CTFR 18/000,078 CTFR 86224 DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to amendment filed 4/6/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 8, 10, 13, and 22 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 6, and 18 have been amended. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 18, the recitation to “the conductive quantum well junction is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunneling one or more electrons” should be more appropriately “to inelastically tunnel ”. Furthermore, claim 18 recite two instances of “wherein the conductive quantum well junction is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunneling one or more electrons”. Duplicative claim limitation should be deleted . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 reciting “the conductive layer is configured to provide resonant electron states that facilitate inelastic tunneling of electrons” and “the conductive quantum well junction is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunnel one or more electron” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “to provide resonant electron states that facilitate inelastic tunneling of electrons” and “to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunnel one or more electron” are intended to refer to the same or difference characteristic. More specifically, is the phenomenon of “resonant electron states that facilitate inelastic tunneling of electrons” a functional characteristic of the conductive layer that is different from the functional characteristic of the conductive quantum well junction that “enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunnel one or more electron”? How are these functional characteristic related? The seemingly duplicative recitations are associated with the conductive layer in one instance and with the conductive quantum well junction on another instance. As such, it is unclear if the “configured to" language describes functional characteristic of the conductive layer alone or is it a functional characteristic of the overall conductive quantum well junction. Which is responsible for performing the intended function as claimed? Claim 18 reciting “the conductive layer is configured to provide resonant electron states that facilitate inelastic tunneling of electrons” and “the conductive quantum well junction is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunnelling one or more electron” render the claim indefinite for similar reason as explained for claim 1 above. Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 11-12 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Estes et al. US 2007/0116420 A1 (Estes; cited in IDS filed 11/28/2022) . PNG media_image1.png 330 1031 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 380 496 media_image2.png Greyscale In re claim 1, as best understood, Estes discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5A-5B) an apparatus, comprising: a conductive quantum well junction 524 positioned between a first electrode 516 and a second electrode 514, the conductive quantum well junction 524 comprising a first dielectric layer 534, a conductive layer (additional metal layer of “double-barrier” or “triple-barrier” structures, ¶ 111; e.g. see FIG. 1D showing a “double-barrier” structure with a conductive layer 46 between a first dielectric layer 44 and a second dielectric layer 42, ¶ 95), a second dielectric layer 532, wherein the conductive layer is positioned between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (of “double-barrier” or “triple-barrier” structures, ¶ 111; e.g. see FIG. 1D showing a “double-barrier” structure with the conductive layer 46 between the first dielectric layer 44 and the second dielectric layer 42, ¶ 95), wherein the conductive layer is configured to provide resonant electron states that facilitate inelastic tunneling of electrons (¶ 111, “double-barrier” and “triple-barrier” structures increases probability of inelastic tunneling), wherein the conductive quantum well 524 is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunnel one or more electrons to generate surface plasmons (¶ 111, “double-barrier” and “triple-barrier” structures increases probability of inelastic tunneling to maximize spontaneous emission of surface plasmons). The limitations preceded by “configured to”, as best understood, pertain to the same functional characteristic of the claimed device structure. Estes teaches all of the claimed structural elements. Estes further teaches the device functions to generate spontaneous emission of surface plasmons with enhanced property achieved using the layered structure of a double-barrier (one quantum well) and triple-barrier (two quantum well) structures that can increase the spontaneous emission probability over single barrier designs by increasing the probability of inelastic tunneling and reducing the probability of elastic tunneling (¶ 111). Therefore, the device structure as taught by Estes teaching all of the claimed structural element is capable of being “configured to” function the same. No particular structural difference is otherwise specified that would render the device claim structurally distinguish over the prior art device teaching the same structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.” In re claim 11, Estes discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5C,6A) wherein the second electrode 614,714 is disposed on a substrate 610,710. In re claim 12, Estes discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5-6) wherein an external energy source 510,612,712 (¶ 109,114) is configured to supply a predetermined potential to cause the conductive quantum well junction 524624,724 (with double-barrier structure of FIG. 1D) to enter into the resonant state for inelastically tunneling the one or more electrons (¶ 111,114). In re claim 18, as best understood, Estes discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-8) an optical apparatus, comprising: a plasmonic device (¶ 102) including a conductive quantum well junction 424,524,624,724 positioned between a first electrode 416,516,616,716 and a second electrode 414,514,614,714, wherein the conductive quantum well junction is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunneling one or more electrons (¶ 111, “double-barrier” and “triple-barrier” structures increases probability of inelastic tunneling), wherein the conductive quantum well junction 524 comprising a first dielectric layer 534, a conductive layer (additional metal layer of “double-barrier” or “triple-barrier” structures, ¶ 111; e.g. see FIG. 1D showing a “double-barrier” structure with a conductive layer 46 between a first dielectric layer 44 and a second dielectric layer 42, ¶ 95), a second dielectric layer 532, wherein the conductive layer is positioned between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (of “double-barrier” or “triple-barrier” structures, ¶ 111; e.g. see FIG. 1D showing a “double-barrier” structure with the conductive layer 46 between the first dielectric layer 44 and the second dielectric layer 42, ¶ 95), wherein the conductive layer is configured to provide resonant electron states that facilitate inelastic tunneling of electrons (¶ 111, “double-barrier” and “triple-barrier” structures increases probability of inelastic tunneling), wherein the conductive quantum well junction is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunneling one or more electrons (¶ 111, “double-barrier” and “triple-barrier” structures increases probability of inelastic tunneling); and an external electrical energy source 510,612,712 configured to supply a predetermined potential to cause the conductive quantum well junction to enter into the resonant state for inelastically tunneling the one or more electrons (¶ 109,111,114); wherein the inelastic tunneling of the one or more electrons through the plasmonic device is configured to cause generation of light in at least one of the following spectrums: a visible light spectrum, a near infrared light spectrum, mid-infrared light spectrum, and any combination thereof (infrared wavelength light, ¶ 9,12,14,105). The limitations preceded by “configured to”, as best understood, pertain to the same functional characteristic of the claimed device structure. Estes teaches all of the claimed structural elements. Estes further teaches the device functions to generate spontaneous emission of surface plasmons with enhanced property achieved using the layered structure of a double-barrier (one quantum well) and triple-barrier (two quantum well) structures that can increase the spontaneous emission probability over single barrier designs by increasing the probability of inelastic tunneling and reducing the probability of elastic tunneling (¶ 111). Therefore, the device structure as taught by Estes teaching all of the claimed structural element is capable of being “configured to” function the same. No particular structural difference is otherwise specified that would render the device claim structurally distinguish over the prior art device teaching the same structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.” In re claim 19, Estes discloses (e. FIG. 6B) further comprising an energy coupling device 764 positioned between the conductive quantum well junction 724 (FIG. 1D, ¶ 115) and the first electrode 716 (764 being laterally between 716 and 724 in region 754), the energy coupling device 764 supporting inelastic tunneling of the one or more electrons in the resonant state (supporting by reflecting surface plasmons toward the resonant cavity, ¶ 116). Alternatively, no specific “energy coupling device” has been claimed that would distinguish over additional layer of metal quantum dots in the tunneling structure (¶ 103,111,115). In re claim 20, Estes discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-8) wherein the plasmonic device includes at least one of the following: a nanoLED, a nanolaser, a nanojunction, a plasmonic source, an on-chip electrically-driven plasmonic circuit, a waveguide, a router, a modulator, a detector, and any combination thereof (¶ 102,109,114). In re claim 21, Estes discloses (e.g. FIG. 11) further comprising a plurality of plasmonic devices disposed on a single substrate 1210. Also see ¶ 140, an array of devices formed on single substrate . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2-3, 6-7, 9, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. US 2019/0155067 A1 (Liu) . In re claim 2, Estes teaches a plasmonic device (FIG. 5A-5B) having multiple barrier structure (e.g. double-barrier structure as shown in FIG. 1D or triple-barrier structure, ¶ 111) having a metal quantum well layer 46 between dielectric layers 42 and 44, and the first and second electrodes together form a metal-insulator-metal-insulator-metal heterostructure (14/42/46/44/16 metal/insulator heterostructure shown in FIG. 1D; MIMIMIM triple-barrier diode, ¶ 14). Estes does not the dielectric layers comprise aluminum oxide, and the metal layer 46 comprises titanium-nitride. However, Liu discloses metallic quantum well structure (FIGs. 1-2) made of TiN/Al 2 O 3 multilayers including a TiN well layer between Al 2 O 3 dielectric barrier layers (FIGs. 3-4) to improve power efficiency in plasmonic devices (¶ 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Estes’ metallic quantum well structure comprising aluminum oxide dielectric layers titanium-nitride conductive layer as taught by Liu to obtain metallic QWs with improved power efficiency. In re claim 3, Estes discloses (e.g. FIG. 1D showing a double-barrier structure) wherein the first dielectric layer 42 is coupled to the second electrode 14 and the second dielectric layer 44 is coupled to the first electrode 16. In re claim 6, Liu teaches (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) titanium-nitride layer as conductive well layer. PNG media_image3.png 376 638 media_image3.png Greyscale In re claim 7, Estes discloses (e. FIG. 6B) further comprising an energy coupling device 764 positioned between the conductive quantum well junction 724 (FIG. 1D, ¶ 115) and the first electrode 716 (764 being laterally between 716 and 724 in region 754), the energy coupling device 764 supporting inelastic tunneling of the one or more electrons in the resonant state (supporting by reflecting surface plasmons toward the resonant cavity, ¶ 116). Alternatively, no specific “energy coupling device” has been claimed that would distinguish over additional layer of metal quantum dots in the tunneling structure (¶ 103,111,115). In re claim 9, Estes discloses wherein the energy coupling device (additional layer of metal quantum dots, ¶ 103,111,115) includes one or more silver nanorods, metallic nanorods, conductive nanorods, and any combination thereof. No specific “metallic nanorods” or “conductive nanorods” have been claimed that would structurally distinguish over the layer of metallic quantum dots as taught by Estes (¶ 103,111,115). In re claim 14, Estes discloses (e.g. FIG. 9C) further comprising a fourth metallic layer 1014 and a dielectric layer 1042 disposed between at least a portion of the first electrode 1044 and the conductive quantum well junction 1018 (having same layering as arrangement 24 shown in FIG. 1D, ¶ 126). Estes further teaches triple barrier structure including additional metallic layer and dielectric layer (¶ 14,103,111,115). In re claim 15, Estes discloses (e.g. FIG. 9C) wherein an external energy source 1012 is coupled to the second electrode 1016 and the fourth metallic layer 1014. In re claim 16, Estes discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the conductive quantum well junction is configured to prevent elastic tunneling of one or more electrons (double-barrier reduce probability of elastic tunneling, ¶ 111). In re claim 17, Estes discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-8) wherein the inelastic tunneling of the one or more electrons through the conductive quantum well junction is configured to generate light in at least one of the following spectrums: a visible light spectrum, a near infrared light spectrum, mid-infrared light spectrum, and any combination thereof (infrared wavelength light, ¶ 9,12,14,105) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Estes and Liu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kuang US 2010/0103495 A1 (cited in IDS filed 11/28/2022) . In re claim 4, Estes teaches a plasmonic device (FIG. 5A-5B) having multiple barrier structure (e.g. double-barrier structure as shown in FIG. 1D or triple-barrier structure, ¶ 111) between a first electrode 16,516 and a second electrode 14,514, wherein electrode material include niobium or tantalum (¶ 92,105). Estes does not explicitly disclose the first electrode is an indium-tin-oxide layer. Kuang discloses (e.g. FIG. 1) a plasmon optical modulator having a tunneling diode structure including a barrier layer 118 between metal layer 116 and ITO electrode 120 (¶ 38). Kuang teaches ITO is a well-known low loss metal suitable for electrical contact (¶ 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Estes’ first electrode as an ITO layer for its low loss characteristics in electrical contact as taught by Kuang. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In re claim 5, Estes teaches a plasmonic device (FIG. 5A-5B) having multiple barrier structure (e.g. double-barrier structure as shown in FIG. 1D or triple-barrier structure, ¶ 111) between a first electrode 16,516 and a second electrode 14,514, wherein electrode material include niobium or tantalum (¶ 92,105). Estes does not explicitly disclose the second electrode is a titanium-nitride layer. However, Liu discloses metallic quantum well structure (FIGs. 1-2) made of TiN/Al 2 O 3 multilayers (FIGs. 3-4) and wherein a lower TiN layer, e.g. lowermost TiN shown in FIG. 4A, teaches the claimed second electrode below the TiN/Al 2 O 3 quantum well structure. Liu discloses the TiN/Al 2 O 3 multilayers (FIGs. 3-4) improve power efficiency in plasmonic devices (¶ 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Estes’ metallic quantum well structure as a TiN/Al 2 O 3 multilayers as taught by Liu to obtain metallic QWs with improved power efficiency. As such, a lower TiN layer teaches the claimed second/bottom electrode . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Estes fails to teach “inelastic tunneling” (Remark, pages 11-12). This is not persuasive. Estes specifically teaches (see ¶ 111) the device functions to generate spontaneous emission of surface plasmons with enhanced property achieved using the layered structure of a double-barrier (one quantum well) and triple-barrier (two quantum well) structures that can increase the spontaneous emission probability over single barrier designs by increasing the probability of inelastic tunneling and reducing the probability of elastic tunneling. Furthermore, recitation to “the conductive layer is configured to provide resonant electron states that facilitate inelastic tunneling of electrons” and “the conductive quantum well junction is configured to enter into a resonant state to inelastically tunnel one or more electron”, as best understood, pertains to the same functional characteristic of the claimed device structure. Estes teaches all of the claimed structural elements. Estes further teaches the device functions to generate spontaneous emission of surface plasmons with enhanced property achieved using the layered structure of a double-barrier (one quantum well) and triple-barrier (two quantum well) structures that can increase the spontaneous emission probability over single barrier designs by increasing the probability of inelastic tunneling and reducing the probability of elastic tunneling (¶ 111). Therefore, the device structure as taught by Estes teaching all of the claimed structural element is capable of being “configured to” function the same. No particular structural difference is otherwise specified that would render the device claim structurally distinguish over the prior art device teaching the same structure. There is no reason to believe the prior art device teaching the claimed device structure would not be capable of the same function. It is unclear what would make the claimed device capable of performing the recited functions that can’t be performed by the Estes device teaching all of the claimed device structure as alleged by Applicant. If these claimed functions are results of some difference in the device structure, it remains unclear what are the specific structural difference, if any, that would results in the different functions. Furthermore, such structural difference if present, should be positively recited in the claim to clearly define the intended scope of the invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.” Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET. 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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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. /YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 YU CHEN Examiner Art Unit 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 2 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 3 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 4 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 5 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 6 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 7 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 8 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 9 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 10 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 11 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 12 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 13 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 14 Art Unit: 2896 Application/Control Number: 18/000,078 Page 15 Art Unit: 2896
Prosecution Insights