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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 12/15/2025. Claim 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added or canceled. Currently, claims 1-5, 10-15, 18, 20-21, 23, and 25-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025, have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitations because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-13, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220208891, hereinafter “Liu I”) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200013833).
Regarding claim 1, Liu I teaches, in Fig. 5, an array substrate ([0037]), comprising:
a plurality of sub-pixel groups ([0037]), wherein each of the sub-pixel groups comprises two first color sub-pixels (16), one second color sub-pixel (14), and one third color sub-pixel (12) ([0037], see marked Fig. 5 below outlining each group),
PNG
media_image1.png
642
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu I Fig. 5. Boxes outline each sub-pixel group.
wherein, in each of the sub-pixel groups, a first connection line (side f; [0053]-[0054]) between centers of the two first color sub-pixels (16) is perpendicular to a second connection line (side a; [0035], [0053]), between a center of the second color sub-pixel (14) and a center of the third color sub-pixel (12) ([0054]), and
a length of an orthographic projection of a third connection line (hereinafter “CL3”), between a center of one of the first color sub-pixels (16) and the center of the second color sub-pixel (14), on the second connection line (side a) is different from a length of an orthographic projection of a fourth connection line (hereinafter “CL4”), between the center of the one of the first color sub-pixels (16) and the center of the third color sub-pixel (12), on the second connection line (side a) ([0044] and Liu claim 16; because side f is perpendicular to side a, and the distance from 16 to 12 is less than the distance from 16 and 14);
the plurality of sub-pixel groups are arranged along a first direction (vertical direction) to form a plurality of sub-pixel group rows (see marked Fig. 5 above), the plurality of sub-pixel groups are arranged along a second direction (horizontal direction) intersecting with the first direction to form a plurality of sub-pixel group columns, and two adjacent sub-pixel group columns are in a staggered arrangement (see marked Fig. 5 above) ([0037], [0053], [0054]); and
in the sub-pixel group column, two adjacent sub-pixel groups comprise a first sub-pixel group (see for example, the group in Row N + 2 and Column N in marked Fig. 5 above) and a second sub-pixel group (see for example, the group in Row N and Column N in marked Fig. 5 above), and a minimum distance (side e, [0054]) between a center of the first color sub-pixel (16 on the left) in the first sub-pixel group and a center of the first color sub-pixel (16 on the right) in the second sub-pixel group is unequal to a length of the first connection line (side f of the first sub-pixel group) ([0053], first connection line f has a different length than side e).
Liu I does not explicitly teach that a minimum distance between a center of the first color sub-pixel in the first sub-pixel group and a center of the first color sub-pixel in the second sub-pixel group is smaller than a length of the first connection line, and the length of the first connection line is less than 78 microns.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wang teaches, in Figs. 1 and 4 (Fig. 1 is bottom half of Fig. 4),
PNG
media_image2.png
615
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang Fig. 1. Boxes outline each sub-pixel group.
that a minimum distance (hereinafter “MD”; see marked Fig. 1 above) between a center of the first color sub-pixel (Fig. 1, top sub-pixel 111 in the first sub-pixel group) in the first sub-pixel group ([0064], [0065], [0071]; [0088]) (each sub-pixel group contains two first color sub-pixels 111, one second color sub-pixel 113, and one third color sub-pixel 112) ([0090]; note that the 112 sub-pixel block can be considered as one sub-pixel, and that the 113 sub-pixel block can be considered as one sub-pixel) and a center of the first color sub-pixel in the second sub-pixel group (Fig. 1, bottom sub-pixel 111 in the second sub-pixel group) is smaller than a length of the first connection line (hereinafter “CL1”; see marked Fig. 1 that illustrates the first connection line CL1 of the sub-pixel group in the adjacent column) ([0052], [0063], [0097]; the length of the first connection line is 1¼ L, and the pitch of repeating units is 2L, so minimum distance “MD” is ¾ L, which is less than first connection line length 1¼ L),
and that the length of the first connection line (CL1) is less than 78 microns ([0077];
For each sub-pixel 111, its center to its edge is 1/8 L.
The distance between adjacent edges of the top sub-pixel 111 in the first sub-pixel group and the bottom sub-pixel 111 in the second sub-pixel group is equal to (the minimum distance ¾ L – 2*(1/8 L)) = ½ L ;
½ L = 12 microns ([0077]);
L = 24 microns;
Therefore, the first connection line is 1 ¼ L, so its length is 30 microns, which is less than 78 microns),
in order to “avoid a case where adjacent two first color sub-pixel blocks are difficult to distinguish and are visually combined into one by human eyes due to a closer distance between the adjacent first color sub-pixel blocks, so that granular sensation generated thereby can be avoided” ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lengths of the first connection line and minimum distance between a center of the first color sub-pixel in the first sub-pixel group and a center of the first color sub-pixel in the second sub-pixel group of Liu I with the lengths of Wang, in order to prevent a case where adjacent two first color sub-pixel blocks are difficult to distinguish and are visually combined into one by human eyes due to a closer distance between the adjacent first color sub-pixel blocks, and prevent granular sensation ([0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches, in Fig. 5, that the length of the orthographic projection of the third connection line (CL3), between the center of the one of the first color sub-pixels (16) and the center of the second color sub-pixel (14), on the second connection line (side a) is greater than the length of the orthographic projection of the fourth connection line (CL4), between the center of the one of the first color sub-pixels (16) and the center of the third color sub-pixel (12), on the second connection line (side a) ([0044] and Liu claim 16; because side f is perpendicular to side a, and the distance from 16 to 12 is less than the distance from 16 and 14), and
that a light-emitting efficiency of the second color sub-pixel (14) is lower than a light- emitting efficiency of the third color sub-pixel (12) ([0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches that in each of the sub-pixel groups, in a direction of the third connection line (CL3), no other sub-pixel is provided between the first color sub-pixel (16) and the second color sub-pixel (14) (see Fig. 5); and
in a direction of the fourth connection line (CL4), no other sub-pixel is provided between the first color sub-pixel (16) and the third color sub-pixel (12) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches a sub-pixel interval, wherein the sub-pixel interval is provided between two adjacent sub-pixels, and the sub-pixel is any one selected from a group consisting of the first color sub-pixel, the second color sub-pixel, and the third color sub-pixel, wherein each of the sub-pixel groups comprises four sub-pixels separated by the sub-pixel interval ([0052], each sub-pixel is separated from another sub-pixel by at least a “technical limit distance”).
Regarding claim 5, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches, in Fig. 5, that the second connection line (side a), the third connection line (CL3), and the fourth connection line (CL4) form a non-equilateral triangle ([0044], CL3 is not equal to CL4).
Regarding claim 10, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches, in Fig. 5, that two adjacent first color sub-pixels (16) in the first direction (vertical) overlap with a straight line extending in the first direction ([0037], see marked Fig. 5 above how in Row N + 1, sub-pixels 16 in Column N + 1 would share the same vertical line with sub-pixels 16 in Column N – 1 because sub-pixels 14 in Row N + 1 share a vertical line).
Regarding claim 11, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches, in Fig. 5, that centers of two first color sub-pixels (16) in the first sub-pixel group and centers of two first color sub-pixels (16) in the second sub-pixel group are on one straight line (in horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 12, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I in view of Wang further teaches that the plurality of sub-pixel groups are arranged along the first direction (vertical direction) to form a plurality of sub-pixel group rows (see marked Fig. 5 above), the plurality of sub-pixel groups are arranged along the second direction (horizontal direction) intersecting with the first direction to form a plurality of sub-pixel group columns, and two adjacent sub-pixel group columns are in a staggered arrangement (see marked Fig. 5 above) ([0037], [0053], [0054]), and that in the sub-pixel group column, two adjacent sub-pixel groups comprise a first sub-pixel group (see for example, the group in Row N + 2 and Column N in marked Fig. 5 above) and a second sub-pixel group (see for example, the group in Row N and Column N in marked Fig. 5 above).
However, Liu I in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that a minimum spacing in the first sub-pixel group and the second sub-pixel group, to a size of the second color sub-pixel in an extending direction of the first connection line ranges from 0.8 to 1.2. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that distances between the sub-pixels would impact first color sub-pixel arrangement uniformity and visual granularity (Wang, [0053]).
The specific claimed distances, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” distances disclosed by Liu I in view of Wang that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired first color sub-pixel arrangement uniformity, visual granularity, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as a ratio of a maximum distance of vertices of two first color sub-pixels with a minimum spacing in the first sub-pixel group and the second sub-pixel group, to a size of the second color sub-pixel in an extending direction of the first connection line ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 is used, as already suggested by Liu I in view of Wang.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the distances stated and since these distances are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Liu I in view of Wang.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed lengths or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang further teaches, in Fig. 2, that a shape of the first color sub-pixel (111) is a non-centrally symmetric polygon ([0078]), a shape of the second color sub-pixel (113) is a non-centrally symmetric polygon, and a shape of the third color sub-pixel is a non-centrally symmetric polygon (112) ([0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang further teaches, in Fig. 2, that at least one of a group consisting of a shape of the second color sub-pixel (113) and a shape of the third color sub-pixel (112) comprises a pair of parallel edges, the pair of parallel edges comprises a first parallel edge and a second parallel edge, and a length of the first parallel edge is greater than a length of the second parallel edge (Fig. 2, both the second and third color sub-pixel); and
a distance between the first (longer) parallel edge and the first connection line (CL1) is greater than a distance between the second (shorter) parallel edge and the first connection line (CL1) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches a display device, comprising the array substrate according to claim 1 ([0061]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220208891, hereinafter “Liu I”) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200013833), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20230058293, hereinafter “Liu II”).
Regarding claim 14, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that a ratio of a size of a shape of the first color sub-pixel in an extending direction of the first connection line to a size of a shape of the first color sub-pixel in an extending direction of the second connection line ranges from 1.6 to 2.8; or a ratio of a size of a shape of the second color sub-pixel in the extending direction of the first connection line to a size of a shape of the second color sub-pixel in the extending direction of the second connection line ranges from 4.3 to 6.7; or a ratio of a size of a shape of the third color sub-pixel in the extending direction of the first connection line to a size of a shape of the third color sub-pixel in the extending direction of the second connection line ranges from 0.4 to 0.76.
Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the sizes of the sub-pixels would impact aperture ratio and color edge strength (Liu II, [0090]). The specific claimed sizes, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” sizes disclosed by Liu I in view of Wang and Liu II that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired aperture ratio, strength of color edge, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as a ratio of a size of a shape of the first color sub-pixel in an extending direction of the first connection line to a size of a shape of the first color sub-pixel in an extending direction of the second connection line ranging from 1.6 to 2.8 is used, as already suggested by Liu I in view of Wang and Liu II.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the sizes stated and since these sizes are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Liu I in view of Wang and Liu II.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed lengths or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220208891, hereinafter “Liu I”) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200013833), and further in view of Huangfu et al. (US 20200043990).
Regarding claim 25, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang further teaches, in Fig. 9, a base substrate (101, [0105]),
a first color pixel electrode (1110), a second color pixel electrode (1121), and a third color pixel electrode (1131) ([0106]), which are on the base substrate (101, [0105]) (see Fig. 9);
a pixel defining layer ([0119]), wherein the pixel defining layer is on a side of the first color pixel electrode (1110), the second color pixel electrode (1120), and the third color pixel electrode (1130) away from the base substrate (101) ([0119]), the pixel defining layer comprises a first opening, a second opening, and a third opening, the first opening exposes the first color pixel electrode, the second opening exposes the second color pixel electrode, and the third opening exposes the third color pixel electrode ([0119]);
a first color light-emitting layer (1111, [0106]), and the first color light-emitting layer covers, through the first opening, a portion of the first color pixel electrode (1110) exposed by the first opening ([0119]);
a second color light-emitting layer (1121, [0106]), and the second color light-emitting layer covers, through the second opening, a portion of the second color pixel electrode exposed by the second opening ([0119]); and
a third color light-emitting layer (1131, [0106]), and the third color light- emitting layer covers, through the third opening, a portion of the third color pixel electrode (1130) exposed by the third opening ([0119]);
,
wherein a shape and a size of the first color sub-pixel are defined by the first opening, a shape and a size of the second color sub-pixel are defined by the second opening, and a shape and a size of the third color sub-pixel are defined by the third opening ([0119]).
Liu I in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that the first color light-emitting layer is on a side of the pixel defining layer away from the first color pixel electrode, the second color light-emitting layer is on a side of the pixel defining layer away from the second color pixel electrode, and the third color light-emitting layer is on a side of the pixel defining layer away from the third color pixel electrode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Huangfu teaches, in Figs. 7-8, that the first color light-emitting layer (60, Fig. 7; 611, Fig. 8; [0117]) is on a side of the pixel defining layer (50, Fig. 7) away from the first color pixel electrode (40, Fig. 7; 411, Fig. 8), the second color light-emitting layer (60, Fig. 7; 612, Fig. 8) is on a side of the pixel defining layer (50) away from the second color pixel electrode (40, Fig. 7; 412, Fig. 8), and the third color light-emitting layer (60, Fig. 7; 613, Fig. 8) is on a side of the pixel defining layer (50) away from the third color pixel electrode (40, Fig. 7; 413, Fig. 8) ([0117]-[0118])),
in order to “produce a high PPI (Pixel per inch, pixel density) display device” ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pixel defining layer configuration of Liu I in view of Wang with the pixel defining layer configuration of Huangfu, in order to produce a high PPI (Pixel per inch, pixel density) display device.
Regarding claim 26, Liu I in view of Wang and Huangfu teaches the limitations of claim 25. Huangfu further teaches, in Fig. 9, that two first color light-emitting layers of two adjacent first color sub-pixels in an extending direction of the first connection line are integrated into one first color integrated light-emitting layer, and an orthographic projection of the first color integrated light-emitting layer on the base substrate covers two first openings ([0121]-[0122]).
Claims 15, 20-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220208891, hereinafter “Liu I”) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200013833), and further in view of Li et al. (CN 109994503 A) (citations made hereinafter to US 20200127060 as the equivalent English translation).
Regarding claim 15, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches, in Fig. 5, that an orthographic projection of the third color sub-pixel (12) on the first connection line (side f) is not overlapped with the orthographic projection of the first color sub-pixel (16) on the first connection line (side f).
Liu I in view of Wang does not teach that in each of the sub-pixel groups, an orthographic projection of the second color sub-pixel on the first connection line overlaps with an orthographic projection of the first color sub-pixel on the first connection line.
In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches, in Fig. 6, that in each of the sub-pixel groups, an orthographic projection of the second color sub-pixel (“B”; [0053]) on the first connection line (between centers of “G” sub-pixels) overlaps with an orthographic projection of the first color sub-pixel (“G”) on the first connection line (see Fig. 6, [0053]), in order to “balance the difference in the brightness decay speed among the sub-pixels” ([0053]-[0054], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sub-pixel configuration of Liu I in view of Wang with the first color sub-pixel and second color sub-pixel configuration of Li, in order to balance the difference in the brightness decay speed among the sub-pixels ([0053]-[0054], [0081]).
Regarding claim 20, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang further teaches, in Fig. 3, that at least one of a group consisting of a shape of the second color sub-pixel (113) and a shape of the third color sub-pixel (112) comprises a polygon, the polygon comprises two vertices, and a distance between the two vertices (top and bottom vertices) is a maximum size of the polygon in a second direction (vertical direction); and
the polygon is divided, by a connection line between the two vertices, into a first portion and a second portion which are on both sides (left and right sides) of the connection line (see Fig. 3).
Liu I in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that an area of the first portion is not equal to an area of the second portion.
In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches, in Fig. 6, that an area of the first portion is not equal to an area of the second portion ([0039]-[0041]; for both “B” and “R” sub-pixels, if divided from the top to bottom vertices, the areas of the left and right portions are not equal), so that the aperture ratio of the “R” sub-pixel can be added to the aperture ratio to the “G” sub-pixel, which would balance the difference in brightness decay speed among the sub-pixels ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sub-pixel configuration of Liu I in view of Wang with the areas of Li, in order to have the aperture ratios balance the difference in the brightness decay speed among the sub-pixels ([0081]).
Regarding claim 21, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 20. Wang further teaches, in Fig. 3, that the polygon (both 112 and 113) comprises a first edge (left of 112 and right of 113) and a second edge (right of 112 and left of 113), the first edge and the second edge are parallel to each other and parallel to the connection line between the two vertices (vertical direction), a length of the first edge is greater than a length of the second edge (see Fig. 3), the first portion is a portion where the first edge of the polygon is located, the second portion is a portion where the second edge of the polygon is located, and a size of the first portion in the first direction is smaller than a size of the second portion in the first direction (the first portion has a smaller width than the second portion in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 23, Liu I in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu I further teaches, in Fig. 5, that a shape of the first color sub-pixel (16) comprises a pair of parallel edges, the pair of parallel edges comprises two parallel edges ([0032).
Liu I in view of Wang does not teach that in one of the sub-pixel groups, a length of one of the two parallel edges close to the second color sub-pixel is smaller than a length of another of the two parallel edges close to the third color sub-pixel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches, in Figs. 6-7, that a length (for concave first color sub-pixel “G” in Fig. 6) of one of the two parallel edges close to the second color sub-pixel (“B”) is smaller than a length of another of the two parallel edges close to the third color sub-pixel (“R”) (by using Fig. 7’s bottom right shape to replace the concave G pixel in Fig. 6), “in order to balance the differences in brightness decay speed among sub-pixels” ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first color sub-pixel shape of Liu I in view of Wang with the first color sub-pixel shape of Li, in order to balance the differences in brightness decay speed among sub-pixels ([0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is 703-756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30-9 PM ET.
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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893