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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 21 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 1 recites, on lines 5-6, the limitation "the microlens structure.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if each of the at least two microlens structures comprise at least two sublayers or one of the at least two, the claim should be made clear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one microlens structure” in the second to last line of the claim is unclear, having previously in the same claim recited “at least two microlens structures.” It is unclear how these are related to one another, and this causes the claim limitations to be indeterminate. Is this at least one microlens structure part of the at least two or a second structures (which would need to be described with first, second, etc.…)? If Applicant is trying to only describe one of the at least two microlens structures as it is certainly not required to always further clarify both, the limitation should state “at least one microlens structure of the at least two microlens structure…”
Claim 1 recites, on the last two lines of the claim, the limitation "the number of the microlens structures.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be written as “a number of microlens structures”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one light-emitting unit” on the last line of the claim, having previously in the same claim recited “at least two light-emitting units.” It is unclear how these are related to one another, and this causes the claim limitations to be indeterminate. As described above, if trying to claim one of the at least two, that needs to be described in the limitation “at least one light emitting unit of the at least two light emitting units…”
Claims 1, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, and 16 recite the limitation "the microlens structure.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. There are now multiple microlens structures in claim 1, therefore when referencing back it needs to be clear which one is being further described.
Claims 6 - 8 recite the limitations “at least one microlens structure” and “other microlens structures”, having previously in claim 1 recited “at least two microlens structures.” It is unclear how these are related to one another, and this causes the claim limitations to be indeterminate. See above to describe how one of the two should be claimed.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one opening” on line 4, and then “each of the at least two light-emitting units corresponds to an opening” It is unclear how these are related to one another, and this causes the claim limitations to be indeterminate. Is it the same opening or are they completely different openings? If different, they should be described as first and second.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the microlens structure.”, on the second to last line of the claim, but every other time a microlens was introduced it was “the at least one microlens structure”, in order to create consistency this should state “the at least one microlens structure”. Or if they are different descriptions such as first, second, etc. should be used. Currently, it is not clear the distinction between the two.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “at least one light-emitting unit”, on line 5, and then “each of the at least two light-emitting units” on the last two lines of the claim. It is unclear how these are related to one another, and this causes the claim limitations to be indeterminate.
All claims should be checked for other cases of indeterminate language and problems with antecedent basis.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et al. US 20190267357 in view of Itonaga et al. US 20220407037.
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi discloses a light-emitting device structure (figure 6, 200b), comprising:
a buffer layer (figure 6, 27), wherein a material of the buffer layer is a transparent material (In paragraph [0110], Iguchi discloses that the buffer layer 27, comprising elements 27H and 25b, may be formed by transparent resin);
and a light-emitting structure disposed on a side of the buffer layer (Figure 1 discloses a first embodiment (200), which does not differ from the modified second embodiment of figure 6, 200b, except in the details of the microlens and buffer layer structure [0105, 0109]. Figure 1 illustrates the position of the light-emitting structure in both the first and second embodiments. The light emitting structures, comprising micro LED elements 100B, 100R, and 100G, are disposed on a side of the buffer layer, as can be seen by comparing the positions of the micro LED structures and buffer layer 27 in figures 1 and 6), wherein
the light-emitting structure comprises at least two light-emitting units (As disclosed in paragraph [0064], light emitting structure 100 comprises micro LED light-emitting units 100B, 100R, and 100G); wherein
the buffer layer comprises at least two microlens structures (buffer layer 27 comprises microlens structures 25b [0110]),
the microlens structure comprises at least two sub-layers (microlens structure 25b comprises sub-layers 25Rb, pillar portions, and 25Lb, lens portions [0110]),
each the at least two light-emitting units corresponds to at least one microlens structure (Comparing figures 1 and 6, as described earlier, illustrates that each light emitting unit 100B, 100R, and 100G corresponds to each respective microlens structure 25b)
Iguchi lacks wherein the number of the microlens structures corresponding to at least one light-emitting unit is equal to or greater than 2.
However, Itonaga discloses a plurality of microlens members controlling a traveling direction of light emitted from the one light-emitting region (paragraph [0013], figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use at least two microlens structures to direct the light emitted by one light-emitting region in order to improve the light extraction efficiency, thus improving the brightness of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga, in Iguchi’s modified second embodiment (Iguchi, figure 6), discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1,
Iguchi’s modified second embodiment (figure 6) lacks specifically wherein the light-emitting structure is disposed on a focal plane of the microlens structure.
However, in Iguchi’s second embodiment (figure 5), the positions of the focal points (which by definition lie on the focal plane) of the microlenses 25a are on or above the surface of the wavelength conversion portion, which is the surface of the light emitting structures (figure 5, elements 21, 22, and 23), as described in paragraph [0107].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the date of filing to dispose the light emitting structures of the modified second embodiment (figure 6, elements 21, 22, and 23) on the focal plane of microlenses 25b in order to enhance the convergence performance as described in paragraph [0107]
Regarding claim 6, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting units have a same size, and a size of at least one microlens structure is different from sizes of other microlens structures. (See figure 16, which differs from the embodiment of figure 6 by the replacement of the LED light emitting units with micro laser elements [0136 and 0140], where the sizes of each of the light-emitting unit (21, 22, 23) are the same, each light emitting unit corresponds to a microlens structure, 21-25, 22-25j, 23-25j, and the size of microlens structure 25 is different from the size of microlens structures 25j. Here, microlens structures 25 is not formed over layer 29 and is therefore larger than microlens structure 25j in the vertical direction, therefore differing in size from 25j.)
Regarding claim 7, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 6, wherein the at least two microlens structures have a same curvature, and a thickness of at least one microlens structure is different from thicknesses of other microlens structures (See the rejection of claim 6 – the curvatures of all the microlens structures 25 and 25j shown in figure 16 are the same, but the thickness of microlens structure 25 is different from the thickness of microlens structures 25j for the reason described in the rejection of claim 6.)
Regarding claim 10, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1, wherein the at least two microlens structures comprise at least one of a spherical convex lens, an aspheric convex lens, a spherical concave lens, and an aspheric concave lens (Figure 6 shows that the microlens structures 25b comprise a rivet-shape [0110], which is an aspherical convex shape.)
Regarding claim 15, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1, wherein the microlens structure further comprises: a first Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) layer disposed on a side, close to the light- emitting structure, of the microlens structure (See figure 15, which differs from the embodiment of figure 6 by the replacement of the LED light emitting units with micro laser elements [0136], where a blue light reflection layer 29, comprising a DBR [0138], is deposited on a side of the microlens structures 25i close to the light-emitting structures 22 and 23.)
Regarding claim 16, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a second Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) layer disposed on a side, away from the microlens structure, of the light-emitting structure (See figure 10, which differs from the embodiment of figure 6 by the replacement of the LED light emitting units with micro laser elements but is otherwise comparable to the embodiment of figure 6 [0119], where a reflection layer 10, comprising a DBR [0124], is deposited on a side, away from the microlens structure 25f, of the light emitting structures 22 and 23.)
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi as modified by Itonaga in view of Hamachi et al. US 20230276682.
Regarding claim 3, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1, wherein the microlens structure comprises a plurality of sub-layers (figure 6, microlens structure 25b comprises sub-layers 25Rb, pillar portions, and 25Lb, lens portions [0110]).
Iguchi as modified by Itonaga lacks wherein the plurality of sub-layers of the microlens structure have different refractive indices.
However, Hamachi discloses a light-emitting device structure wherein the plurality of sub-layers of the microlens have different refractive indices. In figure 3 of Hamachi, a microlens structure comprising sublayers 40, 70, and 71 is disclosed, where each layer has a distinct refractive index, 40-n0, 70-n1, and 71-n2, and at least two of these layers have different indices of refraction as n1 >n2 [0208].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to make at least two of the sublayers of the microlens structure of Iguchi as modified by Itonaga with different indices of refraction, as disclosed by Hamachi in order to provide a light emitting element having a configuration and a structure capable of increasing light extraction efficiency and front luminance [0008].
Regarding claim 4, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga and further modified by Hamachi discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 3, wherein
the different refractive indices of the plurality of sub-layers of the microlens structure gradually decrease or increase first and then decrease in a direction from the light-emitting structure to the microlens structure (See Hamachi figure 3, where the indices of refraction, n0, n1, and n2, of the sublayers of the microlens structure (40/70/71) decrease as the distance from the light-emitting layer 33 [0219] increases, from 40 (n0,) 70 (n1), and 71-(n2), according to the relation: n0 ≥ n1> n2.[0208]), and
a change mode of the different refractive indices of the plurality of sub-layers of the microlens structure comprises any one of a uniform change, a jump change, and a step-like change (see Hamachi figure 3, where the index of refraction changes by steps from n0 to n1 to n2)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi as modified by Itonaga and as further modified by Hamachi applied to claims 1, 3, and 4 above, and further in view of Sanford et al. 2003 (attached non-patent literature).
Regarding claim 5, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga and as further modified by Hamachi applied to claims 1, 3, and 4 above discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 3,
Iguchi as modified by Itonaga and as further modified by Hamachi lacks wherein
the microlens structure comprises a plurality of AlGaN sub-layers with different mole fractions of Al, the different mole fractions of Al gradually increase or decrease first and then increase in a direction from the light-emitting structure to the microlens structure, and
a change mode of the mole fractions of Al comprises any one of a uniform change, a jump change, and a step-like change.
However, Sanford et al. 2003 discloses that the index of refraction of AlGaN varies inversely with the Al concentration; therefore, the gradient and change mode of index of refraction disclosed in claim 4 requires that:
the Al mole fraction of the AlGaN microlens layers increase in a direction from the light-emitting structure to the microlens structure, and
the change mode of the mole fraction of Al comprises a step-like change.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to vary the molar fraction of aluminum in the sub-layers of the microlens in order to control the gradient of the index of refraction and thus optimize the display output.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi as modified by Itonaga in view of Shimazaki et al. WO 2022220271 (where US 20240036237 is used as an English translation).
Regarding claim 8, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 6, wherein the at least two microlens structures have a same thickness (see figure 6 where all microlens structures 25b have the same thickness in the horizontal direction).
Iguchi as modified by Itonaga lacks that a curvature of at least one microlens structure is different from curvatures of other microlens structures.
However, Shimazaki discloses a comparable light-emitting device, wherein a thickness of the microlens structure is the same as each other. See Shimazaki, figure 1, where all microlens structures 11 and 14 have the same thickness in the horizontal direction, and where the curvature of at least one microlens structure (14) is different from curvature of other microlens structures (11) [0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the microlens shape of Shimazaki to the light-emitting device of Iguchi as modified by Itonaga, in order to finely adjust the light collection point of a particular pixel and thus improve the image quality of the display device [0028].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi as modified by Itonaga in view of Jeong et al. US 20120033409.
Regarding claim 11, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1,
Iguchi as modified by Itonaga lacks specifically wherein a material of the buffer layer comprises at least one of AlN, GaN, AlGaN, and AlInGaN.
However, Jeong discloses a comparable light-emitting device structure wherein the material of the buffer layer comprises at least one of GaN, InN, AlN, InGaN, AlGaN, InAlGaN, or AlInN [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use at least one of AlN, GaN, AlGaN, and AlInGaN (this is the same compound as InAlGaN) for the buffer layer of the light-emitting device structure of Iguchi as modified by Itonaga in order to moderate lattice mismatch and the difference of thermal expansion coefficients of layers around the buffer layer, thus improving the durability of the device [0046].
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi as modified by Itonaga in view of Iguchi et al. US 20210005583, hereinafter Iguchi2021.
Regarding claim 12, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1.
Iguchi as modified by Itonaga lacks: a substrate structure disposed on a side, away from the light-emitting structure, of the buffer layer, wherein the substrate structure comprises at least one opening penetrating through the substrate structure, and each of the at least two light-emitting unit corresponds to an opening.
However, Iguchi2021 discloses a comparable light-emitting structure (Iguchi2021, figure 8) with a substrate structure (Iguchi2021, figure 8, 34) disposed on a side, away from the light-emitting structure, of the buffer layer (As paragraph [0044] explains, in the case where the embedding layer 60 is transparent, a layer of this material may cover the light-emitting units, as illustrated in annotated figure 8), where 34 is deposited on the buffer layer indicated by the call-out, which is on a side away from the light-emitting structure 14, and wherein the substrate structure comprises at least one opening penetrating through the substrate structure, and each the light-emitting unit corresponds to an opening (see Iguchi2021 figure 8 - the structure 36, comprises openings around each of the microlens structures, corresponding to each of the light emitting structures 14, penetrating through the structure 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to add the substrate and opening structure of Iguchi2021 as described above in order to suppress light leakage [0050] and to provide a surface for the metal lenses of claim 14 [0050] in order to improve light emission efficiency and to reinforce the light output in the forward direction of the light-emitting element (Iuchi2021, [0012].
Regarding claim 14, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1.
Iguchi as modified by Itonaga lacks: a metal lens with a medium hole, disposed on a surface, away from the light-emitting structure, of the microlens structure.
However, Iguchi2021 discloses a comparable light-emitting structure (Iguchi2021, figure 8), comprising a metal lens (partition wall reflector 36) with a medium hole (37), which is disposed on a surface of the microlens away from the light-emitting structure – As paragraph [0044] explains, in the case where the embedding layer 60 is transparent, a layer of this material may cover the light-emitting units, as illustrated in annotated figure 8. This portion of the transparent embedding material is here considered to be a part of the microlens structure of Iguchi, showing that the metal lens 36 [0070], with medium hole 37 [0072], is disposed on the surface of the microlens (designated by the arrow) away from the light-emitting structure 14 [0038].
PNG
media_image1.png
411
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to add the metal lens of Iguchi2021 to the light-emitting structure of Iguchi as modified by Itonaga in order to improve light emission efficiency and to reinforce the light output in the forward direction of the light-emitting element (Iuchi2021, [0012].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi as modified by Itonaga in view of Sung et al. US 20150021620.
Regarding claim 13, Iguchi as modified by Itonaga discloses the light-emitting device structure according to claim 1.
Iguchi as modified by Itonaga specifically lacks an A1N film disposed on a surface, away from the light-emitting structure, of the microlens structure.
However, Sung discloses a comparable light emitting device wherein an A1N film is disposed on a surface, away from the light-emitting structure, of the microlens structure: Sung figure 2, layer 210n, is an AlN film [0053] deposited on a surface of the microlens (all sublayers of 158 below 210n) away from the light emitting structure 156 [0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have combined the microlens of Iguchi as modified by Itonaga with the AlN film layer of Sung in order to adjust the index of refraction of the microlens to increase light extraction efficiency (Sung [0065]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi in view of Jeong.
Regarding claim 21, Iguchi discloses a light-emitting device structure (figure 6, 200b), comprising:
a buffer layer (figure 6, 27); and
a light-emitting structure disposed on a side of the buffer layer and grown on the buffer layer (Figure 1 discloses a first embodiment (200), which does not differ from the modified second embodiment of figure 6, 200b, except in the details of the microlens and buffer layer structure [0105, 0109]. Figure 1 illustrates the position of the light-emitting structure in both the first and second embodiments. The light emitting structures, comprising micro LED elements 100B, 100R, and 100G, are disposed on a side of the buffer layer, as can be seen by comparing the positions of the micro LED structures and buffer layer 27 in figures 1 and 6. As this claim is directed toward a device, the limitation “grown on the buffer layer” is satisfied by the fact that the light-emitting structure exists on the buffer layer in the prior art.),
wherein the light-emitting structure comprises at least one light-emitting unit (As disclosed in paragraph [0064], light emitting structure 100 comprises micro LED light-emitting units 100B, 100R, and 100G);
wherein the buffer layer comprises at least one microlens structure (buffer layer 27 comprises microlens structure 25b [0110]),
the buffer layer serves as a formation layer for the at least one microlens structure (described in paragraph [0110]),
the microlens structure comprises at least two sub-layers (microlens structure 25b comprises sub-layers 25Rb, pillar portions, and 25Lb, lens portions [0110]), and
each of the at least two light-emitting units corresponds to at least one microlens structure (Comparing figures 1 and 6, as described earlier, illustrates that each light emitting unit 100B, 100R, and 100G corresponds to each respective microlens structure 25b).
Iguchi lacks wherein a material of the buffer layer comprises at least one of AlN, GaN, AlGaN, and AlInGaN and wherein the buffer layer serves as a growth layer for the light-emitting structure.
However, Jeong discloses a comparable light-emitting device structure wherein the material of the buffer layer comprises at least one of GaN, InN, AlN, InGaN, AlGaN, InAlGaN, or AlInN [0046]. A buffer layer comprising at least one of these compounds could serve as a growth layer for the light-emitting structure of Iguchi. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use at least one of AlN, GaN, AlGaN, and AlInGaN (this is the same compound as InAlGaN) for the buffer layer of the light-emitting device structure of Iguchi in order to moderate lattice mismatch and the difference of thermal expansion coefficients of layers around the buffer layer, thus improving the durability of the device [0046].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of claim 1 has been considered. Applicant argues that the prior art, Iguchi et al. US 20190267357, used in the 102 rejection of claim 1 as originally presented, does not anticipate the amended version of claim 1. This argument is persuasive, but the amendment of claim 1 necessitated further search and consideration. New grounds of rejection for the added limitation have been found to render claim 1 obvious when combined with the teachings of Iguchi et al., so this argument is not now relevant.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of multiple claims has been considered. Applicant traverses “the obviousness rejection of the claims.” Applicant does not specifically state which claims these are, but the claims with 103 rejections are claims 2, 3-5, 8, and 11-13. In response to applicant's argument that the secondary prior art references are all addressing different technical issues than the instant application’s disclosure, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all the prior art cited is in the same field of endeavor, light-emitting devices with microlenses, as the present disclosure; therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejections of claims 2, 3-5, 8, and 11-13 are maintained.
The applicant further argues that “the Office Action does not provide a persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Iguchi's sub-pixel arrangement to arrive at multi-microlens-per-unit configuration.” The claim rejection that this argument is particularly directed to is not indicated in the applicant’s remarks. It may be meant to apply to the rejection of claim 9, which was an anticipation rejection. In this case, there is no necessity for modification of Iguchi or for reasons for modification of Iguchi. Alternatively, if this argument is directed toward a possible rejection of modified claim 1, the reasons for modification are cited in the rejection of claim 1 above: it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use at least two microlens structures to direct the light emitted by one light-emitting region in order to improve the light extraction efficiency, thus improving the brightness of the device. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
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 KATRINA M H WALJESKI-MOSES whose telephone number is (571)272-0731. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 7:30 am- 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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. 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. 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.
/KATRINA WALJESKI-MOSES/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights