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 .
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 10/28/2025 which amended claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13-20 and 22-26 and cancelled claims 9-10, 12 and 21. Claims 1-8, 11, 13-20 and 22-30 are currently pending in the application for patent.
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)(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, 3-4, 7-8, 12-15, 18-21, 23-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levermore et al (US 2013/0278144; hereinafter referred to as Levermore).
Regarding Claim 1, Levermore teaches a display device (Figure 4; Device 400) configured to perform display in a plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue OLED Pixels 415, 416 and 417) by using a light source (see Paragraph [0086]; wherein it is disclosed that the light emissions from each of the OLED pixels of the same color are adjusted relative to the light emissions from each of the OLED pixels having a different color), wherein
the plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue OLED Pixels 415, 416 and 417) include
a first group of display pixels (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415), a peak wavelength of each display pixel in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) being a first wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 650 nm and less than or equal to 700 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the third group of OLED circuit elements may be between 580 and 700 nm);
a second group of display pixels (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417); a peak wavelength of each display pixel in the second group (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417) being a second wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than 450 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the first peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the first group of OLED circuit elements may be between 400 and 500 nm); and
each display pixel in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) and the second group (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417) exhibit a luminance of greater than or equal to 0.04 cd/m2 (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0101]; wherein it is disclosed that the minimum luminance level the Red, Green and Blue OLED pixels are operated at is 1,000 cd/m.sup.2 and that the maximum current that flows through each individual OLED pixel when operating normally at the highest luminance level--in this example, at 5,000 cd/m2).
Regarding Claim 3, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches a luminance exhibited by the display pixels in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) is greater than or equal to 5 cd/m (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0100]; wherein it is disclosed that the minimum luminance level the Red, Green and Blue OLED pixels are operated at is 1,000 cd/m.sup.2).
Regarding Claim 4, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the luminance exhibited by the display pixels in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) is greater than or equal to 35 cd/m2 (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0100]; wherein it is disclosed that the minimum luminance level the Red, Green and Blue OLED pixels are operated at is 1,000 cd/m.sup.2).
Regarding Claim 7, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the second wavelength is greater than or equal to 520 nm and less than 550 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein the second peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the second group of OLED circuit elements may be between 550 and 580 nm).
Regarding Claim 8, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the second wavelength is a peak wavelength of the display pixels in the second group (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the first peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the first group of OLED circuit elements may be between 400 and 500 nm).
Regarding Claim 13, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the first wavelength is a peak wavelength of the display pixels in the first group (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the third group of OLED circuit elements may be between 580 and 700 nm).
Regarding Claim 14, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue OLED Pixels 415, 416 and 417) include at least one display pixels in a third group (Figure 4; wherein the third group is being interpreted as the second Green OLED pixel 416 given there are at least two Green OLED pixels 416 depicted) that exhibits a luminance of greater than or equal to 0.04 cd/m2 (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0100]; wherein it is disclosed that the minimum luminance level the Red, Green and Blue OLED pixels are operated at is 1,000 cd/m.sup.2); and the display pixels in the third group (Figure 4; wherein the third group is being interpreted as the second Green OLED pixel 416 given there are at least two Green OLED pixels 416 depicted) exhibits a maximum luminance at a third wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 550 nm and less than 650 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the second peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the second group of OLED circuit elements may be between 551 and 580 nm).
Regarding Claim 15, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 14 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the third wavelength is a peak wavelength of the display pixels in the third group (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the second peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the second group of OLED circuit elements may be between 551 and 580 nm).
Regarding Claim 17, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 14 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the display pixels in the first group changes in luminance within one second before or after a change in luminance of the display pixels in the third group (see Paragraph [0089]; wherein it is disclosed that to allow for the color to be tuned and for the panel to be dimmed, each fuse may be designed to ensure that (a) the fuse opens even at relatively low luminance when there is an electrical short, and (b) the fuse does not open even at very high luminance when the panel is operating under normal conditions wherein when an electrical short is present, the fuse is designed to open the electrical circuit as quickly as possible so as to reduce damage to the device).
Regarding Claim 18, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red, Green and Blue OLED Pixels 415, 416 and 417) include at least one display pixels in fourth group (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixel 417) that exhibits a luminance of greater than or equal to 0.04 cd/m (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0100]; wherein it is disclosed that the minimum luminance level the Red, Green and Blue OLED pixels are operated at is 1,000 cd/m.sup.2); and the display pixels in the fourth group (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixel 417) exhibits a maximum luminance at a fourth wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 480 nm and less than 520 nm (see Paragraphs [0100] and [0123]; wherein the maximum luminance is 5,000 cd/m.sup.2 and wherein it is disclosed that the first peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the first group of OLED circuit elements may be between 400 and 500 nm i.e. between 480 and 520).
Regarding Claim 19, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 18 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the fourth wavelength is a peak wavelength of the display pixels in the fourth group (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the first peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the first group of OLED circuit elements may be between 400 and 500 nm i.e. between 480 and 520).
Regarding Claim 20, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 18 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the luminance exhibited by the display pixels in the fourth group is greater than or equal to 5 cd/m (see Paragraphs [0099]-[0100]; wherein it is disclosed that the minimum luminance level the Red, Green and Blue OLED pixels are operated at is 1,000 cd/m.sup.2).
Regarding Claim 23, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the display device (Figure 4; Device 400) receives a signal including data corresponding to an R value, a G value, and a B value in an RGB color space (see Paragraph [0086]), and the display pixels in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) exhibits a luminance corresponding to the R value (see Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 24, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the display pixels in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) includes a portion that emits light by electroluminescence (see Paragraph [0112]; wherein it is disclosed that the OLED pixel may include a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic electroluminescent (EL) material disposed between the first and the second electrodes).
Regarding Claim 26, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the display pixels in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) includes a portion that emits light by photoluminescence (see Paragraph [0059]; wherein it is disclosed that the light is emitted when the exciton relaxes via a photoemissive mechanism).
Regarding Claim 27, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches an apparatus comprising: the display device according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection above and Abstract); and a signal generating device (see Paragraph [0072]; wherein a signal generating device is inherently present to produce a video signal) configured to generate a signal to be received by the display device (see Paragraphs [0068] and [0072]; wherein it is disclosed that the device may be electrically contacted to an external device which provides a video signal).
Regarding Claim 28, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches an apparatus (see Paragraph [0068]) comprising: the display device (Figure 4; Device 400) according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection above); and
an image pickup device configured to take an image to be displayed by the display device (see Paragraph [0068]; wherein the apparatus may be incorporated into flat panel displays, computer monitors, televisions, billboards, lights for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, heads up displays, fully transparent displays, flexible displays, laser printers, telephones, cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, digital cameras, camcorders, viewfinders, micro-displays, vehicles, a large area wall, theater or stadium screen, lighting fixtures, or a sign).
Regarding Claim 29, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 27 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the apparatus (see Paragraph [0068]) is a wearable apparatus (see Paragraph [0068]; wherein the apparatus may be incorporated into flat panel displays, computer monitors, televisions, billboards, lights for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, heads up displays, fully transparent displays, flexible displays, laser printers, telephones, cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, digital cameras, camcorders, viewfinders, micro-displays, vehicles, a large area wall, theater or stadium screen, lighting fixtures, or a sign).
Regarding Claim 30, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 27 as detailed above.
Levermore further teaches the apparatus (see Paragraph [0068]) is any one of an electronic board, a traffic light machine, and an in-vehicle indicator (see Paragraph [0068]; wherein the apparatus may be incorporated into flat panel displays, computer monitors, televisions, billboards, lights for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, heads up displays, fully transparent displays, flexible displays, laser printers, telephones, cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, digital cameras, camcorders, viewfinders, micro-displays, vehicles, a large area wall, theater or stadium screen, lighting fixtures, or a sign).
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, 5-6, 11, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levermore et al (US 2013/0278144; hereinafter referred to as Levermore).
Regarding Claim 2, Levermore discloses a display device (Figure 4; Device 400) configured to perform display in a plurality of display pixels (Figure 4; Red and Blue OLED Pixels 415 and 417) by using an electroluminescent light source (see Paragraph [0086]; wherein it is disclosed that the light emissions from each of the OLED pixels of the same color are adjusted relative to the light emissions from each of the OLED pixels having a different color), wherein the plurality of display unit pixels (Figure 4; Red and Blue OLED Pixels 415 and 417) include;
a first group of display pixels (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415), each display pixel in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) exhibiting a maximum luminance at a first wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 650 nm and less than or equal to 700 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the third group of OLED circuit elements may be between 580 and 700 nm);
a second group of display pixels (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417), each display pixel in the second group (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417) exhibiting a maximum luminance at a second wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than 450 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the first peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the first group of OLED circuit elements may be between 400 and 500 nm);
the plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red and Blue OLED Pixels 415 and 417) does not include a display pixel having a peak wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 550 nm and less than 650 nm (see Figure 4; Paragraph [0123]) and
a highest spectral radiance of the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) at the first wavelength is higher than a highest spectral radiance of the second group (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417) at the second wavelength (see Table 1; wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a current density and spectral radiance are intrinsically linked such that a higher current density leads to a higher spectral radiance such that the current density of 11.3 demonstrated by the red OLED pixels and the current density of 3.21 demonstrated by the blue OLED pixels necessitates that the spectral radiance of the red OLED pixels 415 is higher than the spectral radiance of the blue OLED pixels 417).
Regarding Claim 5, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further discloses a maximum current density of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is 11.3 mA/
c
m
2
(see Table 1; wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a current density and spectral radiance are intrinsically linked such that a higher current density results in a higher spectral radiance).
Levermore does not expressly disclose that the spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is greater than or equal to 0.04/(683*V(λL)) [W/sr/
m
2
/nm], where λL [nm] is the first wavelength and V(λL) is a standard spectral luminous efficiency for photopic vision at the first wavelength. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength because doing so would have resulted in a high quality, comfortable light with reduced flickering and excellent color.
Regarding Claim 6, Levermore discloses a display device (Figure 4; Device 400) configured to perform display in a plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red and Blue OLED Pixels 415 and 417) by using a light source (see Paragraph [0086]; wherein it is disclosed that the light emissions from each of the OLED pixels of the same color are adjusted relative to the light emissions from each of the OLED pixels having a different color), wherein
the plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red and Blue OLED Pixels 415 and 417) include
a first group of display pixels (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415), each pixel in the first group (Figure 4; Red OLED Pixels 415) exhibiting a maximum luminance at a first wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 650 nm and less than or equal to 700 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the third group of OLED circuit elements may be between 580 and 700 nm);
a second group of display pixels (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417), each display pixel of the second group (Figure 4; Blue OLED Pixels 417) exhibiting a maximum luminance at a second wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than 450 nm (see Paragraph [0123]; wherein it is disclosed that the first peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of the EL material of the first group of OLED circuit elements may be between 400 and 500 nm);
wherein the plurality of display units (Figure 4; Red and Blue OLED Pixels 415 and 417) does not include a display pixel having a peak wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 550 nm and less than 650 nm (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0123]); and
a maximum current density of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is 11.3 mA/
c
m
2
(see Table 1; wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a current density and spectral radiance are intrinsically linked such that a higher current density results in a higher spectral radiance).
Levermore does not expressly disclose that the spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is greater than or equal to 1/(683*V(λL)) [W/sr/
m
2
/nm], at the first wavelength, where λL [nm] is the first wavelength and V(λL) is a standard spectral luminous efficiency for photopic vision at the first wavelength; and
the spectral radiance of the display pixels in the second group at the second wavelength is greater than or equal to 5/(683*V(λS)) [W/sr/
m
2
/nm], at the second wavelength, where λS [nm] is the second wavelength and V(λS) is a standard spectral luminous efficiency for photopic vision at the second wavelength.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength and the second group at the second wavelength because doing so would have resulted in a high quality, comfortable light with reduced flickering and excellent color.
Regarding Claim 11, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore further discloses a maximum current density of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is 11.3 mA/
c
m
2
(see Table 1; wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a current density and spectral radiance are intrinsically linked such that a higher current density results in a higher spectral radiance).
Levermore does not expressly disclose that a half width for a spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is greater than or equal to 50 nm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the half width for a spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength because doing so would have resulted in a high quality, comfortable light with reduced flickering and excellent color.
Regarding Claim 16, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 13 as detailed above.
Levermore further discloses a maximum current density of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is 11.3 mA/
c
m
2
(see Table 1; wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a current density and spectral radiance are intrinsically linked such that a higher current density results in a higher spectral radiance).
Levermore does not expressly disclose that a half width for a spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength is less than 50 nm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the half width for a spectral radiance of the display pixels in the first group at the first wavelength because doing so would have resulted in a high quality, comfortable light with reduced flickering and excellent color.
Regarding Claim 22, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore discloses the peak wavelength and a dominant wavelength of the display pixels in the second group differ from each other (see Paragraph [0087]; wherein it is disclosed that two different groups of "blue" OLED pixels may be utilized a group of OLED pixels that emit light having a peak wavelength corresponding to a deep blue (e.g. between 400 nm and 470 nm) and a group of OLEDs that emit light having a peak wavelength corresponding to a light blue (e.g. between 470 nm and 500 nm).
Levermore does not expressly disclose that the peak wavelength and a dominant wavelength of the display pixels in the first group differ from each other. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the peak wavelength and a dominant wavelength of the display pixels in the first group such that they differ from each other, based upon the teachings within paragraph [0087] of Levermore, because doing so would reduce the operating current density of the darker red OLED pixels while still providing the desired colors and/or white point for the device (see Levermore Paragraph [0087]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levermore et al (US 2013/0278144; hereinafter referred to as Levermore) as applied to claim 1, in view of Lee et al (US 2009/0096359; hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding Claim 25, Levermore teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levermore does not expressly disclose the display pixels in the first group of the plurality of display units includes a first color filter, and the display pixels in the second group of the plurality of the display units includes a second color filter that differs in transmission characteristic from the first color filter.
Lee discloses display pixels in a first group (Figure 12; White Light Emitting Layer 16 and Red Color Filter 22R) of a plurality of display units (Figure 12; White Light Emitting Layer 16, Red, Green and Blue Color Filters 22R, 22G and 22B) the first group (Figure 12; White Light Emitting Layer 16 and Red Color Filter 22R) includes a first color filter (Figure 12; Red Color Filter 22R), and the second group (Figure 12; Blue Color Filter 22B) of the plurality of the display units (Figure 12; White Light Emitting Layer 16, Red, Green and Blue Color Filters 22R, 22G and 22B) includes a second color filter (Figure 12; Blue Color Filter 22B) that differs in transmission characteristic from the first color filter (see Paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the first and second groups of Levermore such that the first group of the plurality of display units includes a first color filter, and the second group of the plurality of the display units includes a second color filter that differs in transmission characteristic from the first color filter, as taught by Lee, because doing so would allow for pure colors to be realized using red, green and blue color filters while also reducing dependency on the viewing angle (see Lee Paragraph [0075]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges on pages 7-11 that Levermore does not disclose at least "a first group of display pixels, a peak wavelength of each display pixel in the first group being a first wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 650 nm and less than or equal to 700 nm; a second group of display pixels, a peak wavelength of each display pixel in the second group being a second wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than 450 nm; and each display pixels in the first group and the second group exhibit a luminance of greater than or equal to 0.04 cd/m²" as presently claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument present by the applicant.
In response to the abovementioned argument the examiner maintains that Levermore does teach the aforementioned limitations and directs the applicant to at least paragraphs [0099]-[0101]; wherein it is disclosed that the minimum luminance level the Red, Green and Blue OLED pixels are operated at is 1,000 cd/m.sup.2 and that the maximum current that flows through each individual OLED pixel when operating normally at the highest luminance level--in this example, at 5,000 cd/m2.
All of the arguments presented by the applicant have been considered in their entirety but they are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm EST.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights