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 .
Claims status: amended claims: 1, 7, 12, 19; canceled claim: 17; the rest is unchanged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new reference is currently is being used in the present rejection.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557.
Regarding claim 1, Schroter discloses: a semiconductor layer (fig.2 item 2, para. [0044]) for converting photons or particles into charge carriers (para. [0044]-[0045]); and a first electrode (fig.2 item 9) disposed on a photon- or particle-receiving side of the semiconductor layer; a second electrode (fig.2 item 7) disposed on a side of the light emitting layer opposite the semiconductor layer, the semiconductor layer being disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; and a bias source connected between the first electrode and the second electrode to apply an electric field across the semiconductor layer (para. [0045]).
Schroter is silent about: a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers; the light emitting layer being disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, a bias source connected between the first electrode and the second electrode to apply an electric field across the light emitting layer; wherein the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone.
In a similar field of endeavor Niederloehner et al. disclose: A detection system, comprising: a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers (fig.1 item 12, para. [0038]-[0039])) disposed on above a semiconductor layer for converting photons or particles into charge carriers (fig.1 item 14, para. [0038]-[0039]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that cost effective and has higher sensitivity (Niederloehner et al. para. [0025]).
In light of the benefits for a detector that cost effective and has higher sensitivity as taught by Niederloehner et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light emitting layer of Niederloehner et al. above the semiconductor layer Schroter
Niederloehner et al. are silent about: the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone.
In a similar field of endeavor Solov’ev et al. disclose: the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone (pg. 553) motivated by the benefits for increased light emission.
In light of the benefits for increased light emission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schroter and Niederloehner et al. with the teachings Solov’ev et al. to have the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone.
Regarding claim 2, Schroter discloses: the semiconductor layer coverts x-rays into the charge carriers (para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Schroter discloses: the semiconductor layer is amorphous selenium (a-Se), GaAs, CdZnTe, CdTe, or perovskite crystal (ABX3) (para. [0019], [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the light emitting layer is an organic light emitting diode (OLED), GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAs, CdTe or CdZnTe (para. [0025]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that cost effective and has higher sensitivity (Niederloehner et al. para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. disclose: A detection method, comprising: providing a first electrode disposed on a photon- or particle-receiving side of a semiconductor layer; providing a second electrode disposed on a side of a light emitting layer opposite the semiconductor layer, the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer being disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; converting photons or particles into charge carriers in the semiconductor layer; using a bias source connected between the first electrode and the second electrode to apply an electric field across both the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer to transport the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and inject the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer; and generating light from the charge carriers in the light emitting layer by radiative recombination of the charge carriers (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Schroter discloses: the semiconductor layer coverts x-rays into the charge carriers (para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Schroter discloses: the semiconductor layer is amorphous selenium (a-Se), GaAs, CdZnTe, CdTe, or perovskite crystal (ABX3) (para. [0019], [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. disclose: the light emitting layer includes the emission zone having a thickness comparable to or less than a depth-of-field of a high numerical aperture microscope objective used to image the generated light (the claim does not recite any additional structure that further limits claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 5-6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557 and further in view of Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: The detection system of claim 1 further comprising layers or structures that improve light outcoupling towards one or more detectors.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: The detection system of claim 1 further comprising layers or structures that improve light outcoupling towards one or more detectors (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Regarding claim 6, Schwarzman et al. disclose: the layers or structures include a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens over the semiconductor layer (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al. to have a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer.
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: improving light outcoupling towards one or more detectors.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: improving light outcoupling towards one or more detectors (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Regarding claim 11, Schwarzman et al. disclose: improving the light outcoupling with a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al. (US 2015/0230767 A1; pub. Aug. 20, 2015) in view of Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557.
Regarding claim 12, Sjostrom et al. disclose: An x-ray microscopy system, comprising: an x-ray source (para. [0052]-[0053]) for generating an x-ray beam; an object holder (para. [0097]) for holding an object in the x-ray beam; and an x-ray detection system including a detector comprising a semiconductor layer for converting x-rays from the x-ray beam into charge carriers (para. [0037]) and a camera for detecting the light from the light emitting lay (para. [0052]-[0053]).
Sjostrom et al. are silent about: a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers by a first electrode disposed on a photon- or particle- receiving side of the semiconductor layer, a second electrode disposed on a side of the light emitting layer opposite the semiconductor layer, the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer being disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and a bias source connected between the first electrode and the second electrode to apply an electric field across both the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer in which the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone.
In a similar field of endeavor Schroter discloses: a first electrode (fig. 2 item 9) disposed on a photon- or particle- receiving side of the semiconductor layer (fig. 2 item 2), a second electrode (fig. 2 item 7), the semiconductor layer being disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and a bias source connected between the first electrode and the second electrode to apply an electric field across the semiconductor layer (para. [0014], [0045]) motivated by the benefits for an improved x-ray detector with a significant reduction of the dose (Schroter para. [0015]).
In light of the benefits for an improved x-ray detector with a significant reduction of the dose as taught by Schroter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sjostrom et al. with the teachings Schroter.
Schroter is silent about: a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers, to apply an electric field across both the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer in which the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone.
In a similar field of endeavor Niederloehner et al. disclose: a light emitting layer for generating light from the charge carriers (para. [0025]) that cover the surface of a semiconductor layer (para. [0040]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that cost effective and has higher sensitivity (Niederloehner et al. para. [0025]).
In light of the benefits for a detector that cost effective and has higher sensitivity as taught by Niederloehner et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sjostrom et al. and Schroter with the teachings Niederloehner et al.
Niederloehner et al. are silent about: to apply an electric field across both the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer in which the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone
In a similar field of endeavor Solov’ev et al. disclose: apply an electric field across both the semiconductor layer in which the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone (pg. 553) motivated by the benefits for increased light emission.
In light of the benefits for increased light emission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sjostrom et al., Schroter and Niederloehner et al. with the teachings Solov’ev et al. to apply an electric field across both the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer in which the electric field transports the charge carriers generated in the semiconductor layer to the light emitting layer and injects the transported charge carriers into an emission zone of the light emitting layer, radiative recombination occurring in the emission zone.
Regarding claim 13, Schroter discloses: the semiconductor layer is amorphous selenium (a-Se), GaAs, CdZnTe, CdTe, or perovskite crystal (ABX3) (para. [0019], [0025]) motivated by the benefits for an improved x-ray detector with a significant reduction of the dose (Schroter para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the light emitting layer is an organic light emitting diode (OLED), GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAs, CdTe or CdZnTe (para. [0025]) motivated by the benefits for a detector that cost effective and has higher sensitivity (Niederloehner et al. para. [0025]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al. (US 2015/0230767 A1; pub. Aug. 20, 2015) in view of Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557 and further in view Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014).
Regarding claim 15, the combined references are silent about: layers or structures that improve light outcoupling toward the camera.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: layers or structures that improve light outcoupling toward the camera (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sjostrom et al., Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. and Lang et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Regarding claim 16, Schwarzman et al. disclose: the layers or structures include a reflective layer, a Bragg grating, a surface structure, and/or microlens between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557 and further in view of Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014).
Regarding claim 18, Niederloehner et al. disclose: the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer are directly connected in a monolithic stack (para. [0040] teaches the luminous film 14 (OLED film (para. [0025]) covers the surface of the semiconductor layer 12), the semiconductor layer coverts x-rays into the charge carriers (para. [0039]).
The combined references are silent about: such that the transported charge carriers are injected across an interface between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Schwarzman et al. disclose: such that the transported charge carriers are injected across an interface between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer (para. [0021], [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current (Schwarzman et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for improved response time of the detector, energy and spatial resolution, stability and homogeneity of the multi-pixel detector response, increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and decrease the cross talks, without sufficiently increasing thermal noise and dark current as taught Schwarzman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. with the teachings Schwarzman et al.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557 and further in view of Frankel (US 6,096,496; pub. Aug. 1, 2000).
Regarding claim 20, the combined references are silent about: the light emitting layer comprises a semiconductor heterostructure including at least one quantum well active region between barrier layers to enhance radiative recombination at low injection levels.
In a similar field of endeavor Frankel discloses: the light emitting layer comprises a semiconductor heterostructure including at least one quantum well active region between barrier layers to enhance radiative recombination at low injection levels (col.21 L35-52) motivated by the benefits for enhanced light emission (Frankel col.21 L35-52).
In light of the benefits for enhanced light emission as taught Frankel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. with the teachings Frankel.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557 in view of Schwarzman et al. (US 2014/0070109 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014) and further in view of Kuo (US 2020/0227594 A1; pub. Jul. 16, 2020).
Regarding claim 21, the combined references are silent about: the reflective layer comprises a distributed Bragg reflector disposed between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer to reflect light emitted toward the semiconductor layer back toward the optical side.
In a similar field of endeavor Kuo discloses: the reflective layer comprises a distributed Bragg reflector disposed between the semiconductor layer and the light emitting layer to reflect light emitted toward the semiconductor layer back toward the optical side (para. [0033]) motivated by the benefits for enhancing the luminous efficiency (Kuo para. [0033]).
In light of the benefits for enhancing the luminous efficiency as taught by Kuo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schroter, Niederloehner et al., Solov’ev et al. and Schwarzman et al. with the teachings Kuo.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostrom et al. (US 2015/0230767 A1; pub. Aug. 20, 2015) in view of Schroter (US 2011/0284978 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2011) in view of Niederloehner et al. (US 2016/0025869 A1; pub. Jan. 28, 2016) in view of Solov’ev et al. et al. “Indirect excitons and Double Electron-Hole layers in a Wide Single GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Well in Strong Electric filed”, Max-Planck Institute, Pleiades Publishing, Inc, 2006, pg.553-557 and further in view of Kleppe et al. (US 2021/0141205 A1; pub. May 13, 2021).
Regarding claim 22, the combined references are silent about: an optical microscope including an objective lens and a tube lens arranged to collect the light generated by the light emitting layer and image it onto the camera.
In a similar field of endeavor Kleppe et al. disclose: an optical microscope including an objective lens and a tube lens arranged to collect the light generated by the light emitting layer and image it onto the camera (para. [0028]) motivated by the benefits for improved detection accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved detection accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sjostrom et al., Schroter, Niederloehner et al. and Solov’ev et al. with the teachings Kleppe et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
