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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 26-30, 32-34 have been considered but are moot because the new 112 rejections below
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 1-7, 9 and 33 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.
The applicant amended claim 1 to include “the passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
The applicant points to paragraph [0077] for support.
Paragraph [0077] discloses: “Further, the light-scattering pattern 255 may be further disposed on the outer side surface of the lower portion 312 of the first semiconductor layer 315 (shown in FIG. 2C). The light-scattering pattern 255 may have a bumpy and irregular (or non-flat) surface. The light- scattering pattern 255 having the irregular surface may induce scattering of the emitted light to improve light extraction efficiency of the light-emitting device 300.”
Paragraph [0077] fails to disclose “the passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
The Federal Circuit has held:
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case it might be obvious to that [0077] discloses a “passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light” but the specification [0077] as filed fails to disclose “passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
Claims 26-30, 32 and 34 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.
The applicant amended claim 1 to include “the passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
The applicant points to paragraph [0077] for support.
Paragraph [0077] discloses: “Further, the light-scattering pattern 255 may be further disposed on the outer side surface of the lower portion 312 of the first semiconductor layer 315 (shown in FIG. 2C). The light-scattering pattern 255 may have a bumpy and irregular (or non-flat) surface. The light- scattering pattern 255 having the irregular surface may induce scattering of the emitted light to improve light extraction efficiency of the light-emitting device 300.”
Paragraph [0077] fails to disclose “the passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
The Federal Circuit has held:
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case it might be obvious to that [0077] discloses a “passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light” but the specification [0077] as filed fails to disclose “passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
Claims 29 is 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.
Claim 26 discloses a “passivation pattern”.
Claim 29 discloses “further comprising a light-scattering pattern”
The claims to not disclose the “light-scattering pattern” is a part of the “passivation pattern”.
The applicant amended claim 29 to disclose “the light-scattering pattern has a thickness of from about 100 nm to about 120 nm”.
The applicant notes that paragraphs [0052], [0055-0057] and [0136] disclose support for “the light-scattering pattern has a thickness of from about 100 nm to about 120 nm”.
Paragraph [0052] discloses “the passivation pattern 135 may have a thickness of 100 nm to 120 nm, and may be formed to have a thickness not exceeding 120 nm”
Paragraph [0055] discloses “the passivation pattern 135 is formed to have a thin thickness of 100 nm to 120 nm”.
Paragraph [0056] discloses “the thickness of the passivation pattern 135 is too thick, for example, thicker than 120 nm, the thick passivation pattern 135 may be a starting point at which the cracks start during the laser lift-off process”.
Paragraph [0057] discloses “To prevent such a defect, the passivation pattern 135 is formed to have a proper thickness such as 120 nm or less.”
Paragraph [0136] discloses “the passivation pattern 635 has a limitation in that the passivation pattern 635 should be formed to have a small thickness of 100 nm to 120 nm”
The Federal Circuit has held:
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case it might be obvious to that paragraphs [0052], [0055-0057] and [0137] support “the light-scattering pattern has a thickness of from about 100 nm to about 120 nm”. However the specification paragraphs [0052], [0055-0057] and [0136] fail to disclose “the light-scattering pattern has a thickness of from about 100 nm to about 120 nm”.
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 1-7, 9 and 33 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.
The applicant amended claim 1 to include “the passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
The term “sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner will not address the limitation “sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering”. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Claims 26-30 32 and 34 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.
The applicant amended claim 26 to include “the passivation pattern has a surface that is sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering of visible light”.
The term “sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner will not address the limitation “sufficiently irregular to promote substantial scattering”. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Claims 29 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.
Claim 26 discloses a “passivation pattern”.
Claim 29 discloses “further comprising a light-scattering pattern”
The claims to not disclose the “light-scattering pattern” is a part of the “passivation pattern”.
The applicant amended claim 29 to disclose “the light-scattering pattern has a thickness of from about 100 nm to about 120 nm”.
The applicant notes that paragraphs [0052], [0055-0057] and [0136] disclose support for “the light-scattering pattern has a thickness of from about 100 nm to about 120 nm”.
Paragraph [0052] discloses “the passivation pattern 135 may have a thickness of 100 nm to 120 nm, and may be formed to have a thickness not exceeding 120 nm”
Paragraph [0055] discloses “the passivation pattern 135 is formed to have a thin thickness of 100 nm to 120 nm”.
Paragraph [0056] discloses “the thickness of the passivation pattern 135 is too thick, for example, thicker than 120 nm, the thick passivation pattern 135 may be a starting point at which the cracks start during the laser lift-off process”.
Paragraph [0057] discloses “To prevent such a defect, the passivation pattern 135 is formed to have a proper thickness such as 120 nm or less.”
Paragraph [0136] discloses “the passivation pattern 635 has a limitation in that the passivation pattern 635 should be formed to have a small thickness of 100 nm to 120 nm”
The examiner is not clear if the “the light-scattering pattern thickness” refers to the passivation film or another film on the outer side of the first portion.
The examiner will not address the limitation “the light-scattering pattern has a thickness of from about 100 nm to about 120 nm”. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036).
Regarding claim 1, Forman et al. disclose a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer (110), an active layer (112) and a second semiconductor layer (114, 118) sequentially disposed on one another; and a passivation pattern (132) [0119](fig.1B) disposed on an outer surface (sidewalls, 134)(fig.1A) of the nitride semiconductor structure, wherein the first semiconductor layer includes a protrusion (portion of 110 outside of the sidewalls 134) (fig.1A) that protrudes (out to the side of the of) in a direction away from the active layer.
Regarding claim 2, Forman et al. disclose the protrusion is made of a same material as the first semiconductor layer and is integrated with the first semiconductor layer (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Forman et al. disclose the passivation pattern(132) exposes an outer side surface of the protrusion of the first semiconductor layer and covers the outer surface of the nitride semiconductor structure (fig. 1A).
Claim(s) 1- 4 , 6, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sakong (US 2020/0403119).
Regarding claim 1, Sakong disclose a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer (122), an active layer (125) and a second semiconductor layer (127) sequentially disposed on one another; and a passivation pattern (145) [0045](fig.1) disposed on an outer surface (sidewalls)(fig.1) of the nitride semiconductor structure, wherein the first semiconductor layer includes a protrusion (P) (fig.1) that protrudes in a direction away from the active layer (fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Sakong disclose the protrusion is made of a same material as the first semiconductor layer and is integrated with the first semiconductor layer (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sakong disclose the first semiconductor layer includes: a lower portion (P) having a first width (A2) (fig. 1); and an upper portion (122 above region P) disposed on the lower portion and having a second width (A1+A2)larger than the first width, wherein the lower portion is the protrusion that is integrated with the first semiconductor layer [0030, 0032].
Regarding claim 4, Sakong disclose the passivation pattern(145) exposes an outer side surface of the protrusion of the first semiconductor layer and covers the outer surface of the nitride semiconductor structure (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sakong disclose the nitride semiconductor structure has a T-shape (heavy top “T” 122 and P) in a cross-sectional view of the light-emitting device (fig.1).
Regarding claim 26, Sakong disclose a first semiconductor layer (122), an active layer (125) and a second semiconductor layer (127) sequentially disposed on one another; and a passivation pattern (145) disposed on outer surfaces of the first semiconductor layer, the active layer and the second semiconductor layer, wherein the first semiconductor layer includes: a first portion (P, A2)(fig. 1) having a first width; and a second portion (122, A1+A2) disposed closer to the active layer than the first portion and having a second width larger than the first width (fig 1).
Regarding claim 27, Sakong disclose the first portion is formed of a same material as the second portion and is integrated with the second portion (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Sakong disclose the passivation pattern (145) exposes an outer side surface of the first portion (i.e. does not cover the side of (P)) of the first semiconductor layer and covers the outer surfaces of the first semiconductor layer, the active layer and the second semiconductor layer (fig.1)
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Chang (US 2024/0347672).
Forman et al. disclose the invention above.
Forman et al. fails to disclose a light-scattering pattern disposed on an outer side surface of the protrusion.
Chang disclose a light-scattering pattern (roughened) disposed on an outer side surface (fig. 4).
The combination of Forman et al. and Chang would form the light-scattering pattern (roughened) on the outer surface of the protrusion (Forman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Forman et al. and Chang because the roughened surface would increase the light extraction efficiency of the LED [Chang, 0032].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556).
Forman et al. disclose the invention above. Forman et al. disclose the active layer (112) of the nitride semiconductor structure is disposed on one side of a top surface of the first semiconductor (110) layer wherein the second semiconductor layer(114, 116) is disposed on the active layer (fig. 1A).
Forman et al. fails to disclose another side of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer is exposed.
Kwak et al. disclose another side (R2) of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer (12) is exposed (fig 2).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (exposing a top side of the first semiconductor), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contact on the top side of the first semiconductor layer).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (US 2020/0244036) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556).
Forman et al. disclose the invention above.
Forman et al. fails to disclose the passivation pattern includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer and a second open area exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer, wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area.
Kwak et al. disclose the passivation pattern (34)[0006] includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer(12) (R2)(fig. 2) and a second open area (where 38 contacts 36) exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer (32), wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming contact through passivation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contacts semiconductor layers).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakong (US 2020/0403119) as applied to claim 26 above in view of Chang (US 2024/0347672).
Sakong disclose the invention above.
Sakong fails to disclose a light-scattering pattern disposed on an outer side surface of the protrusion.
Chang disclose a light-scattering pattern (roughened) disposed on an outer side surface (fig. 4).
The combination of Forman et al. and Chang would form the light-scattering pattern (roughened) on the outer surface of the protrusion (Sakong).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Sakong and Chang because the roughened surface would increase the light extraction efficiency of the LED [Chang, 0032].
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakong (US 2020/0403119) as applied to claim 26 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556).
Sakong disclose the invention above. Sakong disclose the active layer (125) of the nitride semiconductor structure is disposed on one side of a top surface of the first semiconductor (122) layer wherein the second semiconductor layer(127) is disposed on the active layer (fig. 1).
Sakong fails to disclose another side of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer is exposed.
Kwak et al. disclose another side (R2) of the top surface opposite to the one side of the top surface of the first semiconductor layer (12) is exposed (fig 2).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (exposing a top side of the first semiconductor), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contact on the top side of the first semiconductor layer).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakong (US 2020/0403119) as applied to claim 26 above in view of Kwak et al. (US 2002/0074556).
Sakong disclose the invention above.
Sakong fails to disclose the passivation pattern includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer and a second open area exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer, wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area.
Kwak et al. disclose the passivation pattern (34)[0006] includes a first open area exposing a portion of the first semiconductor layer(12) (R2)(fig. 2) and a second open area (where 38 contacts 36) exposing a portion of the second semiconductor layer (32), wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, and wherein the first electrode contacts the portion of the first semiconductor layer exposed through the first open area, and the second electrode contacts the portion of the second semiconductor layer exposed through the second open area.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming contact through passivation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the exposing would allow to form a contacts semiconductor layers).
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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights