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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation wherein, “a pitch is a value of 400 nm or more and 850 nm or less such that the opening ratio of the opening is 0.1% or more and 5.0% or less.” Claim 4 depends from claim 1 which states that “an opening diameter of the opening is 100 nm or more and 200 nm or less” and “an opening ratio of the opening is 0.1% or more and 5.0% or less.” Considering, an opening diameter of 200 nm (radius is 100 nm) and the pitch to be 400 nm, the opening ratio (%), 2π/√3 * (r/p)2 * 100, para [0046] of the original specification, becomes 23% which is outside the range of claim 1. Thus, it is unclear how claim 4 satisfies the limitation in claim 1 and hence becomes indefinite, and therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. (US 2016/0093665 A1, newly cited).
Re Claim 1, Schubert teaches a semiconductor light emitting element comprising:
a growth substrate (5, Fig. 7, para [0084]);
a mask formed (6, Fig. 7, para [0084]) on the growth substrate (5); and
a columnar semiconductor layer (2+3+4, Fig. 7, paras [0084] – [0085]) grown from at least one opening (10, Fig. 7, para [0084]) that is provided in the mask (6),
wherein the columnar semiconductor layer (2+3+4, Fig. 7) includes an n-type nanowire layer formed at a center thereof (2, Fig. 7, para [0084]), an active layer (4, Fig. 7, para [0085]) formed on an outer periphery of the n-type nanowire layer (see Fig. 7), and a p- type semiconductor layer (3, Fig. 7, para [0085]) formed on an outer periphery of the active layer (see Fig. 7), and
wherein an opening diameter of the opening is 100 nm or more and 200 nm or less (diameter of apertures 10, can be 50 nm to 200 nm, para [0084]).
Schubert does not explicitly state that an opening ratio of the opening is 0.1% or more and 5.0% or less.
Examiner notes that the opening ratio (%) in the original specification of the applicant is defined as, 2π/√3 * (r/p)2 * 100, para [0046] of the original specification of the present application, where r is the radius of the opening and p is the pitch of the openings/nanocores.
Schubert discloses that the diameter of the openings can be 200 nm (so radius will be 100 nm, para [0084]) and the pitch of the openings can be 1.5 µm (para [0084]), resulting in an opening ratio of 1.6%, within the claimed range.
Regarding the limitation, “an In composition ratio in the active layer is in a range of 0.10 or more and 0.40 or less, and a light emission wavelength is 480 nm or more”, Schubert teaches that Indium concentration can vary from 0 and 1, providing a peak emission wavelength between, 375 and 1100 nm (para [0085]), encompassing the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the Indium concentration and the emission wavelength and arrive at the claimed range. With respect to the limitations of the claim, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The optimization of the claimed Indium concentration and the emission wavelength would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re Claim 2, Schubert teaches the semiconductor light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the opening ratio is 0.1% or more and 3% or less (opening ratio can be 1.6%, see claim 1 above), and the light emission wavelength is 500 nm or more (emission wavelength between 375 and 1100 nm, see claim 1 above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. (US 2016/0093665 A1, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0194571 A1, hereinafter “Lee’571”, of record).
Re Claim 5, Schubert teaches the semiconductor light emitting element according to claim 1 but does not disclose that the n-type nanowire layer includes a semipolar plane, and the active layer is formed on the semipolar plane.
Examiner notes that Schubert does not explicitly state that the top slanting surfaces of the nanocores (top slanting surfaces of layer 2, Fig. 7) are semipolar plane. However, as evident from Fig. 2 of Lee’571, the top slanting surfaces of the nanocores are r-planes or semipolar planes (para [0066]), and it is well-known in this field of art that these are stable planes advantageous to crystal growth (para [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, from the teachings of Lee’571, that the slanting surfaces of the n-type nanowire layer (layer 2, Fig. 7) of Schubert are r-planes or semipolar planes (para [0066], Lee’571), and it is well-known in this field of art that these are stable planes advantageous to crystal growth (para [0088], Lee’571). Additionally, as also seen in Fig. 7 of Schubert, the active layer (layer 4, Fig. 7, Schubert) is formed on the semipolar planes.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2016/0013362 A1, of record), and further in view of Dupont et al. (US 2019/0165040 A1, newly cited) and Kum et al. (US 2016/0126419 A1, of record).
Re Claim 6, Heo teaches a semiconductor light emitting element (Fig. 5) comprising:
a growth substrate (21, Fig. 5, para [0103]);
a mask formed (23, Fig. 5, para [0103]) on the growth substrate (21); and
a columnar semiconductor layer (25-1 / 25-2 / 25-3, Fig. 5, para [0103]) grown from each of openings that are provided in the mask (see Fig. 5),
wherein the columnar semiconductor layer includes an n-type nanowire layer formed at a center thereof (25a-1 / 25a-2 / 25a-3, Fig. 5, para [0103], similar to 15a-1, n-type GaN in Fig. 2, para [0060]), an active layer formed on an outer periphery of the n-type nanowire layer (25b-1 / 25b-2 / 25b-3, Fig. 5, para [0105]), and a p- type semiconductor layer formed on an outer periphery of the active layer (25c-1 / 25c-2 / 25c-3, Fig. 5, para [0105], similar to 15c-1, p-type GaN in Fig. 2, para [0062]),
wherein in a first region of the growth substrate (Region-II with nanocores 25-2, Fig. 5, para [0104]), a light emission wavelength is 480 nm or more (emitted wavelength is between 480 nm and 540 nm, para [0110]),
wherein in a second region of the growth substrate (Region-I with nanocores 25-1, Fig. 5, para [0104]), a light emission wavelength is less than 480 nm (emitted wavelength is between 430 nm and 480 nm, para [0110]),
wherein an isolation region is provided between the first region and the second region (there is an isolation region between Region-I and Region-II, see Fig. 6)
Heo does not explicitly state that,
wherein in a first region of the growth substrate, an opening ratio of the opening is 0.10% or more and 5.0% or less, and
wherein in a second region of the growth substrate, an opening ratio of the opening is more than 5.0%.
Examiner notes that the opening ratio (%) in the original specification of the applicant is defined as, 2π/√3 * (r/p)2 * 100, para [0046] of the original specification of the present application, where r is the radius of the opening/nanocores (note that the diameter of openings and nanocores are same, see Fig. 1 of original specification), and p is the pitch of the openings/nanocores.
Heo discloses that the emission wavelength of the different regions can be varied based on the diameter, pitch, height and Indium composition of the nanocore, as given by the formulas in para [0068] and also stated in paras [0111] – [0114]. For example, the first region (Region-II with nanocores 25-2, Fig. 5, para [0104]) can have a core diameter of 300 nm and a pitch of 1500 nm (as disclosed in Table 4), giving an opening ratio of 3.6 % (within the claimed range). This combination uses a Quantum Well (QW) thickness of 2.4 nm (Table 4), which will emit a wavelength of 540 nm at an Indium composition of 32% (see Table 1). The second region (Region-I with nanocores 25-1, Fig. 5, para [0104]) can have a core diameter of 800 nm and a pitch of 1500 nm (as disclosed in Table 4), giving an opening ratio of 6.9 % (within the claimed range). This combination uses a Quantum Well (QW) thickness of 2.2 nm (Table 4), which will emit a wavelength of 430 nm at an Indium composition of 17% (see Table 1). Examiner notes that the diameter, pitch, height and Indium composition of the nanocores, are all result effective variables to emit a certain wavelength. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Additionally, Heo does not explicitly state that the width of the isolation region is 10 µm or less.
However, related art Dupont teaches an isolation region (18, Figs. 1A-1C, para [108]) between different pixel regions (D, Figs. 1A-1C, para [0081]), where the width of the isolation region can be between 1 µm and 10 µm (para [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to use the teachings of Dupont and implement into the device of Heo, such that the width of the isolation region is between 1 µm and 10 µm, within the claimed range.
Furthermore, Heo discloses electrodes (19a/19b) formed on the edges (as shown in Fig. 1), but does not explicitly disclose that a wiring pattern is formed on the mask in the isolation region. However, one of ordinary skill would realize that the p-type GaN layer (25c-/15c-1, Figs. 2 and 5) has to be connected to an electrode layer to complete the circuit. Heo discloses transparent electrode layer 16 (zoomed portion of Fig. 1, para [0065]) but doesn’t show how it extends throughout the display area.
Related semiconductor art Kum teaches a display area (Fig. 2I), where there is a continuous transparent electrode layer (150, Fig. 2I, para [0052]), connecting all the nanocores (similar to layer 16 of Heo). As shown in Fig. 2I, there are two distinct regions of nanocores with two different pitches (see annotated Fig. 2I below), and there is transparent electrode layer 150 formed on the mask in the isolation region between them as shown in annotated Fig. 2I below.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to implement the continuous electrode layer (16) of Heo, as shown by Kum (continuous electrode layer 150, Fig. 2I), so that all the nanocores are electrically connected to form a functional display device.
Re Claim 7, Heo teaches a semiconductor light emitting element (Fig. 5) comprising:
a growth substrate (21, Fig. 5, para [0103]);
a mask formed (23, Fig. 5, para [0103]) on the growth substrate (21); and
a columnar semiconductor layer (25-1 / 25-2 / 25-3, Fig. 5, para [0103]) grown from each of openings that are provided in the mask (see Fig. 5),
wherein the columnar semiconductor layer includes an n-type nanowire layer formed at a center thereof (25a-1 / 25a-2 / 25a-3, Fig. 5, para [0103], similar to 15a-1, n-type GaN in Fig. 2, para [0060]), an active layer formed on an outer periphery of the n-type nanowire layer (25b-1 / 25b-2 / 25b-3, Fig. 5, para [0105]), and a p- type semiconductor layer formed on an outer periphery of the active layer (25c-1 / 25c-2 / 25c-3, Fig. 5, para [0105], similar to 15c-1, p-type GaN in Fig. 2, para [0062]),
wherein in a first region of the growth substrate (Region-II with nanocores 25-2, Fig. 5, para [0104]), an opening ratio of the opening is a first opening ratio (Region-II has a 1st opening ratio, see Fig. 5),
wherein in a second region of the growth substrate (Region-I with nanocores 25-1, Fig. 5, para [0104]), an opening ratio of the opening is a second opening ratio (Region-I has a 2nd opening ratio, see Fig. 5),
wherein a light emission wavelength in the first region (Region-II) is longer than that in the second region (Region-I, where an emitted wavelength in Region-II can be 480 nm, greater than an emitted wavelength in Region-I which can be 430 nm, para [0110]),
wherein an isolation region is provided between the first region and the second region (there is an isolation region between Region-I and Region-II, see Fig. 6)
Heo does not explicitly state that,
wherein the first opening ratio is smaller than the second opening ratio
Examiner notes that the opening ratio (%) in the original specification of the applicant is defined as, 2π/√3 * (r/p)2 * 100, para [0046] of the original specification of the present application, where r is the radius of the opening/nanocores (note that the diameter of openings and nanocores are same, see Fig. 1 of original specification), and p is the pitch of the openings/nanocores.
Heo discloses that the emission wavelength of the different regions can be varied based on the diameter, pitch, height and Indium composition of the nanocore, as given by the formulas in para [0068] and also stated in paras [0111] – [0114]. For example, the first region (Region-II with nanocores 25-2, Fig. 5, para [0104]) can have a core diameter of 300 nm and a pitch of 1500 nm (as disclosed in Table 4), giving a 1st opening ratio of 3.6 %. This combination uses a Quantum Well (QW) thickness of 2.4 nm (Table 4), which will emit a wavelength of 540 nm at an Indium composition of 32% (see Table 1). The second region (Region-I with nanocores 25-1, Fig. 5, para [0104]) can have a core diameter of 800 nm and a pitch of 1500 nm (as disclosed in Table 4), giving a 2nd opening ratio of 6.9 %. This combination uses a Quantum Well (QW) thickness of 2.2 nm (Table 4), which will emit a wavelength of 430 nm at an Indium composition of 17% (see Table 1). Thus, the first opening ratio is smaller than the second opening ratio, satisfying the claim limitation. Examiner notes that the diameter, pitch, height and Indium composition of the nanocores, are all result effective variables to emit a certain wavelength. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Additionally, Heo does not explicitly state that the width of the isolation region is 10 µm or less.
However, related art Dupont teaches an isolation region (18, Figs. 1A-1C, para [108]) between different pixel regions (D, Figs. 1A-1C, para [0081]), where the width of the isolation region can be between 1 µm and 10 µm (para [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to use the teachings of Dupont and implement into the device of Heo, such that the width of the isolation region is between 1 µm and 10 µm, within the claimed range.
Furthermore, Heo discloses electrodes (19a/19b) formed on the edges (as shown in Fig. 1), but does not explicitly disclose that a wiring pattern is formed on the mask in the isolation region. However, one of ordinary skill would realize that the p-type GaN layer (25c-/15c-1, Figs. 2 and 5) has to be connected to an electrode layer to complete the circuit. Heo discloses transparent electrode layer 16 (zoomed portion of Fig. 1, para [0065]) but doesn’t show how it extends throughout the display area.
Related semiconductor art Kum teaches a display area (Fig. 2I), where there is a continuous transparent electrode layer (150, Fig. 2I, para [0052]), connecting all the nanocores (similar to layer 16 of Heo). As shown in Fig. 2I, there are two distinct regions of nanocores with two different pitches (see annotated Fig. 2I below), and there is transparent electrode layer 150 formed on the mask in the isolation region between them as shown in annotated Fig. 2I below.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, to implement the continuous electrode layer (16) of Heo, as shown by Kum (continuous electrode layer 150, Fig. 2I), so that all the nanocores are electrically connected to form a functional display device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2016/0013362 A1, of record).
Re Claim 8, Heo teaches a semiconductor light emitting element (Fig. 2) comprising:
a growth substrate (11, Fig. 2, para [0056]);
a mask (13, Fig. 2, para [0058]) formed on the growth substrate (11); and
a columnar semiconductor layer (15-1, Fig. 2, para [0059]) grown from at least one opening that is provided in the mask (see Fig. 2),
wherein the columnar semiconductor layer (15-1) includes an n-type nanowire layer formed at a center thereof (15a-1, n-type GaN, Fig. 2, para [0060]), an active layer formed on an outer periphery of the n-type nanowire layer (15b-1, active layer, Fig. 2, para [0061]), and a p- type semiconductor layer formed on an outer periphery of the active layer (15c-1, p-type GaN, Fig. 2, para [0062]), and
wherein the openings in a first region (Region-I with nanocores 15-1, Fig. 2, para [0067]) and the openings in a second region of the growth substrate (Region-II with nanocores 15-2, Fig. 2, para [0067])) are the same in height of the n-type nanowire layer (see Fig. 2, where both regions have same height).
Heo does not disclose that the openings in the first region and the openings in a second region of the growth substrate are the same in opening ratio and different in opening diameter and pitch.
Examiner notes that the opening ratio (%) in the original specification of the applicant is defined as, 2π/√3 * (r/p)2 * 100, para [0046] of the original specification of the present application, where r is the radius of the opening/nanocores (note that the diameter of openings and nanocores are same, see Fig. 1 of original specification), and p is the pitch of the openings/nanocores.
Heo discloses that the emission wavelength of the different regions can be varied based on the diameter, pitch, height and Indium composition of the nanocore, as given by the formulas in para [0068]. Moreover, the display region can have multiple regions (more than 3), each providing different wavelengths (para [0069]). Considering the height of the nanocores remain fixed, as taught by Heo (in Fig. 2), one of ordinary skill in the art would realize there are only four possible ways to change the wavelength according to the formula provided by Heo – (i) vary the pitch (p) but keep diameter (d) fixed; (ii) keep the pitch (p) constant but vary the diameter (d); (iii) change both the pitch (p) and the diameter (d) of the nanocores of each regions in such a way that their ratio, p/d, stays constant; and (iv) change both the pitch (p) and the diameter (d), such that the ratio p/d also varies. All the above scenarios will lead to a different quantum well thickness Ti, for each regions, and hence different emitted wavelengths for each regions. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue all the known options and reach the claimed limitation with anticipated success, where both the pitch and the diameter of the nanocores are varying but their ratio is kept constant, see KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2016/0013362 A1), Dupont et al. (US 2019/0165040 A1, newly cited) and Kum et al. (US 2016/0126419 A1, of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0194571 A1, hereinafter “Lee’571”).
Re Claim 10, Heo modified by Dupont and Kum teaches the semiconductor light emitting element according to claim 6,
wherein in the first region (Region-II, Fig. 5), the second region (Region-I, Fig. 5), or a third region (Region-III, Fig. 5) of the growth substrate, the n-type nanowire layer (25a-1 / 25a-2 / 25a-3) includes a semipolar plane (the top slanted surfaces of 25a-1 / 25a-2 / 25a-3 are the semipolar planes, Fig. 5, also see examiner notes below), and the active layer (25b-1 / 25b-2 / 25b-3) is formed on the semipolar plane.
Examiner notes that Heo does not explicitly state that the top slanting surfaces of the nanocores are semipolar plane. However, Heo does disclose that the nanocores 135a (similar to 15a) has semi-polar planes (Fig. 12F, para [0168]). Furthermore, as evident from Fig. 2 of Lee’571, the top slanting surfaces of the nanocores are r-planes or semipolar planes (para [0066]), and is well-known in this field of art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. (US 2016/0093665 A1, newly cited).
Re Claim 11, Schubert teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor light emitting element, the method comprising:
a mask step of forming (6, Fig. 7, para [0084], also see para [0066]), on a growth substrate (5, Fig. 7, para [0084]), a mask layer including an opening (10, Fig. 7, para [0084]); and
a growth step of forming a columnar semiconductor layer in the opening (para [0085]) by using selective growth (grown by MOCVD, para [0085]),
wherein the growth step includes a step of forming an n-type nanowire layer (2, Fig. 7, para [0084]), a step of forming an active layer (4, Fig. 7, para [0085]) on an outer side of the n-type nanowire layer (see Fig. 7), and a step of forming a p- type semiconductor layer (3, Fig. 7, para [0085]) on an outer side of the active layer (see Fig. 7), and
wherein in the mask step, an opening diameter of the opening is set in a range of 100 nm or more and 200 nm or less (diameter of apertures 10, can be 50 nm to 200 nm, para [0084])
Schubert does not explicitly state that an opening ratio of the opening is 0.1% or more and 5.0% or less.
Examiner notes that the opening ratio (%) in the original specification of the applicant is defined as, 2π/√3 * (r/p)2 * 100, para [0046] of the original specification of the present application, where r is the radius of the opening and p is the pitch of the openings/nanocores.
Schubert discloses that the diameter of the openings can be 200 nm (so radius will be 100 nm, para [0084]) and the pitch of the openings can be 1.5 µm (para [0084]), resulting in an opening ratio of 1.6%, within the claimed range.
Regarding the limitation, “an In composition ratio in the active layer is in a range of 0.10 or more and 0.40 or less”, Schubert teaches that Indium concentration can vary from 0 and 1, providing a peak emission wavelength between, 375 and 1100 nm (para [0085]), encompassing the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the Indium concentration to get the desired wavelength and arrive at the claimed range. With respect to the limitations of the claim, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The optimization of the claimed Indium concentration to get the desired wavelength would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 8, applicant argued that “Heo is entirely silent regarding the ratio of pitch and diameter.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Though Heo discloses that “the size of nanocores may be controlled by using only one of diameter and height.”, it does not exclude the possibility where other parameters can be varied. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom,” see MPEP 2144.01. As stated in the rejection of claim 8 above, Heo clearly disclosed the different parameters (see formulas in para [0068]) that one can tune to achieve the desired emitted wavelengths. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the parameters in the formulae can be tuned to reach the claimed limitation with routine experimentation, especially when there are only limited options available as stated in the rejection of claim 8 above. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898