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 .
Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the first lateral side portion"; “the second lateral side portion” and “the third lateral side portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, these limitations are interpreted as the first side portion; the second side portion; and the third side portion. Claims 18-24 depending from Claim 17.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0343918) of record, in view of Chakroborty (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0236619) of record, in view of Zuyev (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0293388), in view of Lee (JP H10326910) of record, in view of Ma (CN 112940657, machine-translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 1 of Yamada discloses a wavelength conversion device comprising: an LED chip (1); a PCB solder mask (16) defining an opening at least partially encompassing the LED chip; and a silicone-based [0055] lens (2) optically coupled with the LED chip and including phosphor particles (YAG, [0061]), emulsifier particles (TiO2, [0044]), and lens shaping particles (silica) each immersed within the silicone-based lens, wherein the emulsifier particles comprise a first hydrophobic (inherent property) compound (TiO2), and the lens shaping particles comprise a second compound (silica) different from the first hydrophobic compound.
Yamada is silent with respect to “a trillion-shaped LED chip, the trillion-shaped LED chip defining three lateral sides and edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides”; “the second compound forming the lens shaping particles comprise surface-modified hydrophobic fumed silica, wherein the first hydrophobic compound defines a first weight percent by mass of lens and the second compound defines a second weight percent by mass of the silicone- based lens, and wherein the second weight percent is greater than the first weight percent”.
FIG. 8 of Chakroborty discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, comprising a silicone-based [0056] lens (806) optically coupled with the LED chip and including phosphor particles [0034], emulsifier particles [0037], and lens shaping particles (fumed silica [0056]) each immersed within the silicone-based lens, wherein the emulsifier particles comprise a first hydrophobic compound (TiO2) and the lens shaping particles comprise a second compound (fumed silica) different from the first hydrophobic compound, wherein the second compound forming the lens shaping particles comprise one or more of hydrophobic (inherent property) fumed silica [0056], wherein the first hydrophobic compound defines a first weight percent by mass of lens and the second compound defines a second weight percent by mass of the silicone-based lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Chakroborty. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of improving light extraction efficiency ([0007] of Chakroborty).
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty is silent with respect to “a trillion-shaped LED chip, the trillion-shaped LED chip defining three lateral sides and edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides”; “the second weight percent is greater than the first weight percent” and “the lens shaping particles comprise surface-modified hydrophobic fumed silica”.
Zuyev discloses a similar lens, wherein the emulsifier particles (TiO2) comprise a first hydrophobic compound and the lens shaping particles (SiO2) comprise a second compound different from the first hydrophobic compound, wherein the first hydrophobic compound defines a first weight percent by mass of lens and the second compound defines a second weight percent by mass of the silicone-based lens, and wherein the second weight percent is greater than the first weight percent [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Zuyev. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of making lens with uniform properties ([0006] of Zuyev).
Furthermore, said weight percent by mass is related to the moisture resistance and emission intensity. Therefore, said percent is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific percent therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty and Zuyev is silent with respect to “a trillion-shaped LED chip, the trillion-shaped LED chip defining three lateral sides and edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides”; and “the lens shaping particles comprise surface-modified hydrophobic fumed silica”.
FIG. 6 of Lee discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, comprising a trillion-shaped LED chip (100), the trillion-shaped LED chip defining three lateral sides and edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Lee. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of improving external quantum efficiency and improved durability ([0001] of Lee).
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty and Zuyev and Lee is silent with respect to “the lens shaping particles comprise surface-modified hydrophobic fumed silica”.
Ma discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, wherein the lens shaping particles comprise surface-modified hydrophobic fumed silica (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Ma. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of improving structural strength, expansion coefficient and weather resistance (Abstract of Ma).
Regarding Claim 2
Chakroborty discloses the lens has a refractive index greater than or equal to 1.5 (1.5-1.8).
Regarding Claim 4
FIG. 1 of Yamada discloses the phosphor particles comprise one or more of YAG, LuAg, GAL, KSF, or Si3N4 [0061].
Regarding Claim 5
Chakroborty discloses the emulsifier particles comprise one or more of CaF, ZrO2, or TiO2 [0056].
Regarding Claim 7
Zuyev discloses a particle loading of the lens shaping particles is between 1 percent and 7 percent weight % [0009].
Claims 8, 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, in view of Chakroborty, in view of Anxu (CN 101325195) of record, in view of Lee
Regarding Claim 8
FIG. 2 of Yamada discloses a wavelength conversion device comprising: an LED chip (1) operably coupled with a PCB (10) on a first side of the LED chip; a PCB solder mask (16) defining an opening at least partially encompassing the LED chip; and a lens (2) optically coupled with the LED chip and including silicone encapsulant [0074], phosphor particles (YAG, [0061]), emulsifier particles (TiO2, [0044]), and lens shaping particles each immersed within silicone encapsulant, wherein the emulsifier particles comprise a first compound (TiO2) and the lens shaping particles comprise a second compound (silica) different from the first compound, and wherein the lens extends above the LED chip in a Z-direction, wherein the opening has an oblong geometric shape in an X-Y direction, wherein the PCB solder mask extends outwardly of the first side of the LED chip in the Y-direction.
Yamada is silent with respect to “the lens shaping particles loaded in a concentration of one percent to 10 percent within the silicone encapsulant” and “the lens has a width in the X-direction that is greater than a width in the Y direction
FIG. 8 of Chakroborty discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, comprising a silicone-based [0056] lens (806) optically coupled with the LED chip and including phosphor particles [0034], emulsifier particles [0037], and lens shaping particles (fumed silica [0056]) each immersed within the silicone-based lens, wherein the emulsifier particles comprise a first hydrophobic compound (TiO2) and the lens shaping particles comprise a second compound (fumed silica) different from the first hydrophobic compound, wherein the second compound forming the lens shaping particles comprise one or more of hydrophobic (inherent property) fumed silica [0056], wherein the first hydrophobic compound defines a first weight percent by mass of lens and the second compound defines a second weight percent by mass of the silicone-based lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Chakroborty. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of improving light extraction efficiency ([0007] of Chakroborty).
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty is silent with respect to “a trillion-shaped LED chip, the trillion-shaped LED chip defining three lateral sides and edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides”; “the second weight percent is greater than the first weight percent” and “the lens shaping particles comprise surface-modified hydrophobic fumed silica”.
FIG. 9 of Anxu discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, comprising a silicone-based lens (103) optically coupled with the LED chip (102) and including phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the silicone-based lens, wherein the lens shaping particles loaded in a concentration of one percent to 10 percent within the silicone encapsulant (9 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Anxu. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of significantly reducing variations in chromaticity and luminance (Abstract of Anxu).
Furthermore, said weight percent by mass is related to the moisture resistance and emission intensity. Therefore, said percent is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific percent therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty and Anxu is silent with respect to “a trillion-shaped LED chip, the trillion-shaped LED chip defining three lateral sides and edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides”.
FIG. 6 of Lee discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, comprising a trillion-shaped LED chip (100), the trillion-shaped LED chip defining three lateral sides and edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Lee. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of improving external quantum efficiency and improved durability ([0001] of Lee).
Regarding Claim 9
FIG. 18 of Lee discloses the lens produces asymmetric light distribution as light from the LED chip passes through the lens.
Regarding Claim 11
FIG. 29 of Lee discloses the LED chip is trillion-shaped comprising three lateral sides, and wherein the LED chip defines respective edge bevels between each adjacent sides of the three lateral sides and a top surface of the LED chip, the top surface of the LED chip opposite a PCB.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, Chakroborty, Zuyev, Anxu and Lee, in view of Yoon (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0008816) of record.
Regarding Claim 3
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty, Zuyev, Anxu and Lee discloses Claim 1.
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty, Zuyev, Anxu and Lee is silent with respect to “the phosphor particles, the emulsifier particles, and the lens shaping particles are uniformly distributed within the lens”.
FIG. 2 of Yoon discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, wherein the phosphor particles, the emulsifier particles, and the lens shaping particles are uniformly distributed within the lens, comprising phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the lens [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Yoon. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of phase stabilization ([0045] of Yoon).
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, Chakroborty, Anxu and Lee, in view of Kito (JP 2020101576) of record, in view of Hartmann (DE 2009056463) of record for documentary evidence.
Regarding Claim 10
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty, Anxu and Lee discloses Claim 8.
Yamada as modified by Chakroborty, Anxu and Lee is silent with respect to “a center section of the lens has a longer path length for light rays from the LED chip relative to one or more sides, and wherein the phosphor particle concentration by weight is reduced in the center section”.
FIG. 17 of Kito discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, wherein a center section of the lens has a longer path length for light rays from the LED chip relative to one or more sides, and wherein the phosphor particle concentration by weight is reduced in the center section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada, as taught by Kito. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada in the above manner for purpose of improving the efficiency of converting the wavelength of excitation light. (Abstract of Kito).
Furthermore, said distribution was a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular distribution was significant (Hartmann provides documentary evidence). MPEP § 2144.04.
Claims 17-20, 23 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nawashiro (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0170018) of record, in view of Baur (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0262625) of record, in view of Abe (JP 6687082) of record, in view of Pang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0246044) of record.
Regarding Claim 17
FIG. 1 Nawashiro discloses a lighting system comprising: a first wavelength conversion device [0034] comprising: a first LED chip (10); and a first lens (30) optically coupled with the first LED chip, wherein the first lens includes a first side portion (31), a second side portion, and a third side portion, wherein the first and second portions are a common distance from the first LED chip and the third portion is a varied distance from the first LED chip; and the first lens includes phosphor particles.
Nawashiro is silent with respect to “a first trillion-shaped LED chip having a first lateral side, a second lateral side, and a third lateral side” “the first trillion-shaped LED chip defines edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides and the edge bevels between each lateral side and a top surface of the LED chip”; “the first side portion, the second side portion, and the third side portion converging at a top section of the first lens”; “at least a portion of the first lateral side is parallel to the first lateral side, at least a portion of the second lateral side is parallel to the second lateral side, and at least a portion of the third lateral side is parallel to the third lateral side”; and “the first lens includes phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the first lens”.
FIG. 1 of Baur discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, comprising a first trillion-shaped LED chip (2) having three lateral sides, wherein the first trillion-shaped LED chip defines edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides; the first trillion-shaped LED chip defines edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides and the edge bevels between each lateral side and a top surface of the LED chip; at least a portion of the first lateral side is parallel to the first lateral side, at least a portion of the second lateral side is parallel to the second lateral side, and at least a portion of the third lateral side is parallel to the third lateral side (FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nawashiro, as taught by Baur. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nawashiro in the above manner for purpose of improving coupling-out and efficiency of radiation ([0008] of Baur).
Nawashiro as modified by Baur is silent with respect to “the first side portion, the second side portion, and the third side portion converging at a top section of the first lens”; “at least one of the first side portion, the second side portion, and the third side portion has a curved profile between from a base section to the top section” and “the first lens includes phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the first lens”
FIG. 8 of Abe discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, wherein wavelength conversion material includes phosphor particles (53), emulsifier particles (52), and lens shaping particles (51) immersed within the lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nawashiro, as taught by Abe. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nawashiro in the above manner for purpose of improving optical semiconductor device performance and light output (Abstract of Abe).
Nawashiro as modified by Baur and Abe is silent with respect to “the first side portion, the second side portion, and the third side portion converging at a top section of the first lens” and “at least one of the first side portion, the second side portion, and the third side portion has a curved profile between from a base section to the top section”
FIG. 4 of Pang discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, wherein the first side portion, the second side portion, and the third side portion converging at a top section of the first lens (56); and at least one of the first side portion, the second side portion, and the third side portion has a curved profile between from a base section to the top section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nawashiro, as taught by Pang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nawashiro in the above manner for purpose of increasing the light angle range and reducing fabrication cost ([0023, 0042] of Pang).
Regarding Claim 18
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light system further comprises a second wavelength conversion device comprising: a second trillion-shaped LED chip having three lateral sides, wherein the second trillion-shaped LED chip defines edge bevels between adjacent sides of the three lateral sides; and
a second lens optically coupled with the second trillion-shaped LED chip, the second lens including a first side portion, a second side portion, and a third side portion, wherein the first and second portions are a common distance from the first trillion-shaped LED chip and the third portion is a varied distance from the second trillion-shaped LED chip, because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 19
FIG. 8 of Abe discloses the second lens includes phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the second lens. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Nawashiro discloses the third portion of the first lens is positioned adjacent to the third portion of the second lens.
Regarding Claim 23
FIG. 1 of Nawashiro discloses the first lens defines a curvature of the first lens such that light rays emitted from the first trillion-shaped LED chip strike orthonormal to the curvature of the first lens to reduce backscatter at a polymer/air interface.
Regarding Claim 24
FIG. 1 of Baur discloses the first trillion-shaped comprising three lateral sides, and wherein the LED chip defines respective edge bevels between each of the three lateral sides and a top surface of the LED chip, the top surface of the LED chip opposite a PCB.
Claims 21 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nawashiro, Baur, Abe and Pang, in view of Kokudo (WO 2014132726) of record.
Regarding Claim 21
Nawashiro as modified by Baur, Abe and Pang discloses Claim 17.
Nawashiro as modified by Baur, Abe and Pang is silent with respect to “the first lens further includes quantum dots”.
FIG. 8 of Kokudo discloses a similar wavelength conversion device, wherein the first lens further includes quantum dots (801).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nawashiro, as taught by Kokudo. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nawashiro in the above manner for purpose of improving color precision (Abstract of Kokudo).
Regarding Claim 22
FIG. 8 of Kokudo discloses the second lens includes quantum dots.
Pertinent Art
FIG. 3 of Mueller US 20030227249 discloses a lens including phosphor particles (40), emulsifier particles (38), and lens shaping particles (36) each immersed within the lens. Kida (JP 2018035055) of record discloses a wavelength conversion device, comprising phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the lens (Abstract), wherein the emulsifier particles comprise a first hydrophobic compound (MgO) and the lens shaping particles comprise a second compound (SiO2) different from the first compound, and wherein the first hydrophobic compound defines a first weight percent by mass of lens and the second compound defines a second weight percent (40-60%) by mass of lens, and wherein the second weight is greater than the first weight (0-45%). FIG. 2 of Murakami (JP 2019091648) discloses a wavelength conversion device comprising: an LED chip (12) operably coupled with a PCB (3) on a first side of the LED chip; a PCB solder mask (7) defining an opening at least partially encompassing the LED chip; and a lens (9) optically coupled with the LED chip and including phosphor particles, the lens extending above the LED chip in a Z-direction, wherein the PCB solder mask extends outwardly of the first side of the LED chip in the Y-direction. Shyu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0090704) discloses a lens (1) including phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the lens [0025]. Ito (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0160604) discloses a wavelength conversion device, comprising phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the lens [0037]. Bailey (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0417391) discloses a wavelength conversion device, comprising phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the lens [0103]. Hong (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0364639) discloses a wavelength conversion member formed by mixing the phosphor or the quantum dot with glass particles. JP 2016162850 discloses a wavelength conversion device, comprising phosphor particles, emulsifier particles, and lens shaping particles each immersed within the lens. Sun (CN 103378080) discloses the opening has an oblong geometric shape in an X-Y direction, and wherein the lens has a width in the X- direction that is greater than a width in the Y direction. Kato (TW 202028135) discloses a wavelength conversion device, wherein the emulsifier particles comprise a first hydrophobic compound (ZnO or TiO2) and the lens shaping particles comprise a second compound (SiO2) different from the first compound, and wherein the first hydrophobic compound defines a first weight percent by mass of lens and the second compound defines a second weight percent (40-65%) by mass of lens, and wherein the second weight is greater than the first weight (0.15-15% or 0-10%). Su (CN 102945919) discloses a particle loading of the lens shaping particles is between 1 percent and 7 percent weight % (Abstract). Also, Cassingham (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0116108), Rong (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0315069), Tudorica (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0161098), US 20140175492, 20040262625, 20120068204, CN 215264324, CN 109008913 and EP 0405757.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. 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 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.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights