph [0049]); and
securing a third substrate (i.e., the liner/surface sheet 243) using an adhesive to the RFID inlay, after the RFID inlay is dissociated from the first substrate, to position the RFID inlay between the second substrate and the third substrate (i.e., surface sheet 243 is secured to the second substrate 242 with the adhesive on the second substrate 242 via surface sheet attachment means 230 to form IC sheet 251; paragraphs [0021], [0024], [0058]-[0062]).
PNG
media_image2.png
284
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Takano discloses that the RFID inlay 252 is dissociated from the first
substrate 227 without softening the first adhesive (paragraphs [0046]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Takano discloses that said bringing the RFID inlay into the vicinity
of the second substrate includes actuating a tamp to move one of the first and second substrates
toward the other one of the first and second substrates at least in the sense that Takano discloses that rollers 222-224 are actuated to bring the substrates 227 and 242 toward each other (paragraphs [0048]-[0049])
Regarding claim 9, Takano discloses winding the first substrate 227 onto a second reel 225 for reuse after dissociating the RFID inlay 252 from the first substrate (paragraph [0050]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Lolli.
Again, since Takano is in Japanese, references to its description below are made to the English-language machine translation mailed with this Office action.
Regarding claims 2-4, Takano discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that said dissociating the RFID inlay from the first substrate includes softening the first adhesive. However, Lolli teaches a method of transferring RFID devices 1 (Figure 2) that is related to the one disclosed by Takano, including securing an RFID inlay 1 to a first substrate 7 with a first adhesive, securing the RFID inlay 1 to a second substrate 8, and dissociating the RFID inlay 1 from the first substrate 7 (paragraphs [0031]-[0034]). Lolli further teaches that dissociating the RFID inlay from the first substrate includes softening the first adhesive, wherein heat is applied to soften the first adhesive (paragraph [0032]) or wherein a softening substance is applied to soften the first adhesive, at least in the sense that transferring device 10 is a “substance” applied to soften the adhesive (paragraphs [0031]-[0033]). Claim 4 does not further recite details about the applied softening substance.
Regarding claims 2-4, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to softening the first adhesive with heat or other substance as taught by Lolli in the method disclosed by Takano in order to advantageously ensure that the RFID inlay effectively detaches from the first substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Takano discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 5, but does not specifically disclose that the second adhesive has a greater release strength than the first adhesive. However, Lolli further teaches in a related method that the adhesiveness of RFID inlay 1 on the surface of second substrate 8 is “noticeably greater” than the adhesiveness on first substrate 7 (paragraph [0033]) and the RFID inlay 1 is dissociated from the first substrate 7 by applying a release force between the first and second substrates so as to dissociate the RFID inlay from the first substrate 7 without dissociating the RFID inlay from the second substrate 8 (paragraphs [0031]-[0033]). Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second adhesive with a greater release strength than the first adhesive and to apply a release force between the first and second substrates as taught by Lolli in the method disclosed by Takano in order to facilitate the transfer of the RFID inlay from the first substrate to the second substrate and advantageously ensure that the RFID inlay detaches from the first substrate.
Claims 8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Coleman.
Again, since Takano is in Japanese, references to its description below are made to the English-language machine translation mailed with this Office action.
Regarding claim 8, Takano discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claim 1 and further discloses that the RFID inlay 252 is brought into the vicinity of the second substrate 242 by unwinding the first substrate 227 from a first reel 221 (paragraphs [0044] and [0049]).
Further regarding claim 8, Takano is silent with respect to details of the material of the first substrate and does not specifically disclose that it comprises a web of material. However, Coleman teaches a method of transferring RFID devices 672 (Figure 32) that is related to the one disclosed by Takano, including securing RFID devices 672 to a first substrate 18 with a first adhesive (paragraph [0088]), securing them to the second substrate 660 with a second adhesive (paragraph [0160]); and dissociating them from the first substrate (paragraph [0160]).
Coleman further teaches the substrates comprise webs of material (paragraphs [0134] and [0152]). Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a web of material as taught by Coleman as the substrate in the method disclosed by Takano in order to advantageously provide a flexible material that can be effectively rolled and unrolled.
Regarding claim 10, Takano discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claim 1 and further discloses that the RFID inlay 252 is brought into the vicinity of the second substrate by unwinding the second substrate 242 from a reel 240 (paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). Further regarding claim 10, Takano is silent with respect to details of the material of the second substrate and does not specifically disclose that it comprises a web of material. However, again, Coleman teaches substrates comprising webs of material in a related method (paragraphs [0134] and [0152]). Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a web of material as taught by Coleman as the substrate in the method disclosed by Takano in order to advantageously provide a flexible material that can be effectively rolled and unrolled.
Regarding claim 11, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano further teaches that a plurality of RFID inlays 252 are applied to the first substrate 227, and successive RFID inlays are sequentially dissociated from the first substrate as the first and second substrates are being unwound from their respective reels (paragraphs [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano further teaches winding the second substrate onto a finished product reel 250 after dissociating the RFID inlay from the first substrate (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano further teaches cutting the second substrate to separate successive RFID inlays after dissociating each RFID inlay from the first substrate (i.e., using cutting means 310; paragraphs [0065]-[0071]; Figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano further teaches that dissociating the RFID inlay 252 from the first substrate 227 includes directing the first and second substrates 227 and 242 in different directions (paragraph [0049]; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano further teaches that the second substrate 242 and the third substrate 243 are both unwound from the same reel 240 (paragraphs [0037] and [0042]), and the third substrate is secured to the RFID inlay after the RFID inlay is dissociated from the first substrate, with the RFID inlay positioned between the second and third substrates (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]; Figures 1 and 2C).
Regarding claim 16, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano further teaches that the first substrate 227 is directed through a path positioned between a path through which the second substrate 242 is directed and a path through which the third substrate 243 is directed (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano further discloses that the third substrate 243 comprises a liner (paragraph [0033]), and
unwinding the second and third substrates 242 and 243 from the same reel 240 exposes the second adhesive (paragraphs [0037] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed above, in the method taught by Takano in view of Coleman, Takano does not specifically disclose applying adhesive to the second substrate after unwinding the second substrate from the reel. However, Coleman teaches that adhesive may be applied to a substrate (paragraph [0153]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply adhesive as taught by Coleman in the taught by Takano in view of Coleman in order to ensure that RFID inlays are effectively attached to the second substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Takano discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claim 1 and discloses that the third substrate 243 is a liner or a back face to base sheet 242 (paragraph [0033]) Takano is silent with respect to details of the material of the third substrate and does not specifically disclose that it comprises a web of material. However, again, Coleman teaches substrates comprising webs of material in a related method (paragraphs [0134] and [0152]). Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a web of material as taught by Coleman as the substrate in the method disclosed by Takano in order to advantageously provide a flexible material that can be effectively rolled and unrolled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 21, 24-55, and 58-72 are allowed.
The prior art does not specifically disclose or fairly suggest a method of transferring an RFID inlay (or a plurality of RFID inlays) including the combination of all of the elements, steps, and limitations recited in 20, 21, 24-55, and 58-72 (including all of the limitations of any respective parent claims), particularly wherein:
securing the second inlay side of the RFID inlay to the second substrate with the second
substrate adhesive; dissociating the first inlay side of the RFID inlay from the first substrate, after the second inlay side of the RFID inlay is secured to the second substrate; and securing a third substrate, using an RFID adhesive, to the first inlay side of the RFID inlay, after the RFID inlay is dissociated from the first substrate, with the RFID inlay positioned between the second substrate and the third substrate (e.g., claim 20);
securing the second inlay side of each RFID inlay to the second substrate using the second adhesive; dissociating the first inlay side of each of the RFID inlays from the first substrate; unwinding a third substrate from a third reel; and securing the third substrate to the second substrate with an RFID adhesive such that the third substrate is in contact with the first inlay side of each of the plurality of RFID inlays, after each RFID inlay is dissociated from the first substrate, and each RFID inlay is positioned between the second substrate and the third substrate (e.g., claim 41); or
securing a second inlay side of each respective RFID inlay of the plurality of RFID inlays
to the second substrate using the second adhesive; dissociating, after the respective RFID inlay is secured to the second substrate, the first inlay side of each respective RFID inlay from the first substrate as the first substrate is unwound from the first reel and the second substrate is unwound from the second reel; and securing a third substrate to the second substrate with an RFID adhesive, such that the third substrate is in contact with the first inlay side of each of the plurality of RFID inlays and each respective RFID inlay is disposed between the second substrate and the third substrate, wherein the third substrate is the liner (e.g., claim 58).
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
