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 Objections
Claims 7-20 objected to because of the following informalities: The new set of claims indicates claim 7 as (New), however the previously examined set of claims dated 12/14/2023 also contained a claim 7. In the interest of compact prosecution, newly added claims 7-20 from the set of claims dated 04/29/2026 will henceforth be considered claims 8-21. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 20-21, see above claim objection regarding numbering, are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the product as claimed in claim 1 and previously examined is a light emitting element including a group-III nitride semiconductor containing Al, however the newly added process as claimed could be used to make a light emitting element that doesn’t include a group-III nitride semiconductor containing Al.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 20-21 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments about the claimed materials of the p-electrode in claim 1. Applicant has stated that the claimed list of “the p-electrode including one of a Ru layer, a Rh layer, a Ni Layer, and an ITO layer” completes a Markush list, however claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group “consisting of” the alternative members and not a list of materials that are included, see MPEP 2117(I). Therefore, it is not immediately clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art if the ITO layer is part of the alternative list, meaning there are 4 options for the p-electrode material, or if the ITO layer is a separate limitation, meaning there are 3 options for the p-electrode material with an additional ITO layer. In the interest of compact prosecution, and par. 52 of the specification, examiner will interpret the claim to mean the former where ITO is one of the 4 options for the p-electrode material.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching or suggestion of a second protective film made of SiN from the combination of Kamiya et al. (US20120049219A1, hereinafter Kamiya) view of Kamiya (US20160172540A1, hereinafter Kamiya’540) from the previous office action.
However, on page 4 of the previous action examiner quoted Kamiya’540 who teaches in par. 56, when discussing insulating layer 15, that “[i]nstead of SiO2, SiN, Al2O3, TiO2, or the like may be used.”
Kamiya’540 explicitly recognizes that SiO2 and SiN are both materials which are taught to be useful for the same purpose of constructing an insulating layer for a light emitting device. Being a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamiya with the teachings of Kamiya’540 and change the insulating films 61 to be made from SiN because Kamiya’540 recognizes and teaches SiO2 and SiN as equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06(I-II)).
See below for full claims mapping.
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 1-6 and 8-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9 recite
“the p-electrode including one of a Ru layer, a Rh layer, a Ni Layer, and an ITO layer” (emphasis examiner’s).
It is not immediately clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art if the ITO layer is part of the alternative list, meaning there are 4 options for the p-electrode material, or if the ITO layer is a separate limitation, meaning there are 3 options for the p-electrode material with an additional ITO layer. In the interest of compact prosecution, and par. 52 of the specification, examiner will interpret the claim to mean the former where ITO is one of the 4 options for the p-electrode material.
Claims 2-6 and 8-17, see above claim objection regarding numbering, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent to a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 8-9, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US20120049219A1, hereinafter Kamiya) view of Kamiya (US20160172540A1, hereinafter Kamiya’540).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiya teaches a light emitting element having an emission wavelength of 200 to 280 nm (Par. 53 Kamiya teaches that “the light emitting element 1 can also be a LED emitting a light having a peak wavelength in ultraviolet region” and that “the region of the peak wavelength of the light emitted from the LED is not limited to the above-mentioned regions” and so a person of ordinary skill is capable of making the LED emit in the claimed wavelength range) and including a group-III nitride semiconductor containing Al (Par. 41 “a III-group nitride compound semiconductor of AlxGayIn1−x−yN (0≦x≦1,0≦y≦1,0≦x+y≦1) can be used”), the element, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2A substrate 10);
a semiconductor layer including an n-type layer (Fig. 2A n-type semiconductor layer 21),
a light emitting layer (Fig. 2A light emitting layer 22), and
a p-type layer which are laminated on the substrate in this order (Fig. 2A p-type semiconductor layer 23 and layers 21/22/23 are laminated on substrate 10 in that order);
a hole provided in a predetermined region of a surface of the p-type layer, the hole having a depth reaching the n-type layer (Fig. 2A see plurality of film openings 56 in surface of layer 23 that have a depth that reaches n-type semiconductor layer 21);
a p-electrode provided on the p-type layer in contact therewith (Fig. 2A p-side transparent contact electrode 30 on p-type semiconductor layer 23 in contact therewith),
the p-electrode including one of a Ru layer, a Rh layer, a Ni Layer, and an ITO layer (Par. 45 “the p-side transparent contact electrode 30…[is] formed of an oxide semiconductor, for example, Indium Tin Oxide (ITO)”);
an n-electrode provided on the n-type layer exposed at a bottom of the hole (Fig. 2A n-side contact electrode 31 on n-type semiconductor layer 21 at bottom of film openings 56); and
a protective film covering an entire upper surface of the element, the protective film including
a first protective film made of SiO2 (Fig. 2A, par. 45 “insulating film 51…[is] formed of, for example, silicon oxide (SiO2)”)and
a second protective film which are laminated in this order from a side of the substrate (Fig. 2A insulating layer 61 laminated on insulating film 51).
Kamiya does not appear to teach
the second protective film being made of SiN.
Kamiya’540 teaches in par. 56, when discussing insulating layer 15, that “[i]nstead of SiO2, SiN, Al2O3, TiO2, or the like may be used.”
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamiya with the teachings of Kamiya’540 and change the insulating films 61 as taught by Kamiya to be made from SiN because Kamiya’540 recognizes and teaches in par. 56 that SiO2 and SiN as equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06(I-II)).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1, further comprising
a reflection film between the first protective film and the second protective film (Kamiya figs. 2A/2B reflecting layer 52 between insulating layers 51/61), the reflection film including Al or an alloy mainly composed of Al (Kamiya par. 52 “the reflecting layers 52, 62 can be also formed of…an alloy including Al”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the hole is formed plurally and a plurality of the holes are arranged in a pattern of a square lattice, a triangular lattice, or a honeycomb; and the n-electrode is formed on a bottom of each hole (Kamiya fig. 1 light emitting element 1 arranged in a square lattice).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the second protective film has a thickness of 320 nm or more (Kamiya par. 46 teaches that “[i]t is preferable that the insulating films 51, 61 have a thickness of not less than 0.1 μm and not more than 1.0 μm,” which examiner notes is a taught range of 100 nm to 1000 nm. As the range taught by Kamiya overlaps the claimed range, it is taught by the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein a thickness ratio of the second protective film to the first protective film falls within a range of 0.5 to 2 (Kamiya par. 46 teaches that “[i]t is preferable that the insulating films 51, 61 have a thickness of not less than 0.1 μm and not more than 1.0 μm.” Therefore, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches embodiments where insulating films 51/61 are 300 nm and 600 nm, respectively. Additionally, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches embodiments where insulating films 51/61 are 600 nm and 300 nm, respectively. Therefore, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 8, see above claim objection regarding numbering, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein a thickness ratio of the second protective film to the first protective film is from 0.5 to 2 (Kamiya par. 46 teaches that “[i]t is preferable that the insulating films 51, 61 have a thickness of not less than 0.1 μm and not more than 1.0 μm throughout” and so the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 includes embodiments wherein the thickness ratio of insulating film 61 to 51 is from 0.5 to 2).
Regarding claim 9, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of the holes are arranged in a lattice pattern, and wherein the holes have a circular or polygonal planar shape (Kamiya fig. 3D see plurality of holes 56 arranged in a lattice pattern and having a circular shape).
Regarding claim 13, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1, further comprising
a reflection film including Al disposed between the first protective film and the second protective film (Kamiya figs. 2A/2B reflecting layer 52 between insulating layers 51/61 and Kamiya par. 52 teaches that “the reflecting layers 52, 62 can be also formed of…an alloy including Al”).
Regarding claim 14, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the protective film covers sidewalls and interiors of the holes (Kamiya fig. 2A insulating film 51 extends into and covers sidewalls and interiors of film opening 56).
Regarding claim 15, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the p-type layer comprises p-AlGaN (Kamiya par. 41 teaches that “the p-type semiconductor layer 23 is a layer including…AlxGayIn1−x−yN)” and as it is a p-type layer it’s p-AlGaInN).
Regarding claim 16, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the n-type layer comprises n-AlGaN (Kamiya par. 41 teaches that “the n-type semiconductor layer 21…includes, for example. a III-group nitride compound semiconductor of AlxGayIn1−x−yN” and as it is a n-type layer it’s n-AlGaInN).
Regarding claim 17, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the light emitting layer comprises a multiple quantum well structure (Kamiya par. 42 teaches that “[t]he light emitting layer 22 includes a plurality of quantum well layers and barrier layers and has a multiple quantum well structure”), and
wherein the p-electrode covers 70% or more of an upper surface area of the element (Kamiya fig. 3A, which shows p-side transparent contact electrode 30 in a plan view with respect to the whole element, would reasonably disclose and suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that p-side transparent contact electrode 30 covers 70% or more of an upper surface area of the element, see MPEP 2125.I).
Regarding claim 18, see above claim objection regarding numbering, Kamiya teaches a light emitting element having an emission wavelength of 200 nm to 280 nm (Par. 53 Kamiya teaches that “the light emitting element 1 can also be a LED emitting a light having a peak wavelength in ultraviolet region” and that “the region of the peak wavelength of the light emitted from the LED is not limited to the above-mentioned regions” and so a person of ordinary skill is capable of making the LED emit in the claimed wavelength range), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2A substrate 10);
a semiconductor layer including an n-type layer (Fig. 2A n-type semiconductor layer 21),
a light emitting layer (Fig. 2A light emitting layer 22), and
a p-type layer laminated in this order on the substrate (Fig. 2A p-type semiconductor layer 23 and layers 21/22/23 are laminated on substrate 10 in that order);
at least one hole formed in a surface of the p-type layer, the hole extending to the n-type layer (Fig. 2A see plurality of film openings 56 in surface of layer 23 that have a depth that reaches n-type semiconductor layer 21);
a p-electrode provided on the p-type layer in contact therewith (Fig. 2A p-side transparent contact electrode 30 on p-type semiconductor layer 23 in contact therewith);
an n-electrode provided on the n-type layer exposed at a bottom of the hole (Fig. 2A n-side contact electrode 31 on n-type semiconductor layer 21 at bottom of film openings 56); and
a protective film covering an upper surface of the element, wherein the protective film includes
a first protective film comprising SiO2 (Fig. 2A, par. 45 “insulating film 51…[is] formed of, for example, silicon oxide (SiO2)”), and
a second protective film stacked on the first protective film (Fig. 2A insulating layer 61 stacked on insulating film 51).
Kamiya does not appear to teach
the second protective film comprising SiN
Kamiya’540 teaches in par. 56, when discussing insulating layer 15, that “[i]nstead of SiO2, SiN, Al2O3, TiO2, or the like may be used.”
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamiya with the teachings of Kamiya’540 and change the insulating films 61 as taught by Kamiya to be made from SiN because Kamiya’540 recognizes and teaches in par. 56 that SiO2 and SiN as equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06(I-II)).
Regarding claim 19, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 18, further comprising
a reflection film between the first protective film and the second protective film (Kamiya figs. 2A/2B reflecting layer 52 between insulating layers 51/61), the reflection film including Al or an alloy mainly composed of Al (Kamiya par. 52 “the reflecting layers 52, 62 can be also formed of…an alloy including Al”).
Claims 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kamiya (US20120049219A1) and Kamiya’540 (US20160172540A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamei et al. (US20110316037A1, hereinafter Kamei) and Okuno (US20130015487A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the n-electrode includes:
a first layer at a position in contact with the n-type layer (Fig. 5 n-side contact electrode 31 in contact with n-type semiconductor layer 21), and
a second layer at a position in contact with the first layer (Fig. 5 n-side transparent wiring electrode 41 in contact with n-side contact electrode 31).
The combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 do not appear to teach
the first layer being made of AlNx, or AlyGa1-yNx having an Al composition higher than that of the n-type layer and having a thickness of 1nm or more and 3nm or less, and
the second layer being made of metal including Al as a main component and V and having a thickness of 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less.
Kamei teaches
the first layer being made of AlNx, or AlyGa1-yNx having an Al composition higher than that of the n-type layer and having a thickness of 1nm or more and 3nm or less (Par. 82 “[t]he p-contact layer 160 b is preferably AlxGa1-xN (0≦x≦0.4). If the Al composition is in the above range, it is preferable in that favorable crystallinity and a favorable ohmic contact with the first electrode 210 can be maintained”).
Okuno teaches in par. 34 a “first intermediate electrode 30 [that] has a double structure and is constituted by successively depositing a vanadium (V) layer 31 having a film thickness of approximately 18 nm and an aluminum (Al) layer 32 having a film thickness of approximately 1.8 μm.”
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 with the teachings of Kamei because as Kamei teaches that the Al composition within the AlGaN layer affects the ohmic contact, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, and Kamei with the teachings of Okuno because as both Kamiya and Okuno teach suitable materials for use in an electrode, it would have been obvious to substitute Kamei’s ITO with Okuno’s double structured electrode with aluminum and vanadium to achieve the predictable result of forming a double structured electrode with aluminum and vanadium.
Additionally, the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno teaches the limitation
the first layer having a thickness of 1nm or more and 3nm or less (While Kamei teaches a p-contact layer 160b in par. 84 with a thickness of 10 nm, as the only difference between the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno and the claimed invention is a relative recitation of dimensions and nothing within the disclosure indicates that a device having the claimed dimensions would perform differently than the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno, such a recitation of relative dimensions is not enough to be patentably distinct, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Additionally, the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno teaches the limitation
the second layer being having a thickness of 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less (While Okuno teaches aluminum layer 32 of their electrode having a thickness of approximately 1.8 µm, the primary function of the aluminum portion of the electrode is to provide electrical contact. A change in size the aluminum layer such that it has a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm would not provide any new or unexpected results as the primary function of providing electrical contact is maintained. Additionally, as nothing within the disclosure indicates the presence of new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were effectively filed to therefore change the size of the aluminum layer of the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno such that it has a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)).
Regarding claim 10, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 teaches the light emitting element according to claim 1
The combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 does not appear to teach
wherein the n-electrode comprises: a first layer comprising AlNx or AlyGal-yNx; and
a second layer comprising a metal including Al.
Kamei teaches
the first layer being made of AlNx, or AlyGa1-yNx (Par. 82 “[t]he p-contact layer 160 b is preferably AlxGa1-xN (0≦x≦0.4). If the Al composition is in the above range, it is preferable in that favorable crystallinity and a favorable ohmic contact with the first electrode 210 can be maintained”).
Okuno teaches in par. 34 a “first intermediate electrode 30 [that] has a double structure and is constituted by successively depositing a vanadium (V) layer 31 having a film thickness of approximately 18 nm and an aluminum (Al) layer 32 having a film thickness of approximately 1.8 μm.”
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kamiya and Kamiya’540 with the teachings of Kamei because as Kamei teaches that the Al composition within the AlGaN layer affects the ohmic contact, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, and Kamei with the teachings of Okuno because as both Kamiya and Okuno teach suitable materials for use in an electrode, it would have been obvious to substitute Kamei’s ITO with Okuno’s double structured electrode with aluminum and vanadium to achieve the predictable result of forming a double structured electrode with aluminum and vanadium.
Regarding claim 11, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno teaches the light emitting element according to claim 10,
wherein the first layer has a thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm (While Kamei teaches a p-contact layer 160b in par. 84 with a thickness of 10 nm, as the only difference between the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno and the claimed invention is a relative recitation of dimensions and nothing within the disclosure indicates that a device having the claimed dimensions would perform differently than the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno, such a recitation of relative dimensions is not enough to be patentably distinct, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 12, see above claim objection regarding numbering, the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno teaches the light emitting element according to claim 9,
wherein the second layer has a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm (Okuno teaches in par. 34 a “first intermediate electrode 30 [that] has a double structure and is constituted by successively depositing a vanadium (V) layer 31 having a film thickness of approximately 18 nm and an aluminum (Al) layer 32 having a film thickness of approximately 1.8 μm.” While Okuno teaches aluminum layer 32 of their electrode having a thickness of approximately 1.8 µm, the primary function of the aluminum portion of the electrode is to provide electrical contact. A change in size the aluminum layer such that it has a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm would not provide any new or unexpected results as the primary function of providing electrical contact is maintained. Additionally, as nothing within the disclosure indicates the presence of new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were effectively filed to therefore change the size of the aluminum layer of the combination of Kamiya, Kamiya’540, Kamei, and Okuno such that it has a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights