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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on September 10, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 13 and 18 have been canceled. Currently, claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-12 and 14-17 are pending.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 overcomes the 112(b) rejection of claim 6 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 04, 2025 and September 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the newly added claim limitations, “wherein the buffer layer is deposited by chemical vapor deposition such that the two contact sections are first covered by the buffer layer; and exposing the two contact sections by removing the buffer layer from over the contacts sections” are not obvious over Farrnbacher in view of Cheyns. The Applicant’s argument that Cheyns teaches away from the invention is unpersuasive.
The Applicant argues that Cheyns teaches a protective layer that repels the deposition of the encapsulation on the contact region. Therefore, Cheyns teaches a structured approach to deposition of the buffer layer on the contact sections. Contrary to what Cheyns expressly teaches, amended claim 1 recites depositing the buffer layer on the two contact regions in a non-structured manner and then removing it. Cheyns teaches away from claim 1”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Cheyns teaches a “structured approach” where deposition is repelled from the contact region, thereby teaching away from the claimed “non-structured” process of depositing a buffer layer over the entire surface of the contact region and then removing it.
Firstly, the Applicant’s claim that the buffer layer is deposited over the entire surface and then removed is inconsistent with the application’s drawings. As disclosed in Figure 4, the encapsulation layer is not formed on the sub-region where the protective layer is deposited, a process that is, in fact similar to the “structured approach” the Applicant attributes to Cheyns. This discrepancy between the Applicant’s arguments and their own drawings raises a drawing objection.
The Applicant's assertion that a buffer layer is formed over the entire surface of the contact sections and then removed contradicts the claim language itself, which recites that a protective layer remains free of the encapsulation layer. Cheyns teaches the same concept where a protective layer, such as a self-assembled monolayer (SAM), prevents the formation of the encapsulation layer on specific portions of the contact layers.
Further, Farrnbacher teaches an encapsulation layer 24 formed of a layer stack where the layer stack maybe formed by various deposition methods including ALD and CVD. Forming buffer layers by CVD is well known in the art as taught by Mine et al. (US 20120248422 A1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation, “wherein the buffer layer is deposited by chemical vapor deposition such that the two contact sections are first covered by the buffer layer; and exposing the two contact sections by removing the buffer layer from over the contact sections” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recitation, “wherein the buffer layer is deposited by chemical vapor deposition such that the two contact sections are first covered by the buffer layer; and exposing the two contact sections by removing the buffer layer from over the contact sections” is indefinite and an ambiguity is created due to applicant’s own arguments. The claim recites that a protective layer is applied to a subregion of the contact sections and that this subregion “remaining free of the encapsulation layer because of the protective layer”. However, the newly added limitations directly contradict this by stating that the buffer layer, which is part of the encapsulation layer, is deposited “such that the two contacts sections are first covered by the buffer layer.”
Claims 3, 6-8, 10-12 and 14-17 depend upon claim 1 and do not rectify the problem therefore, they are also rejected.
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, 6-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrnbacher et al. (WO 2015055766 A1; hereafter Farrnbacher) in view of Cheyns (US 2014/0338728 A1), Kurita et al. (US 2014/0170785 A1; hereafter Kurita) and Mine et al. (US 2012/0248422 A1; hereafter Mine).
Regarding claim 1, Farrnbacher teaches a process for producing an optoelectronic component (see e.g., Figure 1), comprising:
forming a first electrode and two contact sections atop a carrier (see e.g., optoelectronic component 1 has a carrier 12, for example a substrate. The carrier 12 maybe translucent or transparent. The optoelectronic layer structure is formed on the carrier 12. The optoelectronic layer structure has a first electrode layer 14, which has a first contact section 16, a second contact section 18, Figure 1);
forming an optically functional layer structure atop the first electrode (see e.g., above the first electrode 20 is an optically functional layer structure 22, Figure 1);
forming a second electrode atop the optically functional layer structure, the first electrode or the second electrode being electrically connected to one of the two contact sections (see e.g., a second electrode 23 above the optically functional layer 22 which is electrically coupled to the first contact portion 16, Figure 1);
and forming the encapsulation layer using the precursor atop the second electrode and atop the two contact sections, (see e.g., an encapsulation layer 24 is formed above the second electrode 23 which encapsulates the optoelectronic layer structure. In the encapsulation layer 24, a first recess of the encapsulation layer 24 are formed over the first contact portion 16 and a second recess of the encapsulation layer 24 over the second contact portion 18. In the first recess of the encapsulation layer 24, a first contact region 32 is exposed and in the second recess of the encapsulation layer 24, a second contact region 34 is exposed, Figure 1).
Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“applying a protective layer to a subregion of the two contact sections, the subregion comprising a surface, the protective layer being formed by a material which is repellent to a precursor for production of an encapsulation layer”; ….
the subregion to which the protective layer has been applied remaining free of the encapsulation layer because of the protective layer”,
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns teaches
applying a protective layer to a subregion of the two contact sections, the subregion comprising a surface, the protective layer being formed by a material which is repellent to a precursor for production of an encapsulation layer;
the subregion to which the protective layer has been applied remaining free of the encapsulation layer because of the protective layer (see e.g., a patterned self-assembled monolayer (SAM) 13 having solvent-repelling properties is formed on the subregion of the electrode 11. The SAM layer 13 can be directly formed on the electrode 11, in embodiments where no charge injection layer 12 is used, at locations corresponding to locations where contact 15 is to be formed. A layer 14 comprising a mixture of an organic photoactive material and a solvent (or solvent mixture) is provided on the substrate. The mixture is repelled from the areas covered with the SAM layer 13 while remaining on areas not comprising the SAM layer 13, Para [0091] – [0094], Figures 6 and 8),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of applying a protective layer to a subregion of the two contact sections, the protective layer being formed by a material which is repellent to a substance for production of an encapsulation layer in the method of Farrnbacher in order to remove the risk of damage associated with other patterning techniques.
Farrnbacher teaches the encapsulation layer 24 maybe formed as a single layer, layer stack or a layered structure. This encapsulation layer formed using Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD).
However, Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
wherein forming the encapsulation layer comprises forming a layer stack having a layer sequence of layer / buffer layer / layer, such that the two contact sections are first covered by the buffer layer; and exposing the two contact sections by removing the buffer layer from over the contact sections, wherein lateral side flanks of the buffer layer are covered by the material of the layers.
In a similar field of endeavor Kurita teaches
wherein forming the encapsulation layer comprises forming a layer stack having a layer sequence of layer / buffer layer / layer (see e.g., OLED 130 encapsulated with one or more layers comprising silicon nitride, aluminum oxide and a carbon-containing layer, such as a polymer. The first layer 140 maybe a silicon nitride or an aluminum oxide layer. The second layer 150 may be a carbon-containing layer, such as a polymer layer, and may function as a buffer layer to cushion the layers deposited on the OLED 130. The third layer 160 maybe for example, a silicon nitride or an aluminum oxide layer, Para [0027], Figures 1A and 1B),
such that the two contact sections are first covered by the buffer layer; and exposing the two contact sections by removing the buffer layer from over the contact sections
While Kurita discloses using a mask to selectively deposit the buffer layer, the overall goal of both methods is to encapsulate the optoelectronic component while protecting the contact regions. The choice between selectively depositing a layer, as taught by Kurita, and depositing it and then removing it, as in the claim, would be an obvious design choice.
wherein lateral side flanks of the buffer layer are covered by the material of the layers (see e.g., as shown in Figures 1A and 1B the lateral side flanks of the buffer layer 150 are covered by the third layer 160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Kurita’s teachings of wherein forming the encapsulation layer comprises forming a layer stack having a layer sequence of layer / buffer layer / layer wherein lateral side flanks of the buffer layer are covered by the material of the layers in the method of Farrnbacher in order block against moisture.
Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the buffer layer is deposited by chemical vapor deposition”
In a similar filed of endeavor Mine teaches
wherein the buffer layer is deposited by chemical vapor deposition (see e.g., buffer layer 108, 110, 112 maybe formed by CVD, Para [0054], Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Mine’s teachings of wherein the buffer layer is deposited by chemical vapor deposition in the method of Farrnbacher in order to use a known method to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the material of the protective layer is repellent to at least two precursors for the production of the encapsulation layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns teaches
wherein the material of the protective layer is repellent to at least two precursors for the production of the encapsulation layer (see e.g., after forming the SAM layer 13, a layer 14 comprising a mixture of an organic photovoltaic material and a solvent or solvent mixture is provided on the substrate. The mixture of the organic photoactive material and the solvent is provided in the form of a blanket layer, e.g., over the entire substrate surface. The mixture is repelled from the areas covered with the SAM layer 13 while remaining on areas not comprising the SAM layer 13. Therefore, the SAM layer repels two materials that is, both the organic photovoltaic material and the solvent, Para [0094], Figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of wherein the material of the protective layer is repellent to at least two precursors for the production of the encapsulation layer in the method of Farrnbacher in order to repel the materials in areas where openings are required.
Regarding claim 6, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein a material of the protective layer and a material of the two contact sections are such that the material of the protective layer accumulates exclusively in subregions of the two contact sections”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns teaches
wherein a material of the protective layer and a material of the two contact sections are such that the material of the protective layer accumulates exclusively in subregions of the two contact sections (see e.g., the patterned SAM layer 13 is deposited using ink jet printing or microcontact printing, or methods such as spray coating or blade coating using a mask during deposition or with patterning after deposition at locations corresponding to locations where contact 15 is to be formed, Para [0092], Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of wherein a material of the protective layer and a material of the two contact sections are such that the material of the protective layer accumulates exclusively in subregions of the two contact sections in the method of Farrnbacher in order to repel the materials in areas where openings are required.
Regarding claim 7, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the protective layer is formed by a self-assembled monolayer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Chenys teaches
wherein the protective layer is formed by a self-assembled monolayer (see e.g., the patterned SAM layer 13 is deposited using ink jet printing or microcontact printing, or methods such as spray coating or blade coating using a mask during deposition or with patterning after deposition at locations corresponding to locations where contact 15 is to be formed, Para [0092], Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of wherein the protective layer is formed by a self-assembled monolayer in the method of Farrnbacher in order to repel the materials in areas where openings are required.
Regarding claim 8, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the protective layer is applied only to the subregion of the two contact sections that is not to be coated by the encapsulation layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Chenys teaches
wherein the protective layer is applied only to the subregion of the two contact sections that is not to be coated by the encapsulation layer (see e.g., the patterned SAM layer 13 is formed at predetermined locations on the electrode 11. These predetermined locations may correspond to locations where repelling the organic semiconductor material is desirable, e.g., to form openings in the layer comprising the organic semiconductor material. The presence of the SAM layer at the predetermined locations can advantageously enable formation of discontinuities or openings in the layer comprising the organic semiconductor material automatically without performing additional processes to create the discontinuities or the openings, simply by providing the organic semiconductor material in the form of, for example, a blanket layer over substantially the entire substrate surface having the SAM layer formed thereon at the predetermined locations. Thus, the SAM layer may be adapted for repelling the layer comprising the organic semiconductor material, thereby patterning the organic semiconductor layer without the need for a separate patterning process, Para [0077], Figures 6 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of wherein the protective layer is applied only to the subregion of the two contact sections that is not to be coated by the encapsulation layer in the method of Farrnbacher in order to remove the risk of damage associated with other patterning techniques.
Regarding claim 10, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the protective layer is a formed as a self-assembled monolayer, and
wherein the protective layer is formed with molecules with hydrophobic end groups”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns
wherein the protective layer is formed as a self-assembled monolayer, and
wherein the protective layer is formed with molecules with hydrophobic end groups (see e.g., the SAM layer 13 has one end of molecules comprising a functional group that is configured to repel solvents such as water that are used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer 14, Para [0085], Figures 6 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of wherein the protective layer is formed as a self-assembled monolayer, and wherein the protective layer is formed with molecules with hydrophobic end groups in the method of Farrnbacher in order to repel materials used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 11, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 10 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the hydrophobic end groups of the protective layer prevent the precursor for production of an encapsulation layer to be absorbed on the surface of the subregion of the two contact sections”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns teaches
wherein the hydrophobic end groups of the protective layer prevent the precursor for production of an encapsulation layer to be absorbed on the surface of the subregion of the two contact sections (see e.g., after forming the SAM layer 13, a layer 14 comprising a mixture of an organic photovoltaic material and a solvent or solvent mixture is provided on the substrate. The mixture of the organic photoactive material and the solvent is provided in the form of a blanket layer, e.g., over the entire substrate surface. The mixture is repelled from the areas covered with the SAM layer 13 while remaining on areas not comprising the SAM layer 13, Para [0094], Figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of wherein the hydrophobic end groups of the protective layer prevent the precursor for production of an encapsulation layer to be absorbed on the surface of the subregion of the two contact sections in the method of Farrnbacher in order to in order to repel materials used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 12, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the material of the protective layer comprises molecules having a head group and an anchor group, wherein the anchor group is covalently bonded to the head group, and wherein the anchor group is a functional portion of the molecules that are capable of being absorbed onto the surface of the subregion of the two contact sections”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns teaches
wherein the material of the protective layer comprises molecules having a head group and an anchor group, wherein the anchor group is covalently bonded to the head group, and wherein the anchor group is a functional portion of the molecules that are capable of being absorbed onto the surface of the subregion of the two contact sections (see e.g., The molecules of the SAM layer may be selected to have one end of the molecules (the head group) that is configured to react with the material of the plurality of first electrodes and to have an opposite end of the molecules comprising a functional group that is configured to repel solvents, e.g., a functional group that is configured to repel solvents that are used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer.
Silanes such as trichlorosilanes and trialkoxysilanes, carboxylic acids, phosphonic acids, or fluorinated catechol or thiols, selenols, dissulfides or diselenides may be used for forming the SAM layer. In SAMs the head group is covalently connected to the functional group by alkyl chains, Para [0085], Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of the material of the protective layer comprises molecules having a head group and an anchor group, wherein the anchor group is covalently bonded to the head group, and wherein the anchor group is a functional portion of the molecules that are capable of being absorbed onto the surface of the subregion of the two contact sections in the method of Farrnbacher in order to in order to repel materials used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 14, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 12 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the head group is hydrophobic”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns teaches
wherein the head group is hydrophobic (see e.g., the SAM layer 13 has one end of molecules comprising a functional group that is configured to repel solvents such as water that are used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer 14, Para [0085], Figures 6 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of the head group is hydrophobic in the method of Farrnbacher in order to repel solvent used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 15, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the material that forms the protective layer has water-repellent properties, and
wherein the water-repellent properties of the material that forms the protective layer prevents forming the encapsulation layer on the subregion of the two contact sections”.
In a similar field of endeavor Cheyns teaches
wherein the material that forms the protective layer has water-repellent properties, and
wherein the water-repellent properties of the material that forms the protective layer prevents forming the encapsulation layer on the subregion of the two contact sections (see e.g., The layer comprising the organic semiconductor material may be preferably solvent based, wherein the solvent is selected to be repelled by the SAM layer 13. For example, when a SAM with a fluorinated tail is used, the solvent can be a non-fluorinated solvent such as for example a solvent or solvent mixture comprising water. After forming the SAM layer 13, a layer 14 comprising a mixture of an organic photovoltaic material and a solvent or solvent mixture is provided on the substrate. The mixture of the organic photoactive material and the solvent is provided in the form of a blanket layer, e.g., over the entire substrate surface. The mixture is repelled from the areas covered with the SAM layer 13 while remaining on areas not comprising the SAM layer 13, Paras [0035], [0081], [0086], [0094], Figures 6 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Cheyns’ teachings of wherein the material that forms the protective layer has water-repellent properties, and wherein the water-repellent properties of the material that forms the protective layer prevents forming the encapsulation layer on the subregion of the two contact sections in the method of Farrnbacher in order to in order to repel solvent used for depositing the organic semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 17, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the buffer layer is formed from a polymer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Kurita teaches
wherein the buffer layer is formed from a polymer (see e.g., The second layer 150 may be a carbon-containing layer, such as a polymer layer deposited using a monomer evaporation process, and may function as a buffer layer to cushion the layers deposited on the OLED 130, Para [0027], Figures 1A and 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Kurita’s teachings of wherein the buffer layer is formed from a polymer in the method of Farrnbacher in order to cushion the layers deposited on the OLED.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrnbacher et al. (WO 2015055766 A1; hereafter Farrnbacher) in view of Cheyns (US 2014/0338728 A1), Kurita et al. (US 2014/0170785 A1; hereafter Kurita) and Mine et al. (US 2012/0248422 A1; hereafter Mine) and further in view of Kagan et al. (US 2004/0163758 A1; hereafter Kagan).
Regarding claim 16, Farrnbacher, as modified by Cheyns, Kurita and Mine, teaches the limitations of claim 12 as mentioned above. Farrnbacher does not explicitly teach
“wherein the anchor group is selected from the group consisting of a nitrile group, an amine group, and a phosphoric acid group”.
In a similar field of endeavor Kagan teaches
wherein the anchor group is selected from the group consisting of a nitrile group, an amine group, and a phosphoric acid group (see e.g., The self-assembled monolayer (SAM) comprises organic molecular species having functional head groups that bind to the particular solid substrate surface. Examples of the functional head groups that can be designed into organic molecules for interacting with or binding to a particular substrate surface with chemical specificity include thiol, amine, nitrile etc. Thiols, amines and phosphines, which can bind to metal substrates, Paras [0049], [0066], [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Kagan’s teachings of wherein the anchor group is selected from the group consisting of a nitrile group, an amine group, and a phosphoric acid group in the method of Farrnbacher so that the anchor group can chemically bind to the substrate surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights