www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/908,127
`
`02/28/2018
`
`ShOhei HIGASHIHARA
`
`20326.0117U301
`
`4975
`
`53148
`
`759°
`
`“’16’2018
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON RC.
`45 South Seventh Street
`Suite 2700
`
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
`
`QURESHI'MARIAM
`
`ART UNIT
`2871
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/16/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`PTOMai1@hsml.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/908,127
`Examiner
`MARIAM QURESHI
`
`Applicant(s)
`HIGASHIHARA, Shohei
`Art Unit
`AIA Status
`2871
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/28/18.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—19 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 2/28/18 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:j objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[:] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)D Some”
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date M.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20181107
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph,
`
`as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
`
`the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding Claim 19, the limitation “the second light-blocking layer has a thickness at a location
`
`other than the first of the plurality of spacers that is relatively smaller than a thickness at the location of
`
`the first ofthe plurality of spacers” is ambiguous as to the metes and bounds of the claims, since the
`
`claim is dependent on claim 18, which only claims a portion of the first light-blocking layer being disposed
`
`at a location ofthe spacers. Forthis reason, the limitation is interpreted to mean “the first light-blocking
`
`layer has a thickness at a location other than the first of the plurality of spacers that is relatively smaller
`
`than a thickness at the location ofthe first of the plurality of spacers.”
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for
`
`the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 3
`
`patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`Claims 1-2, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al
`
`(US Publication No.: US 2018/0231843 A1, “Park”).
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a liquid crystal display device (Figures 9 and 10-11, where
`
`Paragraphs 0079 and Paragraphs 0098 discloses that the contents related to Figure 9 may be applied to
`
`Figures 10-11 as well), comprising:
`
`A first substrate, including a plurality of gate lines, a plurality of data lines, and a plurality of pixel
`
`electrodes (Figure 11, first substrate 100, gate lines 121, data lines 171, pixel electrodes 191 );
`
`A second substrate disposed opposite the first substrate, the second substrate including a first
`
`color region transmitting light of a first color, a second colored region transmitting light of a second color
`
`(Figure 11, second substrate 310; Figure 9, first color region 330R, second color region 330G;
`
`Paragraphs 0065-0066); and
`
`A first light-blocking layer for blocking light disposed in a boundary area between the first colored
`
`region and the second colored region, wherein the first-light blocking layer is disposed between the first
`
`substrate and the second substrate (Figure 9, first light-blocking layer 335 is disposed between 330R and
`
`330G; Figure 11 discloses that it is disposed between the first and second substrates).
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the second substrate further includes a second light-blocking layer disposed in the boundary area
`
`between the first colored region and the second colored region, and
`
`The first colored region and the second color region are disposed between the first light-blocking
`
`layer and the second light-blocking layer (Figure 9, the second light-blocking layer 320, where at least a
`
`portion of 330R and 330G are disposed between first light-blocking layer 335 and second light-blocking
`
`layer 320).
`
`Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the first substrate is a thin film transistor and the second substrate is a color filter substrate (Figure 11,
`
`color filter substrate 30, thin film transistor substrate 100; Paragraph 0093).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 4
`
`Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the first colored region and the second colored region abut (Figure 11, first colored region 330R abuts
`
`with the second colored region 330G).
`
`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.
`
`Claim 3-8, 10, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in
`
`view of Okada et al (US Publication No.: US 2018/0120656 A1, “Okada”).
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 2.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the second light-blocking layer extends in a direction parallel to the
`
`plurality of data lines.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where the second light-blocking layer extends
`
`in a direction parallel to the plurality of data lines (Okada, Figure 2, second light-blocking layer 21s,
`
`plurality of data lines 12; Paragraph 0056).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the second light-blocking layer
`
`overlap the data line as disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of
`
`improving the aperture ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0010).
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 2.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the first light-blocking layer has a width and a thickness, the width being
`
`larger than the thickness, and the second light-blocking layer has a width and a thickness, the width being
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 5
`
`larger than the thickness, wherein the width of the first light-blocking layer is relatively smaller than the
`
`width of the second light-blocking layer.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where the first light-blocking layer has a width
`
`and a thickness, the width being larger than the thickness, and the second light-blocking layer has a width
`
`and a thickness, the width being larger than the thickness, wherein the width of the first light-blocking
`
`layer is relatively smaller than the width of the second light-blocking layer (Okada, Figures 2-3, where the
`
`first light-blocking layer 21s has a width greater than its thickness but its width is relatively smaller than
`
`the width of the second light-blocking layers 21t1 and 21t2).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have varying widths of the first and second
`
`light-blocking layers as disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of
`
`improving the aperture ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0064-0067).
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 4, wherein
`
`the thickness of the first light-blocking layer is relatively larger than the thickness of the second light-
`
`blocking layer (Park, Figure 9, the thickness of the first light-blocking layer 335 is proportionally larger
`
`than the thickness of the second light-blocking layer 320).
`
`Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 2.
`
`Park fails to disclose a spacer that holds a clearance between the first substrate and the second
`
`substrate.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where a spacer that holds a clearance
`
`between the first substrate and the second substrate (Okada, Figure 4, spacer 40).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to include a spacer as disclosed by Okada.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of maintaining the thickness of the liquid crystal
`
`cell (Okada, Paragraph 0046).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 6.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the spacer is disposed on the plurality of gate lines, wherein the second
`
`light-blocking layer is wider than the spacer at a location of the spacer.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where the spacer is disposed on the plurality
`
`of gate lines, wherein the second light-blocking layer is wider than the spacer at a location of the spacer
`
`(Park, Figure 4, spacer 40, second light-blocking layer 21t, where the second light-blocking layer 21t is
`
`proportionally much wider than the spacer 40; Paragraph 0056).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the second light-blocking layer be
`
`wider than the spacer as disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of
`
`improving the aperture ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0064-0067).
`
`Regarding Claim 8, Park in view of Okada discloses the liquid crystal display device according to
`
`Park fails to disclose that the spacer is disposed between adjacent two of the plurality of data
`
`claim 7.
`
`lines.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where the spacer is disposed between
`
`adjacent two of the plurality of data lines (Okada, Figures 1-4 discloses that the spacers 40 must be
`
`disposed between the data lines as they are disposed in a horizontal direction along gate lines).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have a specific location for the spacers as
`
`disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the aperture
`
`ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0064-0067).
`
`Regarding Claim 10, Park in view of Okada discloses the liquid crystal display device according
`
`to claim 6.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the spacer is disposed between adjacent two of the plurality of data
`
`lines.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 7
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where the spacer is disposed between
`
`adjacent two of the plurality of data lines (Okada, Figures 1-4 discloses that the spacers 40 must be
`
`disposed between the data lines as they are disposed in a horizontal direction along gate lines).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have a specific location for the spacers as
`
`disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the aperture
`
`ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0064-0067).
`
`Regarding Claim 17, Park discloses a liquid crystal display device (Figures 9 and 10-11, where
`
`Paragraphs 0079 and Paragraphs 0098 discloses that the contents related to Figure 9 may be applied to
`
`Figures 10-11 as well), comprising:
`
`A first substrate, including a plurality of gate lines, a plurality of data lines, and a plurality of pixel
`
`electrodes (Figure 11, first substrate 100, gate lines 121, data lines 171, pixel electrodes 191);
`
`A second substrate disposed opposite the first substrate, the second substrate including a first
`
`color region transmitting light of a first color, a second colored region transmitting light of a second color
`
`(Figure 11, second substrate 310; Figure 9, first color region 330R, second color region 330G;
`
`Paragraphs 0065-0066); and
`
`A first light-blocking layer for blocking light disposed in a boundary area between the first colored
`
`region and the second colored region, wherein the first-light blocking layer is disposed between the first
`
`substrate and the second substrate (Figure 9, first light-blocking layer 335 is disposed between 330R and
`
`330G; Figure 11 discloses that it is disposed between the first and second substrates),
`
`Wherein the second substrate further includes a second light-blocking layer disposed in the
`
`boundary area between the first colored region and the second colored region (Figure 9, second light-
`
`blocking layer 320 is disposed between 330R and 330G), and
`
`The first colored region and the second colored region are disposed between the first light-
`
`blocking layer and the second light-blocking layer (Figure 9, at least a portion of 330R and 330G are
`
`disposed between the first light-blocking layer 335 and the second light-blocking layer 320).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 8
`
`Park fails to disclose that the second light-blocking layer extends in a direction parallel to the
`
`plurality of data lines.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where the second light-blocking layer extends
`
`in a direction parallel to the plurality of data lines (Okada, Figure 2, second light-blocking layer 21s,
`
`plurality of data lines 12; Paragraph 0056).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the second light-blocking layer
`
`overlap the data line as disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of
`
`improving the aperture ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0010).
`
`Regarding Claim 18, Park in view of Okada discloses the liquid crystal display device according
`
`to claim 17.
`
`Park fails to disclose a plurality of spacers, a first plurality of spacers is disposed on a first of the
`
`plurality of gate lines, wherein the first light-blocking layer is wider than the spacer at a location of the first
`
`of the plurality of spacers.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device comprising a plurality of spacers, a first
`
`plurality of spacers is disposed on a first of the plurality of gate lines, wherein the first light-blocking layer
`
`is wider than the spacer at a location of the first of the plurality of spacers (Okada, Figure 4, a plurality of
`
`spacers 40 disposed on a first of plurality of gate lines 11 (visible in Figure 1), where the first light-
`
`blocking layer 21t is wider than the spacer 40 at the location of the spacer; Paragraph 0056).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the first light-blocking layer be wider
`
`than the spacer as disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of
`
`improving the aperture ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0064-0067).
`
`Regarding Claim 19, Park in view of Okada discloses the liquid crystal display device according
`
`to claim 18.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 9
`
`Park fails to disclose that the first light-blocking layer has a thickness at a location other than the
`
`first of the plurality of spacers that is relatively smaller than a thickness at the location of the first of the
`
`plurality of spacers.
`
`However, Okada discloses a similar display device where the first light-blocking layer has a
`
`thickness at a location other than the first of the plurality of spacers that is relatively smaller than a
`
`thickness at the location of the first of the plurality of spacers (Okada, Figure 4, first light-blocking layer
`
`21t has a thickness that is smaller at a location of 21t1 than at a location of 21t2 where the spacers are
`
`disposed).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the first light-blocking layer have a
`
`changing thickness as disclosed by Okada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of
`
`improving the aperture ratio of the display (Okada, Paragraph 0064-0067).
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Okada
`
`in further view of Yasukawa et al (US Publication No.: US 2017/0102576 A1, “Yasukawa”).
`
`Regarding Claim 9, Park in view of Okada discloses the liquid crystal display device according to
`
`claim 7.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the spacer is disposed on the plurality of data lines.
`
`However, Yasukawa discloses a similar display device where the spacer is disposed on the
`
`plurality of data lines (Yasukawa, Figure 2, data lines 11, spacer 210a and 210b).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to include spacers on the data lines as
`
`disclosed by Yasukawa. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of holding a gap
`
`between the TFT and color filter substrate (Yasukawa, Paragraph 0042).
`
`Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of
`
`Kang et al (US Publication No.: US 2016/0202528 A1, “Kang”).
`
`Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses the liquid crystal display device according to claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 10
`
`Park fails to disclose that the first colored region and the second colored region overlap.
`
`However, Kang discloses a similar display device where the first colored region and the second
`
`colored region overlap (Kang, Figure 6, first colored region B, second colored region R).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the first and second colored regions
`
`overlap as disclosed by Kang. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of implementing
`
`multi-transmittance (Kang, Paragraphs 0009-0011).
`
`Regarding Claim 14, Park in view of Kang discloses the liquid crystal display device according to
`
`claim 13.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the second substrate further includes a third colored region overlapped
`
`on the first colored region and the second colored region.
`
`However, Kang discloses a similar display device where the second substrate further includes a
`
`third colored region overlapped on the first colored region and the second colored region (Kang, Figure 6,
`
`second substrate 110, first colored region B, second colored region R, third colored region G).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to include three overlapping colored regions
`
`as disclosed by Kang. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of implementing multi-
`
`transmittance (Kang, Paragraphs 0009-0011).
`
`Regarding Claim 15, Park in view of Kang discloses the liquid crystal display device according to
`
`claim 14.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the third colored region is overlapped on the first light-blocking layer.
`
`However, Kang discloses a similar display device where the third colored region is overlapped on
`
`the first light-blocking layer (Kang, Figure 6, third colored region G, first light-blocking layer 220a, MCS).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the first light-blocking layer overlap
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 11
`
`with the third colored region as disclosed by Kang. One would have been motivated to do so for the
`
`purpose of implementing multi-transmittance (Kang, Paragraphs 0009-0011).
`
`Regarding Claim 16, Park in view of Kang discloses the liquid crystal display device according to
`
`claim 15.
`
`Park fails to disclose that the first light-blocking layer is disposed between the third colored region
`
`and the first substrate.
`
`However, Kang discloses a similar display device where the first light-blocking layer is disposed
`
`between the third colored region and the first substrate (Kang, Figure 7, third colored region 270a, first
`
`substrate 100, first light-blocking layer MCS).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Park to have the first light-blocking layer between
`
`the third colored region and the first substrate as disclosed by Kang. One would have been motivated to
`
`do so for the purpose of implementing multi-transmittance (Kang, Paragraphs 0009-0011).
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
`
`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,
`
`Michael Caley can be reached on 571-272—2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from
`
`either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/908,127
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 12
`
`Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC)
`
`at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative
`
`or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-
`
`1000.
`
`/MARIAM QURESHI/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2871
`
`/MICHAEL H CALEY/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
`
`