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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed February 26, 2026 have been entered and considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) in view of Liu (CN 110031978 A), Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1) and Pendse (US 20210175216 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto teaches:
A red micro LED display panel [1000C, paragraph [0216-0223], Fig. 18A-18B], wherein the red micro LED display panel comprises [paragraph [0216-0217]]:
a driving back plane [400, paragraph [0112-0114], [0217], Fig. 3, 6, 18A-18B];
an electrode array [300, paragraph [0217], [0104], [0108], Fig. 6, 18A-18B] located on the driving back plane [400];
an UV micro LED [200 “frontplane” includes µLEDs 220, paragraph [0092], [0217], Abstract, Fig. 6, 18A-18B] located on the electrode array [300];
a red quantum dot layer [64R “red phosphor”, paragraph [0218-0220], Fig. 18A-18B] located on the UV micro LED [200].
and each of the red pixels is formed by the electrode array [300, Fig. 18A-18B], the UV micro LED [200, Fig. 18A-18B], the red quantum dot layer [64R, Fig. 18A-18B].
Kishimoto does not teach:
A red micro LED display panel applied in a separated panel display device.
Liu teaches:
A red micro LED display panel [11, paragraph [0010], [0058-0062], Fig. 2-3] applied in a separated panel display device [paragraph [0058-0062], Fig. 2-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu into the teachings of Kishimoto to include a red micro LED display panel applied in a separated panel display device, for the purpose of improving quality of images, and color accuracy, saving space, improving flexibility, lowering power consumption, reducing waste, decreasing weight, and allowing more diverse applications.
Kishimoto and Liu do not teach:
a red color filter layer located on the red quantum dot layer and configured to filter a red light emitted from the red quantum dot layer.
Greene et al. teaches:
and a red color filter layer [222, paragraph [0049], Fig. 5D-5E] located on the red quantum dot layer [216, paragraph [0049], Fig. 5D-5E] and configured to filter a red light emitted from the red quantum dot layer [216, paragraph [0053], Fig. 5D-5E].
and the red color filter layer [222, paragraph [0049], Fig. 5D-5E].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Greene et al. into the teachings of Kishimoto and Liu to include a red color filter layer located on the red quantum dot layer and configured to filter a red light emitted from the red quantum dot layer, and the red color filter layer, for the purpose of improving conversion efficiency and preventing light leakage. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Kishimoto, Liu and Greene et al. do not teach:
wherein the red micro LED display panel comprises a plurality of red pixels adjacent to each other.
Pendse teaches:
wherein the red micro LED display panel [512, paragraph [0074], Fig. 5A] comprises a plurality of red pixels adjacent to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pendse into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu and Greene et al. to include wherein the red micro LED display panel comprises a plurality of red pixels adjacent to each other, for the purpose of generating a display image simultaneously by the light source.
Regarding claim 3, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 1.
Kishimoto further teaches:
further comprising: wherein a size of each of the red pixels [64R, paragraph [0218], Fig. 18A-18B] is smaller than 6 µm. [Embodiment 1000C, 645 “pixel openings”, paragraph [0218-0221], Fig. 18A-18B].
It should be noted that the limitation of claim 3 can also be overcome by Pendse (US 20210175216 A1). Paragraph [0074] states “The dimensions and pitches of light emitters in light source 510 may be small. For example, each light emitter may have a diameter less than 2 μm (e.g., about 1.2 μm) and the pitch may be less than 2 μm (e.g., about 1.5 μm). As such, the number of light emitters in each red light emitters 512, green light emitters 514, and blue light emitters 516 can be equal to or greater than the number of pixels in a display image, such as 960×720, 1280×720, 1440×1080, 1920×1080, 2160×1080, or 2560×1080 pixels.”
Regarding claim 4, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 1.
Kishimoto further teaches:
a light shielding layer [640 “bank layer”, embodiment 1000C, paragraph [0221], Fig. 18A-18B] located on the UV micro LED [200], wherein the light shield layer [640] comprises a plurality of spacers [645, paragraph [0221], Fig. 18A-18B] located in the red quantum dot layer [64R, Fig. 18A].
Regarding claim 5, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 4.
Kishimoto further teaches:
wherein an interval between adjacent two of the spacers [645, embodiment 1000C, paragraph [0221], Fig. 18A-18B] is smaller than 6 µm.
Regarding claim 7, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 1.
Kishimoto further teaches:
wherein a thickness of the red quantum dot layer [64R, Embodiment 1000C, paragraph [0218], Fig. 18A-18B] is smaller than 5 µm.
Claims 2, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) in view of Liu (CN 110031978 A), Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1), Pendse (US 20210175216 A1) and a different embodiment of Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1). The different embodiment of Kishimoto will hereby be referred to as Kishimoto (1000E).
Regarding claim 2, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 1.
Kishimoto further teaches:
wherein the UV micro LED [220, paragraph [0217-0219], Fig. 6, 18A-18B] is configured to emit an Violet light, and a wavelength of the Violet light is in a range.
Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse do not teach:
a wavelength of the Violet light is in a range from 405 nm to 430 nm.
Kishimoto (1000E) teaches:
a wavelength of the Violet light is in a range from 405 nm to 430 nm [paragraph [0239-0242], Fig. 20]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto (1000E) into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse to include a wavelength of the Violet light is in a range from 405 nm to 430 nm, for the purpose of providing incident light at a wavelength that can be converted to a desired wavelength, improve energy efficiency, flexibility, brightness, reliability, color saturation, cost and increase lifespan.
Regarding claim 11, Kishimoto teaches:
A red micro LED display panel [1000C, paragraph [0216-0223], Fig. 18A-18B], wherein the red micro LED display panel comprises [paragraph [0216-0217]]:
a driving back plane [400, paragraph [0112-0114], [0217], Fig. 3, 6, 18A-18B];
an electrode array [300, paragraph [0217], [0104], [0108], Fig. 6, 18A-18B] located on the driving back plane [400];
a micro LED [200 “frontplane” includes µLEDs 220, paragraph [0092], [0217], Abstract, Fig. 6, 18A-18B] located on the electrode array [300], wherein the micro LED [220, paragraph [0217-0219]] is configured to emit a light, and a wavelength of the light is in a range.
a red quantum dot layer [64R “red phosphor”, paragraph [0218-0220], Fig. 18A-18B ] located on the micro LED [220].
and each of the red pixels is formed by the electrode array [300, Fig. 18A-18B], the UV micro LED [200, Fig. 18A-18B], the red quantum dot layer [64R, Fig. 18A-18B].
Kishimoto does not teach:
A red micro LED display panel applied in a separated panel display device.
Liu teaches:
A red micro LED display panel [11, paragraph [0010], [0058-0062], Fig. 2-3] applied in a separated panel display device [paragraph [0058-0062], Fig. 2-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu into the teachings of Kishimoto to include a red micro LED display panel applied in a separated panel display device, for the purpose of improving quality of images, and color accuracy, saving space, improving flexibility, lowering power consumption, reducing waste, decreasing weight, and allowing more diverse applications.
Kishimoto, and Liu do not teach:
a red color filter layer located on the red quantum dot layer and configured to filter a red light emitted from the red quantum dot layer.
Greene et al. teaches:
a red color filter layer [222, paragraph [0049], Fig. 5D-5E] located on the red quantum dot layer [216, paragraph [0049], Fig. 5D-5E] and configured to filter a red light emitted from the red quantum dot layer [216, paragraph [0053], Fig. 5D-5E].
and the red color filter layer [222, paragraph [0049], Fig. 5D-5E].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Greene et al. into the teachings of Kishimoto and Liu to include a red color filter layer located on the red quantum dot layer and configured to filter a red light emitted from the red quantum dot layer, and the red color filter layer, for the purpose of improving conversion efficiency and preventing light leakage. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Kishimoto, Liu and Greene et al. do not teach:
wherein the red micro LED display panel comprises a plurality of red pixels adjacent to each other.
Pendse teaches:
wherein the red micro LED display panel [512, paragraph [0074], Fig. 5A] comprises a plurality of red pixels adjacent to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pendse into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu and Greene et al. to include wherein the red micro LED display panel comprises a plurality of red pixels adjacent to each other, for the purpose of generating a display image simultaneously by the light source.
Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse do not teach:
wherein the micro LED is configured to emit a light, and a wavelength of the light is in a range from 405 nm to 430 nm.
Kishimoto (1000E) teaches:
wherein the micro LED [220, paragraph [0239-0242], Fig. 20]] is configured to emit a light, and a wavelength of the light is in a range from 405 nm to 430 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto (1000E) into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al. and Pendse to include wherein the micro LED is configured to emit a light, and a wavelength of the light is in a range from 405 nm to 430 nm, for the purpose of providing incident light at a wavelength that can be converted to a desired wavelength, improve energy efficiency, flexibility, brightness, reliability, color saturation, cost and increase lifespan.
Regarding claim 12, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 11.
Kishimoto further teaches:
further comprising: wherein a size of each of the red pixels [64R, paragraph [0218], Fig. 18A-18B] is smaller than 6 µm. [Embodiment 1000C, 645 “pixel openings”, paragraph [0218-0221], Fig. 18A-18B]
It should be noted that the limitation of claim 3 can also be overcome by Pendse (US 20210175216 A1). Paragraph [0074] states “The dimensions and pitches of light emitters in light source 510 may be small. For example, each light emitter may have a diameter less than 2 μm (e.g., about 1.2 μm) and the pitch may be less than 2 μm (e.g., about 1.5 μm). As such, the number of light emitters in each red light emitters 512, green light emitters 514, and blue light emitters 516 can be equal to or greater than the number of pixels in a display image, such as 960×720, 1280×720, 1440×1080, 1920×1080, 2160×1080, or 2560×1080 pixels.”
Regarding claim 13, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 11.
Kishimoto further teaches:
a light shielding layer [640 “bank layer”, embodiment 1000C, paragraph [0221], Fig. 18A-18B] located on the micro LED [220], wherein the light shield layer [640] comprises a plurality of spacers [645, paragraph [0221], Fig. 18A-18B] located in the red quantum dot layer [64R].
Regarding claim 14, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 13.
Kishimoto further teaches:
wherein an interval between adjacent two of the spacers [645, embodiment 1000C, paragraph [0221], Fig. 18A-18B] is smaller than 6 µm.
Regarding claim 18, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 11.
Kishimoto further teaches:
wherein a thickness of the red quantum dot layer [64R, Embodiment 1000C, paragraph [0218], Fig. 18A-18B] is smaller than 5 µm.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) in view of Liu (CN 110031978 A), Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1) and Pendse (US 20210175216 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (US 8971678 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., and Pendse teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 1.
Kishimoto further teaches:
wherein each of the spacers [645, paragraph [0218-0221], Fig. 18A-18B] comprises an inclined angle [as seen in Fig. 18A-18B].
Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., and Pendse do not teach:
the inclined angle is in a range from 0 degree to 30 degrees.
Nakano et al. teaches:
the inclined angle is in a range from 0 degree to 30 degrees. [130/430 “Spacer Resin Pattern Layer”, Col. 6, Lines 54-67 to Col. 7, Lines 1-12, Fig. 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakano et al. into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., and Pendse to include the inclined angle is in a range from 0 degree to 30 degrees, for the purpose of improving light reflectance, reducing optical loss, improving performance and yield.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) in view of Liu (CN 110031978 A), Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1) and Pendse (US 20210175216 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 20240297154 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., and Pendse teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 1.
Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., and Pendse do not teach:
a Bragg reflection layer located on the red quantum dot layer.
Guo et al. teaches:
a Bragg reflection layer [501, paragraph [0036], [0038], Fig. 1, 3] located on the red quantum dot layer [401, paragraph [0036], [0038], Fig. 1, 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo et al. into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., and Pendse to include a Bragg reflection layer located on the red quantum dot layer, for the purpose of improving efficiency and control of reflected wavelengths, enhancing color purity and stability, and improving flexibility.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) in view of Liu (CN 110031978 A), Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1), Pendse (US 20210175216 A1) and Kishimoto (1000E) (US 20210408106 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (US 8971678 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 13.
Kishimoto further teaches:
wherein each of the spacers [645, paragraph [0218-0221], Fig. 18A-18B] comprises an inclined angle [as seen in Fig. 18A-18B].
Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) do not teach:
the inclined angle is in a range from 0 degree to 30 degrees.
Nakano et al. teaches:
the inclined angle is in a range from 0 degree to 30 degrees. [130/430 “Spacer Resin Pattern Layer”, Col. 6, Lines 54-67 to Col. 7, Lines 1-12, Fig. 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakano et al. into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) to include the inclined angle is in a range from 0 degree to 30 degrees, for the purpose of improving light reflectance, reducing optical loss, improving performance and yield.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) in view of Liu (CN 110031978 A), Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1), Pendse (US 20210175216 A1) and Kishimoto (1000E) (US 20210408106 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of another different embodiment of Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1). Another different embodiment of Kishimoto will hereby be referred to as Kishimoto (1000).
Regarding claim 16, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 13.
Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) do not teach:
wherein a material of each of the spacers comprises metal.
Kishimoto (1000) teaches:
wherein a material of each of the spacers [24 “metal plug/light-blocking member” paragraph [0101], Fig. 1A-1B, feature 24 is shown but not labelled in Fig. 18A] comprises metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto (1000) into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) to include wherein a material of each of the spacers comprises metal, for the purpose of improving reflectance, because metal has a high reflectivity.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) in view of Liu (CN 110031978 A), Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1), Pendse (US 20210175216 A1) and Kishimoto (1000E) (US 20210408106 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 20240297154 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) teach the red micro LED display panel of claim 11.
Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) do not teach:
a Bragg reflection layer located on the red quantum dot layer.
Guo et al. teaches:
a Bragg reflection layer [501, paragraph [0036], [0038], Fig. 1, 3] located on the red quantum dot layer [401, paragraph [0036], [0038], Fig. 1, 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo et al. into the teachings of Kishimoto, Liu, Greene et al., Pendse and Kishimoto (1000E) to include a Bragg reflection layer located on the red quantum dot layer, for the purpose of improving efficiency and control of reflected wavelengths, enhancing color purity and stability, and improving flexibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pages 1-3, Section: Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. §103, Sub-Section: Claim rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, and 18, in remarks filed February 26, 2026 that the current prior art of record does not teach the amendments to independent claims 1 and 11. Examiner agrees with Applicant; However, after a new line of search and consideration of the prior art, the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 can be overcome by newly cited source Pendse (US 20210175216 A1). Pendse discloses a red micro LED display [512, paragraph [0074], Fig. 5A] comprising a plurality of red pixels adjacent to each other. As previously presented, primary reference Kishimoto (US 20210408106 A1) teaches the electrode array [300, Fig. 18A-18B], the UV micro LED [200, Fig. 18A-18B], and the red quantum dot layer [64R, Fig. 18A-18B], while secondary source Greene et al. (WO 2019099833 A1) teaches the red color filter layer [222, paragraph [0049], Fig. 5D-5E]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Pendse with Kishimoto and Greene et al. for the purpose of generating a display image simultaneously by the light source.
Applicant argues on page 3, Section: Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. §103, Sub-Section: Claim rejection of claim 6, in remarks filed February 26, 2026 that claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and claim 6 should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on pages 3-4, Section: Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. §103, Sub-Section: Claim rejection of claim 8, in remarks filed February 26, 2026 that claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and claim 8 should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on pages 4-5, Section: Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. §103, Sub-Section: Claim rejection of claim 15, in remarks filed February 26, 2026 that claim 15 is dependent on claim 11, and claim 15 should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on pages 5, Section: Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. §103, Sub-Section: Claim rejection of claim 16, in remarks filed February 26, 2026 that claim 16 is dependent on claim 11, and claim 16 should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6, Section: Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. §103, Sub-Section: Claim rejection of claim 19, in remarks filed February 26, 2026 that claim 19 is dependent on claim 11, and claim 19 should be in condition for allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant argues on pages 6, Section: Rejoinder, in remarks filed February 26, 2026 that due to the amendment to independent claim 11, currently withdrawn claim 17 should be rejoined and in condition or allowance. Examiner disagrees with Applicant for at least the reasons mentioned above.
In summary, the amendments to independent claims 1 and 11 can be overcome by newly cited source Pendse (US 20210175216 A1). All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claims 1 and 11 are also rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above. Currently withdrawn claim 17 will not be rejoined.
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 DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571)270-1435. 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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 05/11/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights