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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2026 is being considered by the
examiner.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 02/25/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 11/25/2025 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final rejection is made by taking into fully consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks, filed on 02/25/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of Claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) of Claim 13 has been withdrawn.
On page 7 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1 and Claim 13, Applicant argues that for a showing of criticality of the claimed ranges of atomic ratios, data shown in Fig. 4 of the present disclosure constitute as evidence of tests inside and outside the claimed range. Applicant further asserts that the ranges were not recognized as an important variable at the time of the disclosure and thus a test within the range and outside the range would be a test performed on a device with and without the charge trap layer, respectively. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Data shown in Fig. 4 compares devices with (Graph C of Fig. 4) and without (Graph B of Fig. 4) the charge trap layer implying only the significance of the charge trap layer, and does not compare atomic ratios inside and outside the claimed ranges to prove the criticality of the claimed ranges. A showing of criticality and/or unexpected results would constitute, for example, data showing a significant increase in driving current within the claimed range (say at oxygen atom content of 55 at %) and a performance drop outside the claimed range (say at oxygen content of 52 at% and 58 at%). Further, Applicant’s assertion that the ranges were not recognized as an important variable is inconsistent with the allegation that the claimed ranges are critical. Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1 and 13 are maintained.
On page 8 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the combination of references neither teaches nor suggests that the Buffer Layer is directly disposed on the second barrier layer. Applicant further argues that the Rearrangement of parts rationale under In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) cannot be applied to the layers of Lee III as such a modification would change the operation of the device of Lee III. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Paragraph 0057 of Kang states the layers 12 and 14 function as barrier layers to protect unnecessary components from entering the OLEDs from the outside and are formed of, for example, silicon oxide and silicon nitride respectively, implying that these materials are merely exemplary and not mandatory assignments to the respective position of the layers. There is no mention that the disclosed ordering of the silicon oxide and silicon nitride is critical, mandatory or performance-dependent, or that reversing the positions of these layers would impair operation of the barrier layer. Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C), Rearrangement of Parts under In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) maybe obvious if it would not have modified the operation of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the positions of the layer 14 and layer 12 of Kang such that the buffer layer 22 is directly disposed on the second barrier layer 12. Additionally, the arguments pertaining to Lee III is moot as Lee III is not relied upon to teach the above limitation. Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1 and its dependents, in view Kang, are maintained.
On page 9 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 13, Applicant argues that the combination of references neither teaches nor suggests a buffer layer directly disposed on the first barrier layer and the first barrier layer directly disposed on the first substrate. Although Applicant’s argument states “a buffer layer directly disposed on the first barrier layer”, it is clear from the overall context and the rest of the argument that the intended statement was “a buffer layer directly disposed on the second barrier layer”. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed in the above paragraph. Further, even though Claim 13 does not require the first barrier layer be directly disposed on the first substrate, it is worth noting that Kang already teaches the first barrier layer 16 is directly disposed on the first substrate 10 (see Fig. 8 of Kang). Therefore, the rejections of Claims 13 and its dependents, in view Kang, are maintained.
On pages 10-12 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the insulating layer of Akimoto is not equivalent to the claimed lower charge layer because the structural location of the insulating layer in Akimoto is not sufficiently similar to that of the lower charge layer to suggest the combination. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, the primary reference Kang already teaches the limitation “a lower charge trap layer 14 disposed between the first substrate 10 and the buffer layer 22, the lower charge trap layer 14 including silicon nitride (Fig. 8: 14, 10, 22, paragraph 0057). Akimoto was only relied upon to teach or suggest the claimed ratios. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 in view of Kang/Akimoto is maintained.
On pages 12-13 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record has not even recognized the problem of increasing driving current and reducing afterimage and luminance drop phenomenon. Applicant also argues that the crux of Applicant's argument is not that the Examiner's rationale for combination is improper, but Instead is regarding what is currently claimed as a "Result-Effective" variable for an unrecognized problem. Applicant further argues that the they have discovered an unrecognized need and developed a previously undiscovered specialized range to address the need. These arguments are fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2144 (I), In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,"Id. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. As such, increasing driving current is a well-known desired and predictable result achievable with routine design change and optimization such as the inclusion of interlayers. In other words, the general need of increasing driving current has been recognized for decades and the application of silicon nitride/ silicon oxide interlayers to address the need is also long-known in the art. For example, Okita (US 6097453 A, published in 2000) has shown that the inclusion of silicon oxynitride interlayers has improved the driving current of display panel (see abstract). Thus, the recognition of the above issue as well as designing pathways to address the issue is well-known in the art and therefore does not impart patentable distinction to the claimed invention. Furthermore, under the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test for obviousness, it is not necessary to look for the same problem the patentee is trying to solve. See excerpt from MPEP § 2144 (I) below. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
“The Supreme Court in KSR reaffirmed the familiar framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), but stated that the Federal Circuit had erred by applying the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test in an overly rigid and formalistic way. KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that the Federal Circuit had erred in four ways: (1) "by holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve " (Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397); (2) by assuming "that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem" (Id.); (3) by concluding "that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘obvious to try’" (Id. at 421, USPQ2d at 1397); and (4) ….”.
On page 13 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the claimed oxygen/Nitrogen content of the upper charge trap layer is critical as the cited references fail to even consider the claimed oxygen content and nitrogen content increases the driving current is proof of unexpected results. Applicant further professes criticality of the above range by citing paragraph 0068 of the originally filed disclosure. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Paragraph 0068 only presents conclusory statements about unexpected results. Such conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2145, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 716.02(d)(II) (IV), “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1 is maintained.
On page 14 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, Applicant argues that Examiner’s assertion that the described function of layer 104 of Akimoto is different from that of layer 103 is based on incorrect assumptions. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The Examiner wishes to point out that no such assumptions were made. In fact, the assertion was made purely based on what was explicitly disclosed in the specification, which clearly clarifies the role of each layer. According to column 6, lines 54-58 of Akimoto, the barrier layer 103 is provided to prevent the contamination of the LTSS layer 101 by a mobile ion impurity like alkali metal or alkaline earth metal that is diffused from a glass substrate that is used as the supporting substrate 100. According to column 7, lines 16-17, the barrier layer 103 is provided to prevent the contamination of the LTSS layer 101 by an impurity, which could broadly mean impurities such as moisture and oxygen, which can not only permeate through the substrate but also from the upper layers. There is no claims in the disclosure of Akimoto that layer 104 serves to prevent impurities only diffused from the glass substrate. Thus, Applicant’s assumption that the layer 104 is described in the same way as barrier layer 103, whose purpose is to prevent intrusion of the contaminants from the glass is incorrect.
On pages 15-16 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant once again argues that the purpose of Applicant's claimed oxygen content in Applicant's upper charge trap layer is to increase driving current of the transistors formed thereon resulting in improved luminance and to improve long- term afterimage characteristic and thus, the claimed invention cannot fairly be obvious in view of applied art combination because none of the applied art references have even recognized the problem Applicant seeks to address. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive for the same reasons disclosed in paragraph 8 of this section. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1 is maintained.
On page 16 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, Applicant argues that Akimoto is not suggestive of a modification to Kang for the rejection of Claim 1, because the sole purpose of the insulating layer 104 of Akimoto is to prevent the impurities in the glass substrate 100 from migrating into the LTSS layer 101 and hence, does not apply to the polyimide substrates 10 and 20 of Kang. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. The Examiner once again respectfully clarifies that it is not layer 104, but layer 103 of Akimoto that serves to prevent the impurities in the glass substrate 100 from migrating into the LTSS layer 101 (see column 7, lines 35-47 of Akimoto). In fact, layer 104 of Akimoto serves to prevent the LTSS layer 101 of Akimoto from being contaminated by an impurity (see column 7, lines 11-17 of Akimoto). This impurity could be from environmental contaminants such as oxygen and moisture and thus, applies to Kang regardless of the type of substrate. Further, contrary to Applicant’s claim that layer 104 of Akimoto is not relevant for the plastic substrate of Kang, the inclusion of silicon oxynitride interlayers has been well supported in the prior art even for plastic substrates. For examples applied reference Lee I, discloses a silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride layer 110 applied to a polyimide substrate 100 in order to block impurities from entering the active layer of the TFT element (see Fig. 3, paragraph 0049, 0051 in English equivalent US2021265438A1 ). Thus, Applicant’s argument that the plastic substrate of Kang would not benefit from the teachings of Akimoto is incorrect. For this additional reason, this argument is not persuasive and hence the obviousness rejection of Claim 1 in view of Kang/Akimoto is maintained.
On pages 16 and 17 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the claimed oxygen atom content in the upper charge trap layer is critical by citing paragraphs 0085 and 0097 of the originally filed disclosure and rebuts the overlapping of ranges rationale. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. As previously pointed out, conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. See paragraph 8 of this section for detailed arguments. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 in view of previously cited prior art has been maintained.
On page 17 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that it is inconsistent and improper to use the silicon nitride version of buffer layer 110 of Lee l for a teaching of the upper charge trap layer when the office action previously relied upon the silicon oxide layer 24 of Kang to teach the same layer. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The Examiner wishes to clarify that the office action dated 11/25/2025 did not rely upon the silicon nitride version of the buffer layer 110 of Lee I, but in fact relied upon the silicon oxide version of buffer layer 110 to teach the claimed ranges in the upper charge trap layer (see Page 16, lines 12-22 of the office action mailed on 11/25/2025). Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 in view of previously cited prior art is maintained.
On page 15 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the N-H bonds of Lee l in the range of 0.5% or less is intended to reduce the leakage current and not intended to alleviate the luminance drop phenomenon. Applicant further rebuts the overlapping range rejection because the N-H bonds of Applicant's claim 6 has critical significance and produces unexpected results over that of the applied art. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2144 (IV) (see excerpt below), it is permissible to have the rationale to modify or combine prior art reference different from Applicant. As for Applicant’s arguments with regards to the criticality of the claimed N-H bond ratio, paragraph 0063 of the originally filed disclosure states: “In case that the charge trap layer Al includes silicon oxide, a ratio of N-H bond in the charge trap layer Al may be about 0.3 at% or less, or about 0.1 at% to about 0.2 at%. However, the ratio of the N-H bond in the charge trap layer Al is not limited thereto. (emphasis added)”. The above cited paragraph suggests that the claimed ratio is only desired and values outside the range also falls within the scope of the claimed invention and thus, contradicts the Applicant’s claim of criticality. Further, as mentioned earlier in paragraph 8 of this section, conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, the rejection of amended Claim 1 in view of all previously applied prior has been maintained.
“The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)”.
On pages 18 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 10, Applicant argues that the claimed silicon atom content and nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer are critical by citing paragraph 0143 of the originally filed disclosure. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. As previously pointed out in paragraph 8 of this section, conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 10 in view of previously cited prior art has been maintained.
On pages 18 and 19 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 11, Applicant argues that layer 170 in FIG. 1 of Lim is not fairly suggestive of a modification to layer 14 in FIG. 8 of Kang due to their vastly different locations. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. According to the claim language of Claim 1, “the lower charge trap layer is disposed between the first substrate and the buffer layer” (emphasis added). The BRI of Claim 1 does not preclude the presence of one or more intervening layers between the first substrate and the buffer layer, unless explicitly stated. Therefore, the layer 14 of Kang and layer 170 of Lim still meets the claim limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 11 respectively, and the combination thus meets the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 11 in view Kang/Yang/Akimoto/Lim has been maintained.
On page 20 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to the rejection of Claim 11, Applicant further argues that the previous Office Action has failed to articulate why layer 170 of Lim to be fairly suggestive of a modification to layer 14 of Kang, as the alleged benefit of "minimize humidity and/or gasses into the thin film transistor" would not make any sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the substrate in Kang is glass. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner wishes to point out that the substrates of Kang, as already pointed out by the Applicant, are not glass but plastic (see paragraph 0021 of Kang), and therefore, the benefit of minimizing the diffusion of humidity/gases into the TFT element would indeed make sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as plastic is well-known in the art as being permeable to humidity and gases. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 11 in view of the cited prior art is maintained.
On pages 21-22 of the remarks filed on 02/25/2026, with regards to rejection of Claim 12, Applicant argues that Azuma’s large N-H bond ratio teaches away from the claimed N-H bond ratio as the range disclosed by Azuma does not even overlap with the claimed range. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such even though the range disclosed by Azuma does not even overlap with the claimed range, the differences in the ratio will not provide patentable distinction to the claimed invention. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed range of ratio, 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 ratio of Azuma through routine optimization and have a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer in the claimed range. Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed ratio range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, the rejection of Claim 12 in view of the cited prior art is maintained.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations are limitations not explicitly disclosed in the primary
reference but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kang teaches a display device, comprising:
a first barrier layer 16 disposed on a first substrate 10 (Fig. 8:16, 10, paragraph 0127);
a second substrate 20 disposed on the first barrier layer 16 (Fig. 8:20, 16 and paragraph 0127);
a second barrier layer 12 disposed on the second substrate 20 (Fig. 8: 12, 20 and paragraph 0055);
a buffer layer 22 directly disposed on the second barrier layer 12 (Fig. 8: 22, 12 and paragraph 0057);
an upper charge trap layer 24 disposed on the buffer layer 22, the upper charge trap layer 24 including silicon oxide (Fig. 8: 24, 22 and paragraph 0057), and having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%;
Examiner note: According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The upper charge trap layer 24 of Kang is formed of silicon oxide, which is the same material as disclosed by applicant (see paragraph 0005 of original disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed “charge trapping” property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
a lower charge trap layer 14 disposed between the first substrate 10 and the buffer layer 22, the lower charge trap layer 14 including silicon nitride (Fig. 8: 14, 10, 22, paragraph 0057).
Examiner note: The lower charge trap layer 14 of Kang is formed of silicon nitride, which is the same material as disclosed by applicant (see paragraph 0005 of original disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
a semiconductor layer 135 disposed on the upper charge trap layer 24 (Fig. 8: 135, 24 and paragraph 0061);
a pixel electrode 710 disposed on the semiconductor layer 135 and electrically connected to the semiconductor layer 135 (Fig. 8:710, 135, 135 and paragraph 0073);
a pixel defining layer 190 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8: 190, 170 and paragraph 0074), the pixel defining layer 710 including an opening 95 exposing a portion of the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8: 95, 710 and paragraph 0075), and having a black color;
an intermediate layer 720 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 and disposed in the opening 95 (Fig. 8: 720, 710, 95 and paragraph 0076);
and a common electrode 730 disposed on the intermediate layer 720 (Fig. 8: 730, 720 and paragraph 0079),
wherein the upper charge trap layer includes a hydrogen atom (H) and a nitrogen atom (N), and a ratio of N-H bonds in the upper charge trap layer is about 0.3 at % or less,
and wherein a ratio of a silicon atom content in the lower charge trap layer to a nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 1.6 to about 2.5.
Kang fails to explicitly teach the buffer layer 22 is directly disposed on the second barrier layer 12. However, paragraph 0057 of Kang states the layers 12 and 14 function as barrier layers to protect unnecessary components from entering the OLEDs from the outside and are formed of, for example, silicon oxide and silicon nitride respectively, implying that these materials are merely exemplary and not mandatory assignments to the respective position of the layers. There is no mention that the disclosed ordering of the silicon oxide and silicon nitride is critical, mandatory or performance-dependent, or that reversing the positions of these layers would impair operation of the barrier layer. Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C), Rearrangement of Parts under In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) maybe obvious if it would not have modified the operation of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the positions of the layer 14 and layer 12 of Kang such that the buffer layer 22 is directly disposed on the second barrier layer 12.
Akimoto discloses a display device comprising an insulating layer 104 including silicon oxide (Fig 2A, column 7, lines 3 – 10), and the insulating layer 104 having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 50 at% to about 70 at% (column 7, lines 18 – 25). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Note that layer 104 is a stacked layer comprising a plurality of layers including silicon oxide and silicon nitride (column 7, lines 11-14). The atomic content of one of the silicon oxide layer of the stack is suggestive of the atomic content of the upper charge trap layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Akimoto, and have the upper charge trap layer to contain an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%. Doing so, would prevent the permeation of impurities into the active semiconductor layer, as recognized by Akimoto (column 7, lines 3 – 10).
Yang et al. teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer 70 having a black color (Fig. 8 of original document, paragraphs 0067 and 0072 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Yang et al. and fabricate the pixel defining layer to have a black color. Doing so, would ensure good light shielding properties as well as good dielectric constant, water and oxygen barrier performance, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Lee et al. teaches a display device comprising of a silicon oxide layer 110 disposed between a substrate 100 and semiconductor layer 120 (Fig. 3 and paragraph 0059 in English translation of Lee et al.), wherein the silicon nitride layer 110 includes a hydrogen atom (H) and a nitrogen atom (N), and a ratio of N-H bonds in the layer is about 0.5 at % or less (paragraph 0012 in English translation of Lee et al.). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Note that the buffer layer 110 of Lee I comprises a plurality of layers including silicon nitride and silicon oxide (see paragraph 0062 in English Translation of Lee I). The atomic contents/bond ratios of the silicon oxide portion of the buffer layer 110 is suggestive of a modification of the atomic contents/bond ratios of the upper charge trap layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, and Yang et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. to have the upper charge trap layer to include a hydrogen atom (H) and a nitrogen atom (N), and a ratio of N-H bonds in the upper charge trap layer to be about 0.3 at % or less. Doing so, would enhance the performance of the thin film transistor element and hence the display quality of the display device as recognized by Lee et al. (paragraphs 0004 and 0005 in English translation of Lee et al.).
Akimoto teaches an insulating layer 104 including silicon nitride (Fig 2A, column 7, lines 3 – 10), and the insulating layer 104 having a silicon atom content in a range of about 25 at% to about 35 at% and a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 20 at% to about 55 at% (column 7, lines 25 – 29), translating to a ratio of a silicon atom content to a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 0.4 to 1.8. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Note that layer 104 is a stacked layer comprising a plurality of layers including silicon oxide and silicon nitride (column 7, lines 11-14). The atomic content of one of the silicon nitride layer of the stack is suggestive of the atomic content of the lower charge trap layer.
Therefore, 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 ratio of a silicon atom content in the lower charge trap layer to a nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer in a range of about 1.6 to 2.5. Doing so would prevent the permeation of impurities into the active semiconductor layer, as recognized by Akimoto (column 7, lines 3 – 16).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the pixel defining layer 70 includes a black pigment (paragraph 0072 in English translation of Yang et al.)
Regarding Claim 4, Yang et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the optical density of the pixel defining layer 70 is greater than or equal to 0.7 (paragraph 0069), which includes the claimed value of about 1. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 5, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the pixel defining layer 190 overlaps the semiconductor layer 135 (See Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kang, Akimoto and Yang et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a silicon atom content in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 60at% to about 70at%, and a nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 25at% to about 35at%.
However, Akimoto teaches the insulating layer 104 has a silicon atom content in a range of about 25 at% to about 35 at% and a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 20 at% to about 55 at% (column 7, lines 25 – 29). Akimoto fails to explicitly teach a silicon atom content in a range of about 60 at% to about 70 at%. However, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see Examiner note below) of the claimed atomic content range, 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 atomic content of Akimoto through routine optimization and have a silicon atom content in a range of about 25 at% to about 35 at% and a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 20 at% to about 55 at%.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed atomic concentration range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2145, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness).
Regarding Claim 16, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first barrier layer 16 and the second barrier layer 12 include silicon oxide (paragraphs 0057 and 0134).
Regarding Claim 17, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first substrate 10 and the second substrate 20 include polyimide (paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 18, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the upper charge trap layer 24 is in contact with the semiconductor layer 135 (See Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the buffer layer 22 includes silicon nitride (paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 20, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor layer 135 includes polycrystalline silicon (paragraph 0063).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 2 above, further in view of Ahn et al. (US 9525016 B2).
The combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 2, wherein the black pigment of the pixel defining layer includes carbon black.
However, Ahn et al. teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer 180 having a black pigment, wherein the black pigment includes carbon black (column 6, lines 32 – 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. with the teachings of Ahn et al. and fabricate the pixel defining layer to include carbon black. Doing so, would ensure good light shielding properties as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of second Lee et al. reference (US 20180012947 A1), herein referred to as Lee II.
The combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the lower charge trap layer is formed under an ammonia-free (NH3 free) condition.
However, Lee II discloses a display device comprising of an interlayer 172 (Fig. 3A and 3B) including silicon nitride, wherein the interlayer 172 is formed under an ammonia-free (NH3 free) condition in order to suppress hydrogen diffusion into the thin film transistor 140, and thereby improve the variation in threshold volage (Table 1 and paragraph 0108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al., and Lee et al. with the teachings of Lee II and form the lower charge trap layer under an ammonia-free (NH3 free) condition. Doing so, would improve threshold voltage variation in the thin film transistor element as recognized by Lee II (paragraph 0108).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lim et al. (US 20210066153 A1).
The combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 8 at % to about 15 at %.
Lim et al. teaches a thin-film transistor device 100 comprising a silicon nitride layer 170 (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0045) serving to minimize the diffusion of humidity and/or gases into the thin-film transistor (paragraph 006), wherein a ratio of Si-H bond in the silicon nitride layer is in a range of about 0.1 at % to about 15 at % (paragraph 0027). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. with the teachings of Lim at al. and have a ratio of Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer in a range of about 8 at % to about 15 at %. Doing so, would minimize the diffusion of humidity and/or gases within the thin-film transistor as recognized by Lim et al. (paragraph 0006).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Azuma (JP H05129287 A).
The combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 8 to about 15.
Azuma teaches a thin film transistor device comprising a silicon nitride layer 3 (Fig. 3 and paragraph 0016 in English translation of Azuma), wherein a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 0.15 to about 0.35 (paragraph 0006 in English translation of Azuma).
While Azuma fails to explicitly specify a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the silicon nitride to be in a range of about 8 to about 15, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see Examiner note below) of the claimed range of ratio, 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 ratio through routine optimization and have a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 8 to about 15.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed ratio range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2145, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. with the teachings of Azuma to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would reduce the number of Si dangling bonds and thereby yield small threshold voltage shifts in the transistor even when exposed to relatively high temperatures (paragraph 0007 in English translation of Azuma).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and third refence Lee et al. (KR 20150105595 A), herein referred to as Lee III.
Regarding Claim 13, Kang teaches a display device, comprising:
a first barrier layer 16 disposed on a first substrate 10 (Fig. 8: 16, 10, paragraph 0127);
a second substrate 20 disposed on the first barrier layer 16 (Fig. 8: 20, 16 and paragraph 0127);
a second barrier layer 12 disposed on the second substrate 20 (Fig. 8: 12, 20 and paragraph 0055);
a buffer layer 22 directly disposed on the second barrier layer 12 (Fig. 8:22, 12 and paragraph 0057);
an upper charge trap layer 24 disposed on the buffer layer 22, the upper charge trap layer 24 including silicon oxide (Fig. 8:24, 22 and paragraph 0057), and having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%;
Examiner note: According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The upper charge trap layer 24 of Kang is formed of silicon oxide, which is the same material as disclosed by applicant (see paragraph 0005 of original disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed “charge trapping” property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
a semiconductor layer 135 disposed on the upper charge trap layer 24 (Fig. 8: 135, 24 and paragraph 0061);
a pixel electrode 710 disposed on the semiconductor layer 135 and electrically connected to the semiconductor layer 135 (Fig. 8: 710, 135 and paragraph 0073);
a pixel defining layer 190 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8: 190 and paragraph 0074), the pixel defining layer 710 including an opening 95 exposing a portion of the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8: 95 and paragraph 0075), and having a black color;
an intermediate layer 720 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 and disposed in the opening 95 (Fig. 8: 720 and paragraph 0076);
and a common electrode 730 disposed on the intermediate layer 720 (Fig. 8: 730, 720 and paragraph 0079).
and a lower charge trap layer 18 disposed between the first substrate 10 and the buffer layer 22 (Fig. 8: 18, 10, 22, paragraph 0129, 0130),
the lower charge trap layer 18 including silicon nitride,
wherein the lower charge trap layer 18 is disposed between the first barrier layer 16 and the second substrate 20, and a lower surface of the lower charge trap layer 18 directly contacts the first barrier layer 16 and an upper surface of the lower charge trap layer 18 directly contacts the second substrate 20 (see Fig. 8: 18, 16, 20).
Akimoto discloses a display device comprising of an insulating layer 104 including silicon oxide (Fig 2A, column 7, lines 3 – 10), serving to prevent the permeation of impurities (column 7, lines 3 – 10), and the insulating layer 104 having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 50 at% to about 70 at% (column 7, lines 18 – 25), which includes all of the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Akimoto, and have the upper charge trap layer to contain an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%. Doing so, would prevent the permeation of impurities, as recognized by Akimoto (column 7, lines 3 – 10).
Yang et al. teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer 70 having a black color (Fig. 8 of original document, paragraphs 0067 and 0072 in English translation of Yang et al.) to ensure good dielectric constant as well as good water and oxygen barrier performance while maintaining good light shielding properties (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Yang et al. and fabricate the pixel defining layer to have a black color. Doing so, would ensure good light shielding properties as well as good dielectric constant, water and oxygen barrier performance, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
While Kang fails to explicitly teach the lower charge trap layer 18 includes silicon nitride, paragraphs 0129 and 0130 of Kang state that the layer 18 is an adhesion promoting layer and maybe formed of a-Si:H, implying other materials can be used to provide the same adhesive function. Also note that layer 18 of Kang performs the same adhesive function as that of the lower charge trap layer AIL of the claimed invention (see Fig. 10: AIL and paragraph 00133 of originally filed disclosure). Further, Lee III teaches a display device comprising a lower charge trap layer 1SN disposed between the first substrate 1PL and the buffer layer 2BL, the lower charge trap layer 1SN including silicon nitride (Fig. 17 and paragraphs 0085 and 0086 of English translation of Lee III). Lee III further discloses that the silicon nitride layer 1SN disposed above the silicon oxide barrier layer improves the adhesive force between the first substrate 1PL and the second substrate 2PL (compare results of Sample 1 and Sample 3 of Table 1 and see paragraphs 0073 and 0074 of English translation of Lee III).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, using the combined teachings of Kang and Lee III, would have been motivated to substitute silicon nitride for a-Si:H for the lower charge trap layer with a reasonable expectation of success, as both materials are well-known adhesion promoting materials and the substitution would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of third refence Lee et al. (KR 20150105595 A), herein referred to as Lee III.
The combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the lower charge trap layer is disposed between the second substrate and the second barrier layer.
Lee III teaches a silicon nitride layer SiNx, wherein the silicon nitride layer SiNx is disposed between the second substrate 2PL and the second barrier layer (SiO2 layer of the composite layer 2BL) (see Sample 4 of Table 1, Fig. 11b, and paragraph 0073 in English translation of Lee III).
Note that in Sample 4, the second barrier layer 2BL is composite layer SiNx/SiO2/SiNx. The first SiNx layer of the composite is interpreted as the lower charge trap layer and the SiO2 layer of the composite is interpreted as the second barrier layer. Also note that the upper structure of Sample 4 of Table 1 in Lee III is similar to the structure disclosed in the present disclosure according to an embodiment (see Fig. 11 of originally filed disclosure) as summarized in the table below. Lee III further discloses that the structure of Sample 4 improves the adhesion between the first and the second substrates (paragraph 0074 and Table 1 in English translation of Lee III).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al., and Lee et al. with the teaching of Lee III and have the lower charge trap layer disposed between the second substrate and the second barrier layer. Doing so, would improve the adhesion between the first and the second substrate as recognized by Lee III (paragraphs 0073 and 0074 in English translation of Lee III).
Table 1: Comparison of Device Structure of Lee III (KR 20150105595 A) and Present Disclosure
Device structure (Upper Portion)
Prior Art (Lee III)
…2PL / SiNx / SiO2 / SiNx /…
Present Disclosure
…/ SUB2 / SiNx (AIL) / SiOx (BL2)/ SiNx (BF)/…
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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 05/07/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights