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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/475,182 filed on December 03, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING QUANTUM DOTS AND METAL NANOPARTICES AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME”.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 4, 10-11, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the following, the claims should be recited to fix minor claim languages/phrases and/or adding missing comma (,):
4. (Currently Amended) The LED of claim 1, comprises an electron injection layer between the hyperbolic material and the electron transport layer, wherein the electron injection layer comprises one of alkali metal salt, Ca, Ba, or an n-type material, wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 40 nm.
10. (Currently Amended) The LED of claim 1, comprising a hole injection layer on the hole transport layer, wherein the hole injection layer comprises one of: metal oxide including MoO3; conductive polymer-based material including one of poly thiophenes, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), or poly anilines; a combination of arylamine based hole transport host and electron accepting dopant; or strongly electron-accepting small organic molecules.
11. (Currently Amended) The LED of claim 2, wherein an individual metal nanorod of the array of metal nanorods includes one of Al, Ag, Cu, Au, Ti, or a combination of the array of metal nanorods
18. (Currently Amended) The LED of claim 17, comprises an electron injection layer between the second conductive layer and the electron transport layer, wherein the electron injection layer comprises one of alkali metal salt, Ca, Ba, or an n-type material, wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 40 nm.
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
10. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angioni et al. (US 2022/0263039 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0133631 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Angioni et al. teaches an LED comprising (Fig. 2A, para [0071]):
a substrate (201, para [0071]);
a first conductive layer (202, para [0072]) on the substrate (201), wherein the first conductive layer (202) is configured as a cathode (para [0072]);
an electron transport layer (205, para [0073]) on the cathode (202),
a light emitting layer (204, para [0075]) on the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (205);
a hole transport layer (206, para [0079]) on the light emitting layer (204);
a second conductive layer (203, para [0080]) adjacent to the hole transport layer (206), the second conductive layer (203) configured as an anode (para [0080]).
Angioni et al. is silent to explicitly disclose wherein, a hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer, wherein the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer includes a hyperbolic material, an outcoupling structure on the second conductive layer.
Thompson et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 11, para [0108]), a hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (functional layer 705 comprises a hole blocking layer 705a, an electron transport layer 705b, and an electron injection layer 705c, wherein the applicant’s original spec., para [00124] states hyperbolic metamaterial (HMM) is configured to serve as an electron transport layer ETL and comprises an optional electron injection layer EIL, therefore, functional layer 705 is considered as hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer), wherein the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (705) includes a hyperbolic material (electron injection layer EIL as stated above), an outcoupling structure (708, para [0108]) on the intervening layer 707.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the more optional functional layers and outcoupling structure as taught by Thompson et al. and modify with multi-functional layers and add outcoupling structure, in order to achieve the desired distance between the enhancement layers and the organic EML layer (para [0106]); and to scatter the energy from the surface plasmon polaritons as photons to free space (para [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the hyperbolic material (205) comprises an array of metal nanorods (metal oxide nanoparticles, para [0074]) surrounded by a non-metallic host material (organic or inorganic nanoparticles, para [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the non-metallic host material includes one of:
a metal oxide including one of ZnO (para [0121]), TiO2, NiO, CuO, MgO, WO3, ITO, SnO, In2O3, InGaZnO, or Al2O3;
a metal nitride including one of AlN or TiN;
a semiconductor including one of Si, Ge, GaAs, InGaAs, GaN, InGaN, or InP; or
dielectric material including one of SiO2 or polymer.
Regarding claim 5, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the electron transport layer (205, para [0074]) comprises a single material layer which includes a metal oxide (para [0074]) or a metal nitride, wherein the electron transport layer (205) depicts a certain thickness (i.e. vertical height) as it can be seen from figure 2A.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Even Angioni et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the electron transport layer (205) has a thickness in a range of 20 nm to 200 nm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘thickness of the electron transport layer’ to be within the quoted range of 20 nm to 200 nm, to enhance the electron flow, so does improve device performance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 5 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the metal oxide includes ZnO (para [0121]) or TiO2.
Regarding claim 7, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the light emitting layer (EML) includes one of:
semiconductor colloidal quantum dots (para [0071]);
carbon quantum dots;
perovskite; organic fluorophores; or
organic semiconductors.
Regarding claim 8, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the light emitting layer (204 EML, para [0071]) is a composite layer (quantum layer 209 and charge transport nanoparticles 210, para [0071]) comprising one of:
semiconductor colloidal quantum dots (para [0071]);
carbon quantum dots;
perovskite;
organic fluorophores; or
organic semiconductors.
Regarding claim 9, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), the hole transport layer (206) comprises one of metal oxide or organic material (para [0076] organic molecules or inorganic nanoparticles), wherein the hole transport layer (206) depicts a certain thickness (i.e. vertical height) as it can be seen from figure 2A.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Even Angioni et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the hole transport layer (206) has a thickness in a range of 20 nm to 50 nm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘thickness of the hole transport layer’ to be within the quoted range of 20 nm to 50 nm, to enhance the hole flow, so does improve device performance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), comprising a hole injection layer (para [0080] not shown in Fig. 2A) on the hole transport layer (206), wherein the hole injection layer comprises one of:
metal oxide including MoO3;
conductive polymer-based material including one of poly thiophenes, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), or poly anilines;
a combination of arylamine based hole transport host and electron accepting dopant; or
strongly electron-accepting small organic molecules (organic molecules, metallo-organic complexes or inorganic nanoparticles, para [0080]).
Regarding claim 11, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), an individual metal nanorod of the array of metal nanorods (205) includes one of Al (para [0121]), Ag, Cu, Au, Ti, or a combination of them.
Regarding claim 14, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A: see the annotated figure below), the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer comprises a stack of alternating metal (metal nanorods) and non-metallic layers.
PNG
media_image2.png
572
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 14 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A), an alternating metal in the stack of alternating metal and non-metallic layers includes one of Al (para [0121]), Ag, Cu, Au, or Ti, and wherein a non-metallic layer in the stack of alternating metal and non-metallic layers includes one of:
a metal oxide including one of ZnO, TiO2, NiO, CuO, MgO, WO3, ITO, SnO, In2O3, InGaZnO, or Al2O3;
a metal nitride including one of AlN or TiN;
a semiconductor including one of Si, Ge, GaAs, InGaAs, GaN, InGaN, or InP; or
dielectric material including one of SiO2 or polymer (metal oxide nanoparticles, para [0074]) surrounded by organic or inorganic nanoparticles, para [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 14 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2A: see the annotated figure in claim 14), the stack (205) of alternating metal and non-metallic layers have a certain thickness according to figure 2A, with a certain metal fill fraction.
Even Angioni et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the stack of alternating metal and non-metallic layers have a thickness in a range of 4 nm to 50 nm, with a metal fill fraction ranging from 0% to 90%. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘thickness of the metal and non-metallic layers’ to be within the quoted range of 4 nm to 50 nm and with a metal fill fraction ranging from 0% to 90%, to enhance the electron flow, so does improve device performance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness/metal fill fraction or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness/metal fill fraction or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness/metal fill fraction is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding independent claim 20, Angioni et al. teaches a method for forming an LED, the method comprising (Fig. 2A, para [0071]):
forming a substrate (201);
forming a first conductive layer (202) on the substrate (201), wherein the first conductive layer (202) is configured as a cathode;
forming an electron transport layer (205) on the cathode (202),
forming a light emitting layer (204 EML) on the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (205);
forming a hole transport layer (206) on the light emitting layer (204);
forming a second conductive layer (203) adjacent to the hole transport layer (206), the second conductive layer (203) configured as an anode (para [0080]).
Angioni et al. is silent to explicitly disclose wherein, a hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer, wherein the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer includes a hyperbolic material, an outcoupling structure on the second conductive layer.
Thompson et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 11, para [0108]), a hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (functional layer 705 comprises a hole blocking layer 705a, an electron transport layer 705b, and an electron injection layer 705c, wherein the applicant’s original spec., para [00101] states hyperbolic metamaterial is configured to serve as an electron transport layer ETL and comprises an optional electron injection layer EIL, therefore, the functional layer 705 is considered as hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer), wherein the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (705) includes a hyperbolic material (electron injection layer EIL as stated above), an outcoupling structure (708, para [0108]) on the intervening layer 707.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the more optional functional layers and outcoupling structure as taught by Thompson et al. and modify with multi-functional layers and add outcoupling structure, in order to achieve the desired distance between the enhancement layers and the organic EML layer (para [0106]); and to scatter the energy from the surface plasmon polaritons as photons to free space (para [0020]).
11. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angioni et al. (US 2022/0263039 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0133631 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NOH et al. (US 2012/0007064 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. are silent to explicitly disclose, wherein the first conductive layer comprises one of Al, Ag, Mg, Au, Tu, or conductive oxide, and wherein the first conductive layer (202) has a thickness in a range of 50 nm to 200 nm.
NOH et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the first conductive layer (metal cathode or cathode) comprises one of Al (thin Al film, para [0100]), Ag, Mg, Au, Tu, or conductive oxide, and wherein the first conductive layer (metal cathode or cathode) has a thickness in a range of 50 nm to 200 nm (150nm, para [0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by NOH et al. and modify cathode with the aluminum material of Angioni et al. and Thompson, because of commonly used, cost-effective, and efficient material for cathodes in light-emitting diodes (LEDs), key advantages include high electrical conductivity, high reflectivity, excellent environmental stability, and low cost.
Regarding claim 13, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. and NOH et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 12 from which this claim depends.
Rejection of claim 13 is not needed according to the rejection of claim 12 which discloses the first conductive layer (cathode) is made of aluminum (Al).
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2017/0229663 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0133631 A1).
Regarding independent claim 17, Tsai et al. teaches an LED comprising (Fig. 1):
a substrate (110, para [0026]);
a first conductive layer (115, para [0026]) on the substrate (110), wherein the first conductive layer (115) is configured as an anode (para [0026]);
a hole transport layer (125) on the anode (115),
a light emitting layer (135 emissive layer, para [0026]) on the hole transport layer (125);
an electron transport layer (145, para [0026]) on the light emitting layer (135);
a second conductive layer (160 cathode, para [0026]) adjacent to the electron transport layer (145), the second conductive layer (160) configured as a cathode (this is a functional limitation/ an intended use).
Tsai et al. is silent to explicitly disclose wherein, a hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer, wherein the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer includes a hyperbolic metamaterial material,
an outcoupling structure on the second conductive layer.
Thompson et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 11, para [0108]), a hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (functional layer 703 comprises a hole injection layer 703a, a hole transport layer 703b, and an electron blocking layer 703c, wherein the applicant’s original spec., para [00102] states hyperbolic metamaterial HMM 913 is configured to function as HTL and HIL, therefore, the functional layer 703 is considered as hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer), wherein the hyperbolic metamaterial composite layer (703) includes a hyperbolic material (electron injection layer HIL), an outcoupling structure (708, para [0108]) on the intervening layer 707.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the more optional functional layers and outcoupling structure as taught by Thompson et al. and modify with multi-functional layers and add outcoupling structure, in order to achieve the desired distance between the enhancement layers and the organic EML layer (para [0106]); and to scatter the energy from the surface plasmon polaritons as photons to free space (para [0020]).
13. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2017/0229663 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0133631 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Aziz et al. (US 2002/0135296 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Tsai et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 17 from which this claim depends.
Thompson et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 11, para [0108]), comprises an electron injection layer (705c) between the second conductive layer (707) and the electron transport layer (705b).
Tsai et al. and Thompson et al. are silent to explicitly disclose wherein, the electron injection layer (705c) comprises one of alkali metal salt, Ca, Ba, or an n-type material, wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness in a rage of 5 nm to 40 nm.
Aziz et al. discloses wherein (para [0042]), the electron injection layer comprises one of alkali metal salt (alkaline metal halide, para [0042], see claim 20), Ca, Ba, or an n-type material, wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness in a rage of 5 nm to 40 nm (about 1 nanometer to about 100 nanometers, para [0042]) (which overlaps the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to select the claimed thickness of electron injection layer within the quoted range to optimize the result effective variable of the electron injection material in order to improve the device performance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness of electron injection layer or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Tsai et al. and Thompson et al. and Aziz et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 18 from which this claim depends.
Rejection of claim 19 is not needed according to the rejection of claim 18 which discloses alkali metal salt (alkaline metal halide, para [0042], see claim 20), not based on n-type material.
14. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angioni et al. (US 2022/0263039 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0133631 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aziz et al. (US 2002/0135296 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
The combination of Angioni et al. (Fig. 1) and Thompson et al. (Fig. 11) teaches wherein, comprises an electron injection layer (705c or 104) between the second conductive layer (707 or 105) and the electron transport layer (705b or 106).
Angioni et al. and Thompson et al. are silent to explicitly disclose wherein, the electron injection layer (705c) comprises one of alkali metal salt, Ca, Ba, or an n-type material, wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 40 nm.
Aziz et al. discloses wherein (para [0042]), the electron injection layer comprises one of alkali metal salt (alkaline metal halide, para [0042], see claim 20), Ca, Ba, or an n-type material, wherein the electron injection layer has a thickness in a rage of 5 nm to 40 nm (about 1 nanometer to about 100 nanometers, para [0042]) (which overlaps the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to select the claimed thickness of electron injection layer within the quoted range to optimize the result effective variable of the electron injection material in order to improve the device performance. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness of electron injection layer or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner’s Note
15. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
17. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812