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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. More specifically, the foreign priority to KR10-2023-0100700 filed August 1st, 2023, is acknowledged. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on May 28th, 2024, and November 18th, 2024, are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification objection as previously issued (e.g., the title objection) has been withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments dated August 12th, 2026.
The abstract is objected to for failing to be in narrative form. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure: The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The claim objection as previously issued has been withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments dated August 12th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections to Claims 1-23 under 35 USC § 112(b) as previously issued have been withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments dated August 12th, 2026.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, et al (US 20180074326 A1; hereinafter referred to as Lee) and further in view of Kishimoto, et al. (US 20210091345 A1; hereinafter referred to as Kishimoto).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a display apparatus (display panel DP, [0128], Figs. 8A-8B) comprising:
a substrate (substrate SUB, [0087], Fig. 8A);
an organic light-emitting device disposed over the substrate (organic light-emitting diodes OLED, [0096], Fig. 8A):
a first inorganic encapsulation layer covering the organic light-emitting device (lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2, [0130], Figs. 8A-8B; the thin film encapsulating layer TFE comprises all of the inorganic and organic encapsulation layers, and, pursuant to Fig. 8A, the TFE is covering the OLED);
an organic encapsulation layer on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (organic layer OL, [0130], Fig. 8B);
a second inorganic encapsulation layer on the organic encapsulation layer (upper inorganic layer IOL-U2, [0130], Fig. 8B); and
a third inorganic encapsulation layer on the second inorganic encapsulation layer (upper inorganic layer IOL-U1, [0130], Fig. 8B),
wherein the third inorganic encapsulation layer is thicker than the second inorganic encapsulation layer ([0135], Fig. 8B; “the thickness of . . . the second upper inorganic layer 101-U2 [second inorganic encapsulation layer] may be about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms, e.g., about 500 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms. The thickness of . . . the first upper inorganic layer IOL-U1 [third inorganic encapsulation layer] may be several thousand angstroms”).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the second inorganic encapsulation layer has a thickness of 400 Å to 1800 Å.
However, Lee does disclose that the second inorganic encapsulation layer has a thickness of “about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms” ([0135]). Therefore, a prima face case of obviousness exists prior to the effective filing date of the instant application in order to modify the thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer due to the overlapping of ranges as taught by Lee and the instant application. See MPEP 2144.05. More specifically, the claimed range of the instant application of “400 Å to 1800 Å” overlaps with the claimed range of Lee in the ranges of about 400 Å and about 1000 Å.
Lee further fails to disclose wherein the organic encapsulation layer includes an upper surface which is surface-treated by using plasma.
However, in analogous art, Kishimoto discloses a display device wherein the organic encapsulation layer (Kishimoto: organic barrier layer 14, [0075], Fig. 3(a)) includes an upper surface which is surface-treated by using plasma (Kishimoto: [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the organic encapsulation layer of Lee such that it was surface-treated by using plasma, as disclosed by Kishimoto. One would be motivated to do so because the plasma ashing may improve the adhesiveness between the organic barrier layer and the inorganic barrier layer above it, while also modifying (making hydrophilic) the surface of the organic encapsulation layer (Kishimoto: [0158]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 1.
Lee/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a sum of a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer and a thickness of the third inorganic encapsulation layer is 4000 Å to 6000 Å.
However, Lee does disclose that the second inorganic encapsulation layer has a thickness of about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms, while the third inorganic encapsulation layer is “several thousand angstroms” ([0135]). The sum of “several thousand angstroms” and “about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms” can fall within the range of “4000 Å to 6000 Å”. As an example, “several thousand angstroms” could be interpreted as more than 2000 Å, for which the range of 4000 Å to 6000 Å overlaps with.
Therefore, due to this overlapping range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists prior to the effective filing date of the instant application in order to modify the combined thicknesses of the second inorganic encapsulation layer and the third inorganic encapsulation layer.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 1.
Lee/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second inorganic encapsulation layer has a thickness of 800 Å to 1500 Å.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the second inorganic encapsulation layer has a thickness of “about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms” ([0135]). As stated in the rejection of Claim 1, the range of “800 Å to 1500 Å” overlaps with the range of “about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms” as taught by Lee and, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness can be rendered to modify the thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer prior to the effective filing date of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 1.
Lee/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second inorganic encapsulation layer has a thickness of 1000 Å to 1200 Å.
However, as stated previously, Lee does disclose wherein the second inorganic encapsulation layer has a thickness of “about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms” ([0135]). Therefore, the claimed range of 1000 Å to 1200 Å overlap at an endpoint of their ranges. As such, pursuant to MPEP 2144.05(I), the overlapping endpoint is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer includes silicon oxynitride (Lee: [0132], “Each of the first and second lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 may be silicon oxynitride”), the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes silicon oxynitride (Lee: [0132], “the second upper inorganic layer IOL-U2 may be silicon oxynitride”), and the third inorganic encapsulation layer includes silicon nitride (Lee: [0132], “the first upper inorganic layer IOL-U1 may be silicon nitride”).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 5, wherein a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer is 1.86 to 1.89 (Lee: [0130]; “The refractive indexes of the lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 and the refractive indexes of the upper inorganic layers IOL-U1, IOL-U2 and IOL-U3 may be about 1.6 to about 2.2”; about 1.86 to about 1.89 falls within said range).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 7, wherein a refractive index of the third inorganic encapsulation layer is greater than the refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0134]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 5, wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire first inorganic encapsulation layer is higher than an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire second inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0132, 0134]).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer includes:
a 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer covering the organic light-emitting device and including silicon oxynitride (Lee: first lower inorganic layer IOL-L1, [0132], Fig. 8B; “Each of the first and second lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 may be silicon oxynitride”); and
a 1st-2nd inorganic encapsulation layer disposed on the 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer and including silicon oxynitride (Lee: second lower inorganic layer IOL-L2, [0132], Fig. 8B; “Each of the first and second lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 may be silicon oxynitride”),
wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire 1st-2nd inorganic encapsulation layer is higher than an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0132], “The second lower inorganic layer IOL-L2 may include more oxygen atoms in the same volume than the first lower inorganic layer IOL-L1”).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 10, wherein the 1st-2nd inorganic encapsulation layer is thinner than the 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0135], Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses a method of manufacturing a display apparatus (display panel DP, [0128], Fig. 8A-8B), the method comprising:
forming an organic light-emitting device over a substrate (substrate SUB, [0086], Fig. 8A);
forming a first inorganic encapsulation layer covering the organic light-emitting device (first and second lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2, [0130], Fig. 8B);
forming an organic encapsulation layer on the first inorganic encapsulation layer (organic layer OL, [0130], Fig. 8A); and
forming a third inorganic encapsulation layer on the second inorganic encapsulation layer (upper inorganic layer IOL-U1, [0130], Fig. 8B), the third inorganic encapsulation layer being thicker than the second inorganic encapsulation layer ([0135]).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose forming a second inorganic encapsulation layer with a thickness of 400 Å to 1800 Å on the organic encapsulation layer.
However, Lee does disclose forming a second inorganic encapsulation layer with a thickness of about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms (upper inorganic layer IOL-U2, [0130, 0135], Fig. 8B). As stated in rejected Claim 1, the range of 400 Å to 1800 Å overlaps with the referenced range as disclosed by Lee and, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness can be rendered.
Lee fails to further disclose surface-treating an upper surface of the organic encapsulation layer by using plasma.
However, in analogous art, Kishimoto discloses a display device wherein the organic encapsulation layer (Kishimoto: organic barrier layer 14, [0075], Fig. 3(a)) includes an upper surface which is surface-treated by using plasma ([0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the organic encapsulation layer of Lee such that it was surface-treated by using plasma, as disclosed by Kishimoto. One would be motivated to do so because the plasma ashing may improve the adhesiveness between the organic barrier layer and the inorganic barrier layer above it, while also modifying (making hydrophilic) the surface of the organic encapsulation layer (Kishimoto: [0158]).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the surface-treating an upper surface of the organic encapsulation layer by using plasma is performed between the forming of the organic encapsulation layer and the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (Kishimoto: [0157-0161]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the method of claim 12.
Lee/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the forming of the third inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming the third inorganic encapsulation layer so that the sum of a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer and a thickness of the third inorganic encapsulation layer is 4000 Å to 6000 Å.
However, Lee does disclose wherein the forming of the third inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming the third inorganic encapsulation layer so that the sum of a thickness of the second inorganic encapsulation layer and a thickness of the third inorganic encapsulation layer is the sum of about 100 to 1000 angstroms plus several thousand angstroms (Lee: [0135]). As stated in rejected Claim 2, the sum of several thousand angstroms and about 100 angstroms to 1000 angstroms would be at least greater than 3000 Å for which the claimed range of 4000 Å to 6000 Å would fall within. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness can be rendered with regard to this limitation.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the method of claim 12.
Lee/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming the second inorganic encapsulation layer to a thickness of 800 Å to 1500 Å.
However, as stated previously, Lee does disclose wherein the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming the second inorganic encapsulation layer to a thickness of about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms. (Lee: [0135]). As stated in rejected Claim 3, the claimed range of 800 Å to 1500 Å overlaps with the referenced range of about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms and, thus, a prima facie case of obviousness is made with regard to this limitation.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the method of claim 12.
Lee/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming the second inorganic encapsulation layer to a thickness of 1000 Å to 1200 Å.
However, as stated previously, Lee does disclose wherein the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming the second inorganic encapsulation layer to a thickness of about (Lee: [0135]). As stated above, the claimed range of about 1000 Å to about 1200 Å overlaps endpoints with about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms. See rejected Claims 1, 3, and 4.
Regarding Claim 22, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the forming of the first inorganic encapsulation layer includes:
forming a 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride to cover the organic light-emitting device (Lee: first lower inorganic layer IOL-L1, [0132], Fig. 8B; “Each of the first and second lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 may be silicon oxynitride”); and
forming a 1st-2nd inorganic encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride on the 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: second lower inorganic layer IOL-L2, [0132], Fig. 8B; “Each of the first and second lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 may be silicon oxynitride”),
wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire 1st-2nd inorganic encapsulation layer is higher than an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0132], “The second lower inorganic layer IOL-L2 may include more oxygen atoms in the same volume than the first lower inorganic layer IOL-L1”).
Regarding Claim 23, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the 1st-2nd inorganic encapsulation layer is thinner than the 1st-1st inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0135], Fig. 8B).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Kishimoto as applied to claims 1-5, 7-16, and 22-23 above, and further in view of Kakehata, et al (US 20100291753 A1; hereinafter referred to as Kakehata).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the display apparatus of claim 5.
Lee/Kishimoto fails to disclose wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire second inorganic encapsulation layer is about 5.0 atomic percent (at%) to about 7.0 atomic percent (at%).
However, in analogous art, Kakehata discloses an inorganic layer comprising of silicon nitride oxide (i.e., silicon oxynitride – the same material as the second inorganic encapsulation layer) wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire second inorganic encapsulation layer is about 5.0 atomic percent (at%) to about 7.0 atomic percent (at%) (Kakehata: [0058]; “oxygen . . . at concentrations ranging from greater than or equal to 5 atomic % and less than or equal to 30 atomic %”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second inorganic encapsulation layer to contain between 5.0 at% and 7.0 at% as disclosed by Kakehata. One would be motivated to do so as it is known in the art to modify the composition percentages of oxygen and nitrogen in silicon oxynitride in order to prevent impurities or moisture from entering into the device (Kakehata: [0057]). Additionally, it is well known in the art that modifying the composition percentages of oxygen and nitrogen in silicon oxynitride can result in a change in the refractive index of said layer, and the refractive index follows an equation as taught by Podlucky, et al (“Optimization of Fabrication Process of SiON/SiOx Films Applicable as Optical Waveguides”. Coatings; 2021, 11, 574).
Claim(s) 17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Kishimoto as applied to claims 1-5, 7-16, and 22-23 above, and further in view of Carruthers (US 20190333752 A1; hereinafter referred to as Carruthers).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee/Kishimoto discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the forming of the first inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming an inorganic encapsulation layer including silicon oxynitride (Lee: [0132], “Each of the first and second lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 may be silicon oxynitride”), the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming an inorganic encapsulation layer using reaction gases (Kishimoto: [0162]), and the forming of the third inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming an inorganic encapsulation layer including silicon nitride (Lee: [0134], “The first upper inorganic layer IOL-U1 may be silicon nitride”).
Lee/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose that the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming an inorganic encapsulation layer using reaction gases which does not include oxygen source, rather Kishimoto discloses the second inorganic encapsulation layer being formed using SiH4 and N2O gas.
However, in analogous art, Carruthers discloses that the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer includes forming an inorganic encapsulation layer using reaction gases which does not include oxygen source (Carruthers: [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the formation of the second inorganic encapsulation layer in Lee/Kishimoto such that it was formed using reactions gases which does not include oxygen source, as disclosed by Carruthers. One would be motivated to do so as following this formation process allows for excellent flexibility whilst being deposited at advantageously low temperatures, and the encapsulation layer can have improved moisture resistance, thus increasing device performance (Carruthers: [0010]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee/Kishimoto/Carruthers discloses the method of claim 17, wherein a refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer is about 1.86 to about 1.89 (Lee: [0130]; “The refractive indexes of the lower inorganic layers IOL-L1 and IOL-L2 and the refractive indexes of the upper inorganic layers IOL-U1, IOL-U2 and IOL-U3 may be about 1.6 to about 2.2”; about 1.86 to about 1.89 falls within said range).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee/Kishimoto/Carruthers discloses the method of claim 19, wherein a refractive index of the third inorganic encapsulation layer is greater than the refractive index of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0134]).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee/Kishimoto/Carruthers discloses the method of claim 17, wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire first inorganic encapsulation layer is higher than an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire second inorganic encapsulation layer (Lee: [0132, 0134]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Kishimoto/ Carruthers as applied to claims 17 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Kakehata, et al (US 20100291753 A1; hereinafter referred to as Kakehata).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee/Kishimoto/Carruthers discloses the method of claim 17.
Lee/Kishimoto/Carruthers fails to disclose wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire second inorganic encapsulation layer is about 5.0 atomic percent (at%) to about 7.0 atomic percent (at%).
However, in analogous art, Kakehata discloses an inorganic layer comprising of silicon nitride oxide (i.e., silicon oxynitride – the same material as the second inorganic encapsulation layer) wherein an average content of oxygen atoms in the entire second inorganic encapsulation layer is about 5.0 atomic percent (at%) to about 7.0 atomic percent (at%) (Kakehata: [0058]; “oxygen . . . at concentrations ranging from greater than or equal to 5 atomic % and less than or equal to 30 atomic %”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second inorganic encapsulation layer to contain between 5.0 at% and 7.0 at% as disclosed by Kakehata. One would be motivated to do so as it is known in the art to modify the composition percentages of oxygen and nitrogen in silicon oxynitride in order to prevent impurities or moisture from entering into the device (Kakehata: [0057]). Additionally, it is well known in the art that modifying the composition percentages of oxygen and nitrogen in silicon oxynitride can result in a change in the refractive index of said layer, and the refractive index follows an equation as taught by Podlucky, et al (“Optimization of Fabrication Process of SiON/SiOx Films Applicable as Optical Waveguides”. Coatings; 2021, 11, 574).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11-12, filed August 12th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee/Kishimoto. More specifically, Lee failed to explicitly disclose that the organic encapsulation layer included an upper surface which is surface-treated by using plasma. However, Kishimoto discloses an analogous device wherein the organic encapsulation layer is surface-treated by using plasma.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed August 12th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee/Kishimoto. More specifically, Kishimoto explicitly discloses surface-treating an upper surface of the organic encapsulation layer by using plasma after the formation of the organic encapsulation layer and before the forming of the second inorganic encapsulation layer.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12-13, filed August 12th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee/Kishimoto/Carruthers. More specifically, Kishimoto discloses forming a second inorganic encapsulation layer using reaction gases. However, Kishimoto uses oxygen sourced reaction gases. Carruthers discloses the formation of encapsulation layers using nonoxygen reaction gases and its benefits and would, therefore, render obvious the limitation of Claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Li, et al. (WO 2025060853 A1); discloses an analogous display device with similar formation steps regarding the thin-film encapsulation structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah C. Robertson whose telephone number is (571) 317-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone).
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, William B 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.
/Noah C. Robertson/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
