Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 20 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. In claim 20 page 30, it is undisclosed as to what the “first spacing distance” refers to in the specification.
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 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2) and Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kouda et al disclose:
a substrate (10);
a bonding wire (30) connecting the light emitting device to the substrate, the bonding wire comprising:
a first portion (portion of the bond wire between 31 and electrode 51, Fig. 5c) connected to and extending in a vertical direction;
a second portion (31) extending from the first portion and inclined at a first angle relative to the first portion (Fig. 5C);
a third portion (32) extending from the second portion and
a fourth portion (33) extending from the third portion (32), inclined at a third angle relative to the third portion (Fig. 5C); and
a seal covering at least one side surface of the light emitting device and sealing the bonding wire on the substrate (paragraph 5, 9).
However, Kouda et al. does not disclose a semiconductor light emitting device comprising a light emitting device provided on an upper surface of the substrate; a first pad provided on the upper surface of the substrate; a second pad provided on the upper surface of the light emitting device;
On the other hand, Lim et al. disclose a semiconductor light emitting device (1) comprising: a light emitting device (300), a first pad (220), a second pad (301) provided on the upper surface of the light emitting device (301) (Fig. 2);
However, neither Kouda nor Lim disclose a second angle in a range of from about 125 degrees to about 150 degrees relative to the second portion.
On the other hand, Lu discloses the angle of a bond wire may bend greater than 90 degrees (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda et al. in view of Lim et al. and Lu et al. such that the light emitting device and pad is on the upper surface of the substrate, the pad is on the upper surface of the light emitting device, and the bond wire can have a range from 125 to 150 degrees. Doing so would maximize light extraction, enhance thermal management, and ensure low-stress electrical connections.
Regarding claim 2, Kouda et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the second portion (31) is inclined such that a vertical position of the second portion increases as the second portion extends toward the light emitting device, and wherein the third portion (32) is inclined such that a vertical position of the third portion increases as the third portion extends toward the light emitting device (the shape, location, and angle of the bond wire for the second and third portion in Fig. 5C is similar to the drawings to in the claimed invention to reasonably perform the same action, Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 3, Kouda et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 2, wherein the fourth portion (33) is inclined such that a vertical position of the fourth portion decreases as the fourth portion extends toward the light emitting device (the shape, location, and angle of the bond wire for the fourth portion in Fig. 5C is similar to the drawings to in the claimed invention to reasonably perform the same action, Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 4, neither Kouda et al. nor Lim et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 2, wherein the first angle is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees.
However, Lu et al. disclose the bond wire can be greater than 90 degrees (paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to form the degree of the bond wire within the claimed range. In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda et al. and Lim et al. in view of Lu et al. such that the first angle is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees. Doing so would optimize mechanical stability and ensure reliability.
Regarding claim 5, Kouda et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the bonding wire has an "M" shape (paragraph 44, Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 8, Kouda et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein a bump (51) is provided between the first portion of the bonding wire (area between 31 and bump 51 of the bond wire in Fig. 5C), and the first pad, and wherein the first portion is provided at a center of the bump (Fig. 5C).
However, Kouda et al. do not disclose a first pad.
On the other hand, Lim et al. disclose a first pad (220, Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda et al. in view of Lim et al. such that the first pad is between the bonding wire and substrate. Doing so would enable reliable, low-resistance electrical connection.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2) and Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Nagai (US 20080006914 A1) and Imanishi et al. (US 20090278265 A1).
Regarding claim 6, neither Kouda et al., Lim et al. nor Lu et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting device comprises a base having a first height in a first direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the substrate, wherein the first height is in a range of from about 300 micrometers to about 1,000 micrometers, and wherein a maximum height of the seal in the first direction is in a range of from about 650 micrometers to about 2,200 micrometers.
However, Nagai disclose the base having a first height is in a range of 100 micrometers to 200 micrometers (paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to form the base within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Imanishi et al. disclose the maximum height of the seal in the first direction is in a range of from about 0.005 mm to 0.02 mm (paragraph 68). It would have been obvious to form the seal within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda, Lim, and Lu in view of Nagai and Imanshi such that the height of the base and seal are within the claimed ranges. Doing so would optimize light extraction and maintain thermal management.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1), Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2) and Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2) as Nagai (US 20080006914 A1) and Imanishi et al. (US 20090278265 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Shimizu et al. (US 20220246594 A1).
Regarding claim 7, none of the above references disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 6, wherein the first portion has a second height in the first direction, and wherein the second height is in a range of from about 30 % to about 60 % of the first height.
However, Shimizu et al. disclose a second height (height of light emitting structure ((14G), h2, Fig. 3) in the first direction is smaller than the first height (h1). It would have been obvious to form the height within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above references in view of Shimizu et al. such that the second height is 30% to 60% of the first height. Doing so would reduce internal reflection and allow greater control of the beam angle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2) and Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kwak et al (US 20210359187 A1).
Regarding claim 9, neither Kouda et al, Lim et al. nor Lu et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting device comprises: a base; and a pixel light emitting structure provided on the base, and wherein the second pad is provided on an upper surface of the base on a periphery of e light emitting device.
However, Kwak et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting device comprises: a base (20, Fig. 8) ; and a pixel light emitting structure (500) provided on the base, and wherein the second pad (210) is provided on an upper surface of the base on a periphery of the light emitting device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda, Lim, and Lu in view of Kwak et al. such that the light emitting device includes a base, pixel light emitting structure, and second pad on an upper surface of the light emitting structure. Doing so would improve pixel density and thermal management.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2), Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2), and Kwak et al (US 20210359187 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210366980 A1).
Regarding claim 10, none of the prior references disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 9, wherein the pixel light emitting structure comprises: a plurality of light emitting stacks provided on the base and provided in a matrix; a partition provided on the plurality of light emitting stacks and defining a plurality of pixel spaces corresponding to the plurality of light emitting stacks; and a fluorescent layer provided in the plurality of pixel spaces.
However, Lee et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 9, wherein the pixel light emitting structure comprises: a plurality of light emitting stacks (120, Fig. 8A) provided on the base (110, Fig. 7J) and provided in a matrix (paragraph 76); a partition (111,112, Fig. 8A) provided on the plurality of light emitting stacks and defining a plurality of pixel spaces (CU) corresponding to the plurality of light emitting stacks; and a fluorescent layer (180, Fig. 8A) provided in the plurality of pixel spaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda, Lim, Lu, and Kwak in view of Lee et al. such that there is a plurality of light emitting stacks, a partition, pixel spaces, and a fluorescent layer on the pixel light emitting device. Doing so would enable higher pixel density, partitions prevent crosstalk, pixel spaces optimize resolution, and fluorescent layers enhance brightness.
Regarding claim 11, Kouda et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 10, wherein a connection portion (41) between the second portion and the third portion is located at a vertical level lower than a vertical level of a bottom surface of the fluorescent layer (Fig. 5C).
However, Kouda et al. do not disclose a fluorescent layer.
On the other hand, Lee et al. disclose a fluorescent layer (180, Fig. 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda, Lim, Lu, and Kwak in view of Lee et al. such that the bottom surface is a fluorescent layer and having the bond wire be lower than that. Doing so would protect the wire from mechanical stress and ensure electrical isolation.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Kouda et al. disclose:
a substrate (10);
a bonding wire (30) connecting the light emitting device to the substrate (10), the bonding wire comprising:
a first portion (portion of the bond wire between 31 and electrode 51, Fig. 5c) connected to and extending in a vertical direction from a bump (51);
a second portion (31) extending from the first portion and inclined at a first angle relative to the first portion (Fig. 5C);
a third portion (32) extending from the second portion and inclined at a second angle relative to the second portion (Fig. 5C); and
a fourth portion (33) extending from the third portion (32), inclined at a third angle relative to the third portion (Fig. 5C)
and a seal covering at least one side surface of the light emitting device and sealing the bonding wire on the substrate (paragraph 5, 9).
However, Kouda et al. does not disclose a semiconductor light emitting device comprising: a light emitting device mounted on an upper surface of the substrate; a first pad provided on the upper surface of the substrate; a second pad provided on the upper surface of the light emitting device;
On the other hand, Lim et al. disclose a semiconductor light emitting device (1) comprising: a light emitting device (300) mounted on an upper surface of the substrate; a first pad (220) provided on the upper surface of the substrate; a second pad (301) provided on the upper surface of the light emitting device (301, Fig. 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda et al. in view of Lim et al. such that the light emitting device has a first pad provided on the upper surface of the substrate and a second pad on the light emitting device. Doing so would maximize light extraction and ensure low-stress electrical connections.
Regarding claim 13, Kouda et al disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 12, wherein the second portion (31) is inclined such that a vertical position of the second portion increases as the second portion extends toward the light emitting device, and wherein the third portion is inclined such that a vertical position of the third portion (32) increases as the third portion extends toward the light emitting device (the shape, location, and angle of the bond wire for the second and third portion in Fig. 5C is similar to the drawings to in the claimed invention to reasonably perform the same action, Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 14, Kouda et al disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 13, wherein the fourth portion (33) is inclined such that a vertical position of the fourth portion decreases as the fourth portion extends toward the light emitting device (the shape, location, and angle of the bond wire for the fourth portion in Fig. 5C is similar to the drawings to in the claimed invention to reasonably perform the same action, Fig. 5C).
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2).
Regarding claim 15, neither Kouda et al. nor Lim et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 13, wherein the first angle is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees, and wherein the second angle is in a range of from about 125 degrees to about 150 degrees.
On the other hand, Lu et al. disclose the angle of a bond wire may bend greater than 90 degrees (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda et al. in view of Lim et al. and Lu et al. the first angle is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees, and wherein the second angle is in a range of from about 125 degrees to about 150 degrees. Doing so would enhance thermal management and ensure low-stress electrical connections.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Kwak et al (US 20210359187 A1).
Regarding claim 17, neither Kouda et al nor Lim et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 12, wherein the light emitting device comprises: a base; and a pixel light emitting structure provided on the base, and wherein the second pad is provided on an upper surface of the base on a periphery of e light emitting device.
However, Kwak et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 12, wherein the light emitting device comprises: a base (20, Fig. 8) ; and a pixel light emitting structure (500) provided on the base, and wherein the second pad (210) is provided on an upper surface of the base on a periphery of the light emitting device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda and Lim in view of Kwak et al. such that the light emitting device includes a base, pixel light emitting structure, and second pad on an upper surface of the light emitting structure. Doing so would improve pixel density and thermal management.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2), and Kwak et al (US 20210359187 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210366980 A1).
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior references disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 17, wherein the pixel light emitting structure comprises: a plurality of light emitting stacks provided on the base and provided in a matrix; a partition provided on the plurality of light emitting stacks and defining a plurality of pixel spaces corresponding to the plurality of light emitting stacks; and a fluorescent layer provided in the plurality of pixel spaces.
However, Lee et al. disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 17, wherein the pixel light emitting structure comprises: a plurality of light emitting stacks (120, Fig. 8A) provided on the base (110, Fig. 7J) and provided in a matrix (paragraph 76); a partition (111,112, Fig. 8A) provided on the plurality of light emitting stacks and defining a plurality of pixel spaces (CU) corresponding to the plurality of light emitting stacks; and a fluorescent layer (180, Fig. 8A) provided in the plurality of pixel spaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda, Lim, and Kwak in view of Lee et al. such that there is a plurality of light emitting stacks, a partition, pixel spaces, and a fluorescent layer on the pixel light emitting device. Doing so would enable higher pixel density, partitions prevent crosstalk, pixel spaces optimize resolution, and fluorescent layers enhance brightness.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2), Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2), Kwak et al (US 20210359187 A1), and Lee et al. (US 20210366980 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kouda et al disclose a substrate (10);
a bonding wire (30) connecting the light emitting device to the substrate and comprising:
a first portion (portion of the bond wire between 31 and electrode 51, Fig. 5c) extending in a vertical direction from the first pad;
a second portion (31) extending from the first portion and inclined at a first angle relative to the first portion (Fig. 5C);
a third portion (32) extending from the second portion (31) and
a fourth portion (33) extending from the third portion, inclined at a third angle relative to the third portion, and connected to the second pad on the upper surface of the light emitting device (Fig. 5C);
and a seal covering at least one side surface of the light emitting device and sealing the bonding wire on the substrate (paragraph 5, 9).
However, Kouda et al. does not disclose a light emitting device mounted on an upper surface of the substrate; a first pad provided on the upper surface of the substrate; a second pad provided on the upper surface of the light emitting device; a second angle ranging from about 125 degrees to about 150 degrees relative to the second portion; a light emitting device driving circuit mounted on the upper surface of the substrate, wherein the light emitting device comprises: a base; and a pixel light emitting structure provided on the base, and wherein the pixel light emitting structure comprises: a plurality of light emitting stacks provided on the base in a matrix; a partition provided on the plurality of light emitting stacks and defining a plurality of pixel spaces respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting stacks; and a fluorescent layer provided in the plurality of pixel spaces.
On the other hand, Lim et al. disclose a semiconductor light emitting device (1) comprising: a light emitting device (300), a first pad (220), a second pad (301) provided on the upper surface of the light emitting device (301) (Fig. 2).
Lu et al. disclose a second angle ranging from about 125 degrees to about 150 degrees relative to the second portion (paragraph 28).
Kwak et al. disclose a light emitting device comprises: a base (20, Fig. 8); and a pixel light emitting structure (500) provided on the base.
Lee et al. disclose a light emitting device driving circuit (210); the pixel light emitting structure comprises: a plurality of light emitting stacks (120, Fig. 8A) provided on the base (110, Fig. 7J) in a matrix (paragraph 76); a partition (111, 112, Fig. 8A)) provided on the plurality of light emitting stacks and defining a plurality of pixel spaces (CU) respectively corresponding to the plurality of light emitting stacks; and a fluorescent layer (180, Fig. 8A) provided in the plurality of pixel spaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda et al. in view of Lim et al., Lu et al., Kwak et al., and Lee et al., such that the light emitting device includes pads on the upper surface, the bond angle ranges from 125 to 150 degrees, includes a pixel light emitting structure, a pixel driving circuit, and light emitting stacks and fluorescent layers. Doing so would enable low stress electrical connections, higher pixel density, partitions prevent crosstalk, pixel spaces optimize resolution, and fluorescent layers enhance brightness.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda et al (US 20230170324 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 8829691 B2), Lu et al. (US 7166924 B2), Kwak et al (US 20210359187 A1), and Lee et al. (US 20210366980 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Nagai (US 20080006914 A1).
Regarding claim 20, none of the prior references disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 19, wherein the base has a first height in a first direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the substrate, wherein the first height is in a range of from about 300 micrometers to about 1,000 micrometers, wherein a connection portion between the fourth portion and the third portion is provided at a first spacing distance from an end portion of the fourth portion provided on the second pad, and wherein the first spacing distance is in a range of from about 200 micrometers to about 400 micrometers.
However, Nagai disclose the base having a first height is in a range of 100 micrometers to 200 micrometers in the first direction (paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to form the base within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Lim et al. disclose a semiconductor light emitting device (1) comprising: a light emitting device (300), a second pad (301) provided on the upper surface of the light emitting device (301) (Fig. 2);
Kouda et al. disclose a connection portion (42) between the fourth portion (33) and the third portion (32). Kouda et al. also discloses the first spacing distance (the inherent distance between the electrode 52) and connection portion (42)) from an end portion of the fourth portion provided (Fig. 5C). It would have been obvious to form the base within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kouda in view of Lim, Lu, and Lee, in further view of Nagai such that the fist height is in a range of about 300 micrometers to about 1000 micrometers, and a first spacing distance is in a range from about 200 micrometers to about 400 micrometers. Doing so would optimize light extraction, maintain thermal management, and maintain an M shape for the bonding wire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm.
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.
/STEVE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights