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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Appeal Brief filed on August 10, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 3, 6-28, 31-33 and 42 have been canceled. Claims 29-30 and 34 have been withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-5, 35-41 and 43-47 are pending.
The finality of the previous Office Action is hereby withdrawn and prosecution of the application is reopened.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on August 10, 2026, with respect to the limitation, “the active region is configured to impart holes in the QWs with a diffusion length greater than 0.5 times the lateral dimension”, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant persuasively distinguishes the lateral injection of holes into the QWs from the subsequent lateral diffusion of those holes within the QWs. Applicant further explains that parameters such as the indium composition and thickness of QWs maybe adjusted to affect and improve the diffusion length of holes within the QWs. Accordingly, the rejection based solely on Speck does not establish that the active region is configured to provide the claimed diffusion length.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Speck teaches that holes directly injected into InGaN quantum wells (QWs) necessarily have an inherently small lateral diffusion length. Applicant’s reliance on this statement is misplaced because the cited discussion applies only to Speck’s specific V-defect injection configuration. In that configuration, a local drift field and band bending cause laterally injected holes to be captured and to recombine near the V-defect edge which concentrates the lateral hole injection into a small portion of the QW area. Thus, the phrase “a very small lateral diffusion length” describes the carrier behavior limited to that specific V-defect injection arrangement. It does not establish a general rule that every embodiment in Speck such as the separately disclosed p-type active region lateral injector necessarily have an inherently small lateral hole diffusion length.
The Examiner further disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Speck teaches away from improving the hole diffusion length within the QWs based on Speck’s statement that the “hole diffusion length in QWs cannot readily improved as it is determined by electron-hole recombination”. Speck does not state that increasing hole diffusion length in the QWs is impossible, undesirable or should be avoided. Rather, Speck identifies increasing hole diffusion length in the QB layers as another technique for improving lateral hole transport.
A reference does not teach away merely because it discloses or prefers an alternative approach. Teaching away generally requires the prior art to criticize, discredit or discourage the claimed solution. Accordingly, Speck’s statement that the diffusion length in the QWs is not “readily’ improved does not amount to a teaching away from modifying the QWs to improve hole diffusion. Rather, Speck recognizes the difficulty associated with improving diffusion in the QWs and provides alternative solution. The statement does not discourage one of ordinary skill from employing other known techniques for improving hole diffusion within QWs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 35-37, 39-41, 44 -45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speck et al. (WO 2021/055599 A1; hereafter Speck) in view of Lee et al. (US 9,018,618 B1; hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Speck teaches a method for electrical operation of a micro-LED (see e.g., Figure 20c), the method comprising:
driving the micro-LED (see e.g., micro-LED mesa 1960, Figure 20c) with an electrical power via at a p-type contact (see e.g., electrical power provided to the p-contact, Figure 20c) disposed on at least one of:
a horizontal face of the micro-LED; or a non-horizontal face of the micro-LED (see e.g., the p-contact disposed on the horizontal face of the micro-LED mesa 1960), the p-type contact contacting a p-type layer (see e.g., the p-contact disposed on the p-GaN layer 1918, Figure 20c);
injecting, by driving the micro-LED with the electrical power, holes from the p-type contact into the p-type layer; and (see e.g., upon driving the micro-LED mesa 1960 with electrical power, holes are injected from the p-contact into the p-GaN layer, Figure 20c)
laterally injecting, along the non-horizontal face of the micro-LED, the holes from the p-type layer to an active region having a plurality of quantum wells (QWs) with respective horizontal regions arranged along a horizontal direction of the micro-LED, the holes being injected to the plurality of QWs via the p-type layer (see e.g., a plurality of quantum wells in the active region 1908 of the micro-LED mesa 1960. The quantum wells have horizontal regions arranged along the horizontal direction of the micro-LED mesa 1960. The holes are laterally injected along the non-horizontal face of the micro-LED mesa 1960 from the p-GaN layer 1918 into the quantum wells, Page 52, Lines 25-29, Page 53, Lines 5-8, Page 65, Lines 12-15, Figure 20c),
wherein the micro-LED has a lateral dimension along the horizontal direction (see e.g., as shown in Figure 20(c) the micro-LED has a lateral dimension along the horizontal direction),
Speck does not explicitly teach
“the active region is configured to impart holes in the QWs with a diffusion length greater than 0.5 times the lateral dimension”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lee teaches the general concept that the characteristics of the QWs of an LED active region may be deliberately modified to control carrier behavior within the active region. Lee teaches adjusting the indium composition and thickness of the QWs to improve hole injection efficiency, hole diffusion and electron-hole recombination within the active layer.
Thus, Lee demonstrates that the indium composition and thickness of the QWs are not fixed design parameters and may be selected and modified to affect hole diffusion within the QWs.
Accordingly, the indium composition and thickness of the QWs constitute result-effective variables because changes in these parameters affect the relevant result namely hole diffusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the indium composition and/or thickness of QWs of Speck through routine experimentation to obtain a desired hole diffusion length, including a diffusion length greater than 0.5 times the lateral dimension of the micro-LED, thereby improving hole transport and electron-hole recombination efficiency in the active region.
Regarding claim 4, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“wherein the injected holes, in at least one QW of the plurality of QWs, have a recombination lifetime greater than 5 nanoseconds (ns)”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lee teaches the general concept that the characteristics of the QWs of an LED active region may be deliberately modified to control carrier behavior within the active region. Lee teaches adjusting the indium composition and thickness of the QWs to improve hole injection efficiency, hole diffusion and electron-hole recombination within the active layer.
Thus, Lee demonstrates that the QW composition and thickness are known design parameters that affect the recombination characteristics within the QWs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the indium composition and/or thickness of QWs of Speck through routine experimentation to obtain a desired carrier recombination characteristics, including a recombination lifetime greater than 5 nanoseconds as these QW parameters are result effective variables affecting carrier diffusion and recombination within the active region.
Regarding claim 35, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck further teaches
wherein the non-horizontal face is a slanted sidewall of a semiconductor mesa of the micro-LED, the slanted sidewall being arranged at an angle between 10 degrees and 80 degrees with respect to the horizontal direction (see e.g., the device of any of the examples 14-21 may have sidewalls inclined at an angle of less than 45 degrees or at an angle between 45 degrees and 60 degrees with respect to the base of the 3D engineered structures so as to increase surface area contact of the quantum wells with the p-type layer, Page 6, Lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 36, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck further teaches
wherein the plurality of QWs includes at least three QWs (see e.g., the active region comprises a large number of QWs for very high active region volume to enhance efficiency and reduce droop. Many optimized LED designs incorporate multi-quantum well (MQW) active regions, hoping to reduce the carrier density per quantum well (QW) at a given current density (J), Page 40, Lines 18-19);
Speck does not explicitly teach
“respective percentages of the injected holes that are diffused in the at least three QWs are less than 50 percent and greater than 25 percent”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lee teaches the general concept that the characteristics of the QWs of an LED active region may be deliberately modified to control carrier behavior within the active region. Lee teaches adjusting the indium composition and thickness of the QWs to improve hole injection efficiency, hole diffusion and electron-hole recombination within the active layer.
Thus, Lee demonstrates that the QW composition and thickness are result effective variables affecting the extent to which injected holes diffuse and are distributed among the QWs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the indium composition and/or thickness of QWs of Speck through routine experimentation to obtain a desired distribution of injected holes among the plurality of QWs including respective percentages are less than 50 percent and greater than 25 percent in at least three QWs in order to provide improved and more uniform hole distribution and thereby enhance electron-hole recombination efficiency within the active region.
Regarding claim 37, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“wherein the plurality of quantum wells (QWs) have respective diffusion coefficients of greater than or equal to 1 centimeter-squared per second (cm2/s) at a current density of less than 20 amps per centimeter-squared (A/cm2)”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lee teaches the general concept that the characteristics of the QWs of an LED active region may be deliberately modified to control carrier behavior within the active region. Lee teaches adjusting the indium composition and thickness of the QWs to improve hole injection efficiency, hole diffusion and electron-hole recombination within the active layer.
Thus, Lee demonstrates that the QW composition and thickness are known design parameters that affect carrier diffusion characteristics within the active region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the indium composition and/or thickness of QWs of Speck through routine experimentation to obtain a desired hole diffusion characteristic, including respective diffusion coefficients of greater than or equal to 1 centimeter-squared per second (cm2/s) at a current density of less than 20 amps per centimeter-squared (A/cm2) in order to improve lateral hole diffusion and carrier distribution within the active region.
Regarding claim 39, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck further teaches
wherein the micro-LED includes GaN-based materials (see e.g., the 3D engineered structures comprise GaN based layers, Figure 20c).
Regarding claim 40, Speck teaches a method for electrical operation of a micro-LED mesa (see e.g., device 900, Figures 19b, 20c and 21b)
including an n- doped material having a surface defining a horizontal direction (see e.g., n-GaN 1917 having a surface defining a horizontal direction, Figure 19),
a multiple-quantum-well (MQW) region arranged in the horizontal direction (see e.g., active region 1908 comprising multi quantum wells arranged in the horizontal direction, Figure 19);
a first p-doped material arranged in the horizontal direction above the MQW region;
a second p-doped material disposed on a lateral portion of the micro-LED mesa and laterally from the MQW region (see e.g., p-GaN layer 1906 disposed in the horizontal direction above the active region 1908 and on the sidewalls of the of the active region 1908, Figure 19),
a p-contact formed on at least one of the first p-doped material and the second p-doped material (see e.g., a p-contact formed on the horizontal portion of the p-GaN layer 1906, Figure 20c), and
an n-contact electrically connected to the n-doped material (see e.g., n-contact electrically connected to the n-GaN layer, Figure 20c), the method comprising:
injecting electrons through the n-contact into the n-doped material, and from the n-doped material into the MQW region (see e.g., electrons are injected from the n-contact into the n-GaN and from the n-GaN to the QWs where they recombine with holes, Figures 20c and 21b); and
injecting holes through the p-contact into the first p-doped material and the second p- doped material, and, from the second p-doped material, laterally into the MQW region (see e.g., injecting holes through the p-contact into the horizontal and the lateral portions of the p-GaN layer 1906. From the lateral portions of the p-GaN layer 1906 laterally into the active region 1908, Figures 20c and 21b).
Speck does not explicitly teach
“wherein the MQW region is configured to impart a lateral hole diffusion length greater than lµm in quantum wells (QWs) of the MQW region.”
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lee teaches the general concept that the characteristics of the QWs of an LED active region may be deliberately modified to control carrier behavior within the active region. Lee teaches adjusting the indium composition and thickness of the QWs to improve hole injection efficiency, hole diffusion and electron-hole recombination within the active layer.
Thus, Lee demonstrates that the indium composition and thickness of the QWs are not fixed design parameters and may be selected and modified to affect hole diffusion within the QWs.
Accordingly, the indium composition and thickness of the QWs constitute result-effective variables because changes in these parameters affect the relevant result namely hole diffusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the indium composition and/or thickness of QWs of Speck through routine experimentation to obtain a desired hole diffusion length, including a diffusion length greater than 1µm in order to improve lateral hole transport and carrier distribution within the MQW active region.
Regarding claim 41, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 40 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“wherein the lateral hole diffusion length of holes in quantum wells (QWs) of the MQW region is larger than a lateral dimension of the micro-LED mesa”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lee teaches the general concept that the characteristics of the QWs of an LED active region may be deliberately modified to control carrier behavior within the active region. Lee teaches adjusting the indium composition and thickness of the QWs to improve hole injection efficiency, hole diffusion and electron-hole recombination within the active layer.
Thus, Lee demonstrates that the indium composition and thickness of the QWs are known design parameters that affect hole diffusion within the QWs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the indium composition and/or thickness of QWs of Speck through routine experimentation to obtain a desired hole diffusion length, including a diffusion length greater than the lateral dimension of the micro-LED mesa in order to improve lateral hole transport and carrier distribution and electron-hole recombination efficiency throughout the MQW active region.
Regarding claim 44, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 40 as mentioned above. Speck further teaches
wherein the micro-LED mesa has a perimeter that is bound by the second p-doped material (see e.g., the micro-LED shown in Figure 16 has a perimeter bound by the lateral portion of the p-GaN).
Regarding claim 45, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 40 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“wherein 30% or less of the holes are injected into a single quantum well (QW) of the MQW region”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lee teaches the general concept that the characteristics of the QWs of an LED active region may be deliberately modified to control carrier behavior within the active region. Lee teaches adjusting the indium composition and thickness of the QWs to improve hole injection efficiency, hole diffusion and electron-hole recombination within the active layer.
Thus, Lee demonstrates that the indium composition and thickness of the QWs are known result-effective variables affecting how injected holes are distributed among the plurality of QWs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the indium composition and/or thickness of QWs of Speck through routine experimentation to obtain a desired distribution of holes throughout the MQW region including a distribution in which 30% or less of the holes are injected into a single quantum well (QW) of the MQW region in order to promote a more uniform distribution of holes among the plurality of QWs and improve electron-hole recombination efficiency throughout the active region.
Regarding claim 47, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 40 as mentioned above. Speck further teaches
wherein the micro-LED mesa emits light with a wavelength of greater than or equal to 600 nanometers (see e.g., the QWs are configured to emit electromagnetic radiation having a red wavelength (red light has wavelength more than 600nm)).
Claims 2, 38, 43 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speck et al. (WO 2021/055599 A1; hereafter Speck) in view of Lee et al. (US 9,018,618 B1; hereafter Lee) and further in view of Dimitropoulos et al. (US 2020/0105969 A1; hereafter Dimitropoulos).
Regarding claim 2, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“the lateral dimension along the horizontal direction is between 0.5 micrometers (µm) and 5 µm;”
In a similar field of endeavor Dimitropoulos teaches
the micro-LED has a lateral dimension along the horizontal direction between 0.5 micrometers (µm) and 5 µm (see e.g., the width of the LED may range from 1-50µm, Para [0048], Figure 3);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Dimitropoulos’s teachings of the micro-LED has a lateral dimension along the horizontal direction between 0.5 micrometers (µm) and 5 µm in the method of Speck in order to maintain high efficiency at reduced device sizes.
Regarding claim 38, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“wherein light is emitted from the plurality of QWs at a lateral distance along the horizontal direction of greater than or equal to 1 micrometer (µm) from the non-horizontal face of the micro-LED”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Dimitropoulos demonstrates a method for controlling light emission by modifying the QW. By reducing the thickness of the QW active region along the sloped sidewall, the energy bandgap of the crystal in that area is increased. This higher energy bandgap creates an energy barrier, which restricts charge carriers and confines them to the flat portion of the QW. A secondary effect of this thinner QW is an increased forward voltage in the p-n junction of the sloped sidewalls. The combined effect of thinner p-layer and QW active region in the sloped sidewall may effectively cause greater than 90% of a forward bias hole injection to be confined to the flat portion of an LED, causing light to be emitted predominantly from this specific region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the light emission mainly from the horizontal portion of the QWs in order to overcome the efficiency problems caused by sidewall effects in micro-LEDs.
Regarding claim 43, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 40 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicit teach
“wherein the micro-LED mesa has a width less than 10 microns”.
In a similar field of endeavor Dimitropoulos teaches
wherein the micro-LED mesa has a width less than 10 microns (see e.g., the width of the LED may range from 1-50µm, Para [0048], Figure 3);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Dimitropoulos’s teachings of wherein the micro-LED mesa has a width less than 10 microns in the method of Speck in order to maintain high efficiency at reduced device sizes.
Regarding claim 46, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 40 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“the micro-LED mesa emits light with a first intensity (I1) at an edge of the micro-LED mesa and a second intensity (I2) at a center of the micro-LED mesa; and I2/Il is greater than or equal to 30%”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Dimitropoulos demonstrates a method for controlling light emission by modifying the QW. By reducing the thickness of the QW active region along the sloped sidewall, the energy bandgap of the crystal in that area is increased. This higher energy bandgap creates an energy barrier, which restricts charge carriers and confines them to the flat portion of the QW. A secondary effect of this thinner QW is an increased forward voltage in the p-n junction of the sloped sidewalls. The combined effect of thinner p-layer and QW active region in the sloped sidewall may effectively cause greater than 90% of a forward bias hole injection to be confined to the flat portion of an LED, causing light to be emitted predominantly from this specific region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the light emission mainly from the horizontal portion of the QWs in order to overcome the efficiency problems caused by sidewall effects in micro-LEDs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speck et al. (WO 2021/055599 A1; hereafter Speck) in view of Lee et al. (US 9,018,618 B1; hereafter Lee) and further in view of Lai et al. (US 9,590,139 B1; hereafter Lai).
Regarding claim 5, Speck, as modified by Lee, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Speck does not explicitly teach
“wherein driving the micro-LED with the electrical power includes driving the micro-LED with a current density between 1 amp/centimeter-squared (A/cm2) and 100 A/cm2”.
Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Lai teaches
wherein driving the micro-LED with the electrical power includes driving the micro-LED with a current density between 1 amp/centimeter-squared (A/cm2) and 100 A/cm2 (see e.g., the LED may operate under a lower current density in an operating range from 0.001 amperes/square centimeter to 4 amperes/square centimeter, or under a higher current density in an operating range from 20 amperes/centimeter square to 70 amperes/square centimeter, Page 6, Lines 35-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Lai’s teachings of wherein driving the micro-LED with the electrical power includes driving the micro-LED with a current density between 1 amp/centimeter-squared (A/cm2) and 100 A/cm2 in the method of Speck in order to minimize the effect of the efficiency droop in the external quantum efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170170360 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights