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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pixel-unit as found in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-17, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(Re Claim 1) Claim 1 now recites the following new matter: “the laser device has a resolution equal to or greater than a pixel unit to form the etched organic material layer as a pixel-unit pattern without a mask device”.
While a laser device with a resolution as claimed has original support (¶101), that the etched organic material layer is formed without a mask device does not. Further description of the laser operation is present in ¶102, but nowhere is the operation described as maskless.
Applicant points to ¶124 for support, but there appears to only be a description of a maskless operation related to transferring the organic material, if an undefined pixel unit that is not shown refers to structure contained within the claimed display substrate, rather than a maskless operation that etches it (remarks, p. 7): “an organic material layer OL of a light-emitting element may be selectively deposited on a pixel unit in a large scale without a mask device. Unlike a typical technology in which a part irradiated with a laser device LS (see FIG. 5A) is transferred, a part remaining after being etched with the laser device LS may be transferred, thereby improving the accuracy of transfer process.”
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 12-17, and 23-25 inherit this rejection for new matter.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-17, and 23-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(Re Claim 1) As a maskless operation to etch the organic material layer was not originally described, the relationship between parts and what is required at each step during the claimed method are unclear.
During examination, “wherein the laser device has a resolution equal to or greater than a pixel unit to form the etched material layer as a pixel-unit pattern without a mask device” was read as “wherein the laser device has a resolution equal to or greater than a pixel unit to form the etched material layer as a pixel-unit pattern”.
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 12-17, and 23-25 inherit this rejection for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509), of record.
(Re Claim 1) Yokoyama teaches a method for manufacturing a display device, comprising:
providing a donor substrate (101+102+103; Fig. 1A) including a first base substrate (101+102) and an organic material layer (103; Fig. 1A) disposed on the first base substrate; etching the organic material layer (Fig. 1C) to form an etched organic material layer (103b; Fig. 1A) using a laser device (light 108 is generated through a laser; ¶62); providing a display substrate (201+202+203; Fig. 5C) including a second base substrate (201; Fig. 5C) and a plurality of first electrodes (202; Fig. 5C) disposed on the second base substrate; aligning the donor substrate (Fig. 5C) and the display substrate (Fig. 5C) such that the etched organic material layer faces the plurality of first electrodes (Fig. 5C); and transferring the etched organic material layer to the display substrate using an energy generation device (energy generation device produces radiation heat 204; ¶¶77, 79-80),
wherein the laser device has a resolution (coextensive with the light 108; Fig. 1C) equal to or greater than a pixel unit (the portions of 206 and 202 that overlap with the left opening in 203 as seen in Fig. 5C) to form the etched organic material layer as a pixel-unit pattern without a mask device (Fig. 1C; see the 112(b) rejection).
(Re Claim 2) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the organic material layer comprises at least one of a hole control layer, a light-emitting layer (EL layer; ¶¶52, 77), and an electron control layer.
(Re Claim 12) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an area of a heat source of the energy generation device is equal to or greater than an area (coextensive with the area of one of 103b elements shown in Fig. 5C) of the donor substrate in a plan view (as the area of a heat source is large enough to cause evaporation of the etched organic material layer across the entire donor substrate, the area of the heat source is equal to or greater than an area of the donor substrate as defined).
(Re Claim 23) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first base substrate comprises a light-to-heat conversion layer (102; ¶64).
(Re Claim 24) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the energy generation device emits light (from the flash lamp; ¶79).
(Re Claim 25) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the energy generation device provides a heat source (from the flash lamp as radiation heat; ¶79).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 2010/0084676) and Asano (US 2009/0015153), all of record.
(Re Claim 3) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, but has not been shown to teach a method wherein the first base substrate comprises at least one of silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), and silicon carbide (SiC).
Tanaka teaches forming a first base substrate (50+51+52+54; Fig. 10) with a layer of silicon nitride (54; ¶103) on top of a light-to-heat conversion layer (52; Fig. 10).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form a layer of silicon nitride on top of the light-to-heat conversion layer 102 of Yokoyama, as taught by Tanaka, as silicon nitride is chemically stable and protects underlying layers from damage during an evaporation process. This may also allow for reuse of the first base substrate of Yokoyama (Tanaka: ¶103).
Asano teaches that SiN is associated with Si3N4 when a SiN layer is a protection layer (Asano: ¶¶30, 42).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use Si3N4 as the SiN material when forming the silicon nitride on modified Yokoyama’s first base substrate as this material also has good moisture resistance (Asano: ¶30).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2009/0280589) and Bang et al. (US 2015/0270486), all of record.
(Re Claim 5) Modified Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the method wherein the laser device emits light having a wavelength in an ultraviolet region, and the first base substrate comprises at least one of indium-tin oxide (ITO), zinc-tin oxide (ZTO), and fluorinated tin oxide (FTO).
Ikeda teaches using light having a wavelength in an ultraviolet region region to etch an organic material layer (Fig. 1C; ¶69).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use a laser device that emits light having a wavelength in an ultraviolet region, as taught by Ikeda, as that range is suitable for patterning an organic material layer, preventing deformation during subsequent evaporation (Ikeda: ¶26; Yokoyama: ¶86). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Bang teaches forming a first base substrate (21+22; Fig. 6) using ITO (light-to-heat layer conversion 22 may include ITO when forming it as a multilayered structure; ¶48).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the light-to-heat conversion layer 102 of the first base substrate of modified Yokoyama using the multilayered structure of Bang that includes ITO (Bang: ¶¶47-48), as this is a known alternative to using titanium or aluminum (Bang: ¶48; Yokoyama: ¶¶17-18) that is suitable for light absorption. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2009/0280589), all of record.
(Re Claim 6) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first base substrate comprises at least one of carbon (102 may be formed from carbon; ¶46), silicon, and germanium.
Yokoyama has not been shown to explicitly teach the laser device emits light having a wavelength in a visible region.
Ikeda teaches using light having a wavelength in a visible region to etch an organic material layer (Fig. 1C; ¶69).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use a laser device that emits light having a wavelength in a visible region, as taught by Ikeda, as that range is suitable for patterning an organic material layer, preventing deformation during subsequent evaporation (Ikeda: ¶26; Yokoyama: ¶86). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
(Re Claim 7) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the first base substrate comprises at least one of glass (glass; ¶44), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and aluminum oxynitride.
Yokoyama has not been shown to explicitly teach the laser device emits light having a wavelength in an infrared region.
Ikeda teaches using light having a wavelength in an infrared region to etch an organic material layer (Fig. 1C; ¶69).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use a laser device that emits light having a wavelength in an infrared region, as taught by Ikeda, as that range is suitable for patterning an organic material layer, preventing deformation during subsequent evaporation (Ikeda: ¶26; Yokoyama: ¶86). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott (5,879,961) and Franson (US 2003/0010988), all of record.
(Re Claim 8) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the method wherein the laser device is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.
Scott teaches vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser devices may emit in the infrared, visible, and ultraviolet wavelengths (col. 8 ln. 33-36).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser for the laser device of Yokoyama, as they emit across a wide range (Scott: col. 8 ln. 33-36; Yokoyama: ¶62), and have low temperature sensitivity (Franson: ¶151).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) of record as applied to claim 1 above.
(Re Claim 9) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transferring of the etched organic material layer to the display substrate comprises: moving the donor substrate to contact (d = 0 mm; Fig. 5C) the display substrate; and supplying energy (energy from light 204; Fig. 5C) by the energy generation device (¶80).
Yokoyama has not been shown to explicitly teach aligning the energy generation device to face the display substrate with the donor substrate interposed therebetween.
Yokoyama teaches aligning an energy generation device (910; Fig. 9) to face a display substrate (910; Fig. 9) with a donor substrate (911; Fig. 9) interposed therebetween).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to align the energy generation device of modified Yokoyama to face the display substrate with the donor substrate interposed therebetween, when evaporating the etched organic material layer 103b as shown in Fig. 5C, as taught by Yokohama’s Fig. 9 embodiment, as the Fig. 9 embodiment is considered suitable for producing the light 204 of Fig. 5C (“Note that the structure described in this embodiment can be combined with any of the structures in Embodiments 1 to 3 as appropriate “; ¶133).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Culver et al. (US 2004/0028942), all of record.
(Re Claim 13) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, but has not been explicitly shown to teach the method wherein the energy generation device supplies energy toward the first base substrate while moving on the donor substrate.
Culver teaches that a localized laser source (28; Fig. 2a) may be used to evaporate an organic material layer on a donor substrate (14+16+30; Fig. 2a) for deposition onto a display substrate (36; Fig. 2a), as an alternative to using a flash lamp (¶¶122-123). Culver also teaches scanning the beam across the donor substrate (¶142).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use a laser source as taught by Culver as the energy generation device of Yokoyama, as this allows for localized, consistent vaporization of each etched organic material layer 103b when transferring the etched organic material layer to the display substrate.
Yokoyama teaches scanning a laser beam across a donor substrate by moving on the donor substrate (Fig. 8, ¶111).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to scan the energy generation device of modified Yokoyama by moving it across the donor substrate, in the manner taught by Yokoyama, as this allows for transfer of each portion of the etched organic material layer 103b of modified Yokoyama to the display substrate when using a beam size less than the total area of the donor substrate.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) as applied to claim 1 above, all of record.
(Re Claim 14) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, but has not explicitly been shown to teach the method wherein the laser device emits laser toward the organic material layer while moving on the donor substrate.
Yokoyama teaches a laser device (801; Fig. 8) emitting light (¶107) towards a donor substrate (813; Fig. 8) while moving on the donor substrate (¶111).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to have the laser device emit a laser toward the organic material layer while moving on the donor substrate, as Yokoyama describes with respect to the embodiment of Fig. 8, as the Fig. 8 embodiment is suitable for use with the embodiment of Fig. 5C (“Note that the structure described in this embodiment can be combined with the structure described in Embodiment 1 or 2 as appropriate”; ¶117).
(Re Claim 15) Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, but has not been explicitly shwon to teach the method wherein the display substrate further comprises a hole control layer disposed on the plurality of first electrodes.
Yokoyama teaches sequentially forming a hole control layer before forming a light-emitting and electron control layer (Fig. 10B, ¶153).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious for the display substrate to further comprise a hole control layer (hole-injecting and hole-transport layer; ¶153) on the plurality of first electrodes, as a consequence of sequentially forming a light-emitting element having multiple organic material layers (Fig. 10B) that improve the functioning of the light-emitting element, where the transferring step of Yokoyama’s method is then after forming the hole-transport layer. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
(Re Claim 16) Modified Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the transferring of the etched organic material layer to the display substrate comprises: transferring a light-emitting layer on the hole control layer (¶23). Modified Yokoyama has not been shown to explicitly teach the method wherein the transferring the etched organic material layer to the display substrate comprises transferring an electron control layer on the light-emitting layer.
Yokoyama does describe sequentially forming an electron control layer (electron-transporting layer and electron-injecting layer; Fig. 10B, ¶153) before forming after forming a light-emitting layer (Fig. 10B, ¶153).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious then when forming the light-emitting element having multiple organic material layer for improving the functioning of the light-emitting element, that additional layers may be formed on the hole control layer and light-emitting layer of modified Yokoyama.
The step of transferring the etched organic material layer to the display substrate then comprises the step of transferring a light-emitting layer on the hole control layer (¶23) as shown in Fig. 5C, as well as an additional step of transferring an electron control layer on the light-emitting layer using another donor substrate (¶153).
The claim language does not restrict sub-steps within the step of transferring the etched organic material to the display substrate such that another donor substrate cannot be used for the electron control layer transfer while still being a part of the transferring of the etched organic material layer to the display substrate.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0269509) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noh (US 2013/0023071), both of record.
(Re Claim 17) Modified Yokoyama teaches the method of claim 1, but has not been explicitly shown to teach the method wherein the etched organic material layer comprises a hole control layer, a light-emitting layer, and an electron control layer, and the transferring of the etched organic material layer to the display substrate comprises transferring, all at once, the hole control layer, the light-emitting layer, and the electron control layer, each sequentially stacked, onto each of the plurality of first electrodes.
Noh teaches forming a donor substrate (200; Fig. 2) using an organic material layer (240; Fig. 2) comprising a multi-layer structure that includes a hole control layer (hole injection layer+hole transfer layer; ¶76), a light-emitting layer (an organic light emitting layer; ¶76), and an electron control layer (electron injection layer+electron transfer layer; ¶76).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the organic material layer using the multi-layer structure taught by Noh, as this reduces the number of steps required to form a light-emitting element that utilizes these performance improving structures, when compared to sequential deposition of these layers.
Yokoyama teaches a light-emitting element having a hole control layer (1011+1012; Fig. 10B), a light-emitting layer (1013; Fig. 10B), and an electron control layer (1014+1015) sequentially stacked.
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to arrange the structure taught by Noh in the sequence taught by Yokoyama as this produces a viable light-emitting element for a display. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As the etched organic material layer comprises the stack taught by Yokoyama and Noh, transferring the etched organic material layer as taught by modified Yokoyama will transfer all at once the hole control layer, the light-emitting layer, and the electron control layer, each sequentially stack (Yokoyama: Fig. 10B), onto each of the plurality of first electrodes (Yokoyama: Fig. 5C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[b]ecause Yokoyama relies on a mask substrate to define the pattern and does not disclose or suggest eliminating that mask substrate in favor of pixel-unit laser-resolution patterning, Yokoyama fails to teach or suggest the amended limitation”.
However, Applicant does not appear to have support for the amended limitation.
While a laser device with a resolution as claimed has original support (¶101), that the etched organic material layer is formed without a mask device does not. Further description of the laser operation is present in ¶102, but nowhere is the operation described as maskless.
Applicant points to ¶124 for support, but there appears to only be a description of a maskless operation related to transferring the organic material rather than a maskless operation that etches it (remarks, p. 7), if an undefined pixel unit that is not shown refers to structure contained within the claimed display substrate: “an organic material layer OL of a light-emitting element may be selectively deposited on a pixel unit in a large scale without a mask device. Unlike a typical technology in which a part irradiated with a laser device LS (see FIG. 5A) is transferred, a part remaining after being etched with the laser device LS may be transferred, thereby improving the accuracy of transfer process.”
From the whole disclosure, it appears that Applicant only has support for a maskless transfer step, rather than the maskless laser etch step that is argued (remarks, p. 7).
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Speier et al. (US 2013/0037838) teaches that a laser may be used with or without a mask to evaporate organic material (¶97). Chung et al. (US 2009/0266479) teaches moving a laser having different shapes across a light-to-heat conversion layer (¶¶88-89).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights