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 Amendment filed on December 16, 2025. Claims 1-2, and 40-41 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 29-30 and 34 have been withdrawn. Claims 3, 6-28, 31-33 and 42 have been canceled. Currently, claims 1-2, 4-5, 35-41, and 43-47 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that, “Speck discloses that hole-diffusion length in QWs is inherently very short and therefore, Speck cannot disclose 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”… primary purpose of embodiment 3 is to inject holes across more quantum wells in the vertical (epitaxial) direction, not in the lateral direction as shown in Figure 21….Speck is silent regarding a lateral uniformity of injection. The term, “lateral hole injector” merely refers to the inclusion of p-doped GaN on the mesa sidewalls. Speck does not disclose the presence of p-doped sidewalls around an active region will affect the carrier diffusion length in the quantum wells”.
The Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. While Speck indicates that hole-diffusion length is determined by electron-hole recombination and cannot be readily improved in QWs, Speck does not teach or suggest that it cannot be modified. The applicant fails to disclose that their structure introduces a new, non-inherent physical mechanism to alter material property beyond what is disclosed in Speck’s engineered structures.
Speck teaches 3D engineered structures, such as triangular or rectangular mesa and/or stripe structures, contrasting with conventional planar geometries. Speck explicitly teaches that a p-type layer in contact with multiple QWs on the mesa sidewalls, as shown in Figure 20c allows for lateral injection into the QWs. A conformal p-type layer at the sidewalls of the formed structure would ensure or allow or increase lateral hole injection in addition to the vertical injection (see e.g., page 33, lines 24-30, page 34, lines 1-10).
Speck’s 3D structure inherently mitigates the “short hole diffusion” issue by bringing the hole supply directly to the QWs’ edges, increasing lateral injection. Therefore, carrier injection in the whole active volume, called volumetric hole injection, is obtained, which improves the efficiency droop as it reduces carrier density for a given current density.
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).
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 a plurality of quantum wells (QWs) having 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”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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).
However, Speck discloses by incorporating a lateral hole injector into a p-type active region, holes are supplied from the sidewall of the MQW stack and can spread more evenly throughout the active region as shown in for example, Figure 20(c) (see e.g., Page 9, Lines 8-29; Page 10, Lines 1-3; Page 32, Lines 19-28; Page 33, Lines 1-4; Page 34, Lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize lateral hole diffusion length in the QWs in order to obtain volumetric hole injection which in turn improves the efficiency droop through a reduction in carrier density for a given current density.
Regarding claim 4, Speck, as modified in claim 1, 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)”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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).
However, Speck shows by incorporating a lateral hole injector into a p-type active region, holes are supplied from the sidewall of the MQW stack and can spread more evenly throughout the active region as shown in for example, Figure 20(c). Since holes have time to diffuse laterally this translates to a longer recombination lifetime for holes (see e.g., Page 19, Lines 3-12; Page 31, Lines 6-15; Page 33, Lines 5-20; Page 52, Lines 25-29; Page 53, Lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the recombination lifetime of holes in order to ensure a more uniform hole distribution across all QWs in the stack, which in turn reduces the high local carrier density in any single QW, thereby reducing Auger recombination and improving efficiency droop.
Regarding claim 35, Speck, as modified in claim 1, 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 in claim 1, 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”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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).
However, Speck describes designs aimed at achieving volumetric carrier injection where carriers are more uniformly distributed across all QWs in the active region. Unlike in conventional designs hole injection is inhomogeneous throughout the stack of QWs and only the top QWs, near the p-side of the LED heterostructure are populated by holes due to their larger effective mass compared to electrons.
By incorporating a lateral hole injector into a p-type active region, holes are supplied from the sidewall of the MQW stack and can spread more evenly throughout the active region as shown in for example, Figure 20(c) (see e.g., Page 32, Lines 19-28; Page 33, Lines 1-4; Page 34, Lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the percentage of holes injected into the QWs in order to obtain volumetric hole injection which in turn improves the efficiency droop through a reduction in carrier density for a given current density.
Regarding claim 37, Speck, as referred in modified 1, 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)”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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).
However, Speck teaches by incorporating a lateral hole injector into a p-type active region, holes are supplied from the sidewall of the MQW stack and can spread more evenly throughout the active region as shown in for example, Figure 20(c). This efficient hole transport translates to a higher diffusion coefficient for a given current density (see e.g., Page 32, Lines 19-28; Page 33, Lines 1-4; Page 34, Lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the diffusion coefficients of holes injected into the QWs in order to obtain volumetric hole injection which in turn improves the efficiency droop through a reduction in carrier density for a given current density.
Regarding claim 39, Speck, as modified in claim 1, 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.”
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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).
However, Speck discloses by incorporating a lateral hole injector into a p-type active region, holes are supplied from the sidewall of the MQW stack and can spread more evenly throughout the active region as shown in for example, Figure 20(c) (see e.g., Page 9, Lines 8-29; Page 10, Lines 1-3; Page 32, Lines 19-28; Page 33, Lines 1-4; Page 34, Lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize lateral hole diffusion length in the QWs in order to obtain volumetric hole injection which in turn improves the efficiency droop through a reduction in carrier density for a given current density.
Regarding claim 41, Speck, as modified in claim 40, 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”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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).
However, Speck discloses by incorporating a lateral hole injector into a p-type active region, holes are supplied from the sidewall of the MQW stack and can spread more evenly throughout the active region as shown in for example, Figure 20(c) (see e.g., Page 9, Lines 8-29; Page 10, Lines 1-3; Page 32, Lines 19-28; Page 33, Lines 1-4; Page 34, Lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the diffusion length of holes in the QWs in order to obtain volumetric hole injection which in turn improves the efficiency droop through a reduction in carrier density for a given current density.
Regarding claim 44, Speck, as modified in claim 40, 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 in claim 40, does not explicitly teach
“wherein 30% or less of the holes are injected into a single quantum well (QW) of the MQW region”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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).
However, Speck describes designs aimed at achieving volumetric carrier injection where carriers are more uniformly distributed across all QWs in the active region. Unlike in conventional designs hole injection is inhomogeneous throughout the stack of QWs and only the top QWs, near the p-side of the LED heterostructure are populated by holes due to their larger effective mass compared to electrons.
By incorporating a lateral hole injector into a p-type active region, holes are supplied from the sidewall of the MQW stack and can spread more evenly throughout the active region as shown in for example, Figure 20(c) (see e.g., Page 32, Lines 19-28; Page 33, Lines 1-4; Page 34, Lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the percentage of holes injected into the QWs in order to obtain volumetric hole injection which in turn improves the efficiency droop through a reduction in carrier density for a given current density.
Regarding claim 47, Speck, as modified in claim 40, 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 Dimitropoulos et al. (US 2020/0105969 A1; hereafter Dimitropoulos).
Regarding claim 2, Speck, as modified in claim 1, 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 in claim 1, 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”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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 in claim 40, 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 in claim 40, 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%”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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 Lai et al. (US 9,590,139 B1; hereafter Lai).
Regarding claim 5, Speck, as modified in claim 1, 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”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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
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 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