DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed
in Korea, KR 10-20211-0161663 on November 11, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2026 is being considered by the
examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An Amendment filed on 02/10/2026, responding to the Office Action mailed on 11/12/2025, has been acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Non-Final Rejection is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Arguments
On pages 8-9 of the remarks filed on 01/07/2026, with respect to 103 rejection of independent Claims 1, and 18, Applicant argues that Endo fails to disclose, teach, or even suggest "wherein the circuit board extends into the step between the first region and the second region of the optical layer, and wherein the second region of the optical layer is spaced apart from the circuit board”. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, Endo et al. teaches “wherein the circuit board 22 extends into the step between the first region P1 and the second region P2 of the optical layer” (see annotated Fig. 3: 22, P1, P2, see Claim 1, column 3, lines 7-18), and Yang teaches “wherein the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 is spaced apart from the circuit board 05, 06 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 05, 06, P2). Therefore, the rejection of independent Claim 1 and 18 in view of Yang/Endo is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
On page 9 of the remarks filed on 01/07/2026, with respect to 103 rejection of independent Claims 1, and 18, Applicant argues that Yang fails to disclose, teach, or even suggest "wherein the circuit board extends into the step between the first region and the second region of the optical layer, and wherein the second region of the optical layer is spaced apart from the circuit board”. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, Endo et al. teaches “wherein the circuit board 22 extends into the step between the first region P1 and the second region P2 of the optical layer” (see annotated Fig. 3: 22, P1, P2, see Claim 1, column 3, lines 7-18), and Yang teaches “wherein the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 is spaced apart from the circuit board 05, 06 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 05, 06, P2). Therefore, the rejection of independent Claim 1 and 18 in view of Yang/Endo is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
On page 10 of the remarks filed on 01/07/2026, with respect to 103 rejection of independent Claims 1, and 18, Applicant argues that there is no apparent reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yang and Endo such that the circuit board both (i) extends into the step and (ii) is spaced apart from the thinner second region of the optical layer. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Yang already teaches the circuit board 05, 06 is spaced apart from the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 05, 06, P2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Yang et al. and Endo et al. in order to have the circuit board extend into the step between the first region and the second region of the optical layer of Yang such that the circuit board is spaced apart from the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would ensure the circuit board is embedded within the step, thereby realizing thin display devices, as recognized by Endo et al. (column 5, lines 30-34). Therefore, the rejection of independent Claim 1 and 18 in view of Yang/Endo is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang et al. teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel 02 including pixels disposed in a display area AA and a non-display area W: W1, W2, W3, W4 adjacent to at least a side of the display area AA (Fig. 6: 02, Fig. 7: AA, W1, W2, W3, W4, paragraph 0068);
a circuit board 05, 06 bonded to at least a surface of the display panel 02 that overlaps the non- display area AA in a plan view, the circuit board 05, 06 being electrically connected to the pixels (Fig. 8: 05, 06, 02, Fig. 7: AA, paragraph 0093);
and an optical layer 203, 2012, 204, 01 disposed on the display panel 02 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 203, 2012, Fig. 4: 01, 13, paragraph 0052, 0055, 0064),
wherein the optical layer 01, 204 includes:
a first region P1 having a first thickness T1 (see annotated Fig. 8: P1, T1);
and a second region P2 having a second thickness T2 less than the first thickness T1 of the first region P1 of the optical layer 01, 204 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 203, 2012, T1, T2, P1, P2),
and a step between the first region P1 and the second region P2 (see annotated Fig. 8: P1, P2, step),
and wherein the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 overlaps the bonded portion of the circuit board 05, 06 in a plan view (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 05, 06, P2).
and wherein the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 is spaced apart from the circuit board 05, 06 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 05, 06, P2).
Yang et al. fails to teach wherein the circuit board extends into the step between the first region and the second region of the optical layer.
However, Endo et al. teaches a display device, wherein the circuit board 22 extends into the step between the first region P1 and the second region P2 of the optical layer (see annotated Fig. 3: 22, P1, P2, see Claim 1, column 3, lines 7-18).
Note that an electrooptic layer sandwiched between the substrates 23 and 24 not shown in Fig. 3 will have a step between first region P1 and second region P2 (see Claim 1, column 3, lines 7-18, column 6, lines 43-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Yang et al. and Endo et al. in order to have the circuit board extend into the step between the first region and the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would ensure the circuit board is embedded within the step, thereby realizing thin display devices, as recognized by Endo et al. (column 5, lines 30-34).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a light blocking pattern 207 disposed on a surface of the optical layer 203 facing the circuit board 05, 06 in the second region P2 of the optical layer 203 (see annotated Fig. 8: 207, 203, 05, 06, P2, paragraph 0074).
PNG
media_image1.png
848
1251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1)
PNG
media_image2.png
686
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1)
Regarding Claim 3, Yang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 2, wherein the light blocking pattern 207 is at least one of a printed light blocking pattern, painted light blocking pattern, and anodized light blocking pattern (paragraph 0075).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the optical layer 01, 204 facing the circuit board 05, 06 in the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 includes a step (see annotated Fig. 8).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1), as applied to Claim 2 above, further in view of Moon et al. (US 20200295310 A1).
The combination of Yang et al. and Endo et al. fails to teach the display device according to claim 2, wherein the light blocking pattern includes at least one of a ceramic, a metal, an organic layer, and an inorganic layer.
However, Moon et al. teaches a display device comprising a light blocking pattern 510, wherein the light blocking pattern 510 includes at least one of a ceramic, a metal, an organic layer, and an inorganic layer (Fig. 4: 510, paragraph 0022, 0086).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Moon et al. in order to have the light blocking pattern include at least one of a ceramic, a metal, an organic layer, and an inorganic layer. Doing so would shield the light emitted from the emission area into the non-emission area, as recognized by Moon et al. (paragraph 0086).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1), as applied to Claim 5 above, further in view of Chang (US 20050019990 A1).
The combination of Yang et al. and Endo et al. fails to teach the display device according to claim 5, wherein the step of the optical layer is a lasered portion or an etched portion of the second region of the optical layer.
However, Chang teaches a method of forming thin films, wherein a step of an optical layer 306 is a lasered portion or an etched portion of the second region 306b of the optical layer 306 (Fig. 3B-3C: 306, 306b, paragraph 0031).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Chan in order to have the step of the optical layer be a lasered portion or an etched portion of the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would create a step in the optical layer, allowing the accommodation of the circuit board of Yang et al. in the second region corresponding to the non-display area, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0093).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1), as applied to Claim 5 above, further in view of Riegel et al. (WO 2016146438 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 5, wherein the optical layer 203 comprises: an anti-reflection layer 2012, a support layer (a triacetate cellulose TAC layer according to paragraph 0077); and an adhesive layer 211 disposed below the support layer (Fig. 10A: 211, paragraph 0079).
While Yang et al. fails to explicitly teach that the support layer is disposed below the anti-reflection layer 2012 and that it supports the anti- reflection layer 2012, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the support layer can be easily disposed below the anti-reflection layer 2012 so as to support the anti- reflection layer 2012.
The combination of Yang et al. and endo et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the adhesive layer 211 is removed in the second region of the optical layer.
However, Riegel et al. teaches a display device comprising an optical layer 312 and an adhesive layer 202, wherein the adhesive layer 202a is removed in the second region of the optical layer 312b (Fig. 4A-4C: 312, 202, 302b, Abstract).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Riegel et al. in order to have the adhesive layer removed in the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would provide space to accommodate the circuit board of Yang et al. in the second region corresponding to the non-display area, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 8, while Yang et al. fails to explicitly teach the display device according to claim 7, wherein a portion of the support layer (a triacetate cellulose TAC layer according to paragraph 0077) is removed in the second region of the optical layer, it does teach that some of the additional layers of the optical layer 203 are removed during subsequent processing (paragraph 0077).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a portion of the support layer can be removed in the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would provide space to accommodate the circuit board of Yang et al. in the second region corresponding to the non-display area, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 8, wherein the optical layer 203 comprises a reinforcing layer 212 disposed below the support layer in the second region P2 of the optical layer 203 (Fig. 10B: 212, 203, paragraph 0080).
Note that the support layer (the triacetate cellulose TAC layer according to paragraph 0077) is attached to the optical layer 203 and when the reinforcing layer 212 is disposed on the optical layer 203, it could be positioned below the support layer depending on the spatial orientation of the device. i.e., whether positioned upright or upside down.
Regarding Claim 10, Yang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 9, wherein the reinforcing layer 212 is a hard- coated reinforcing layer and absorbs an external impact applied to the optical layer 203 (Fig. 10B: 212, 203, paragraph 0080).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Maeng et al. (US 20200218399 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Yang et al. and Endo et al. fails to teach the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a protective layer disposed between the circuit board and the second region of the optical layer and covering a portion of the circuit board and the display panel.
However, Maeng et al. teaches a display device comprising a protective layer 185 disposed between the circuit board 170 and the second region of the optical layer 150, 100, 50 and covering a portion of the circuit board 170 and the display panel 360 (Fig. 6: 185, 170, 150, 100, 50, 360, paragraphs 0088, 0089, 0091).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Maeng et al. in order to have a protective layer disposed between the circuit board and the second region of the optical layer and covering a portion of the circuit board and the display panel. Doing so would prevent the delamination/separation of the circuit board even when the circuit board is severely bent, as recognized by Maeng et al. (paragraph 0091).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang et al. fails to the display device according to claim 11, wherein the protective layer includes a resin between the circuit board and the second region of the optical layer.
However, Maeng et al. teaches wherein the protective layer includes a resin between the circuit board 170 and the second region of the optical layer 150, 100, 50.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Yang et al. and Maeng et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a reflective layer 2072 disposed between the optical layer 203 (as taught by Yang et al., Fig. 9: 2072, 203, paragraph 0085) and the protective layer 185 (as taught by Maeng et al., Fig. 6: 185, paragraphs 0091) in the second region P2 of the optical layer 203 (as taught by Yang et al., Fig. 9: 2072, 203, P2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Luo et al. (US 20200183523 A1).
The combination of Yang et al. and Endo et al. fails to teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second region of the optical layer protrudes outward from the display panel in a plan view.
However, Luo et al. teaches a display device, wherein the second region 21 of the optical layer 22 protrudes outward from the display panel in a plan view (Fig. 7: 21, 22, paragraphs 0057, 0061).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Luo et al. in order to have the second region of the optical layer protrude outward from the display panel in a plan view. Doing so would cover and protect portion of the circuit board protruding from the display panel, as recognized by Luo et al. (paragraph 0061, 0062).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Kuwana et al. (US 20200264461 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Yang et al. and Endo et al. fails to teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein the display panel comprises: a display element layer including a light emitting element; and a light conversion pattern layer disposed on the display element layer and changing a wavelength of light emitted from the light emitting element using a quantum dot, and the light conversion pattern layer is formed through a successive process on a base surface provided by the display element layer.
However, Kuwana et al. discloses a display device 1000A comprising: a display element layer 100A including a light emitting element L (Fig. 1: 1000A, 100A, L, paragraph 0054); and a light conversion pattern layer 9 disposed on the display element layer 100A and changing a wavelength of light emitted from the light emitting element L using a quantum dot (Fig. 1: 9, paragraph 0117), and the light conversion pattern layer 9 is formed through a successive process on a base surface provided by the display element layer 100A (paragraph 0049).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Kuwana et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would enable the emission of various wavelengths of light using a single light-emitting element.
Regarding Claim 17, The combination of Yang et al. and Endo et al. fails to teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting element includes an inorganic light emitting diode.
However, Kuwana et al. teaches wherein the light emitting element includes an inorganic light emitting diode (paragraph 0045).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Kuwana et al. in order to have the light emitting element include an inorganic light emitting diode. Doing so would enable precise color control of the display device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1) and Maeng et al. (US 20200218399 A1).
Yang et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
attaching an optical layer 01, 204, 203, 2012 to a display panel 02 to cover a circuit board 05, 06 bonded to at least a surface of the display panel 02 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 203, 2012, Fig. 4: 01, 13, Fig. 10A-10F: 203, paragraph 0052, 0055, 0064, 0076);
wherein the optical layer 01, 204 includes:
a first region P1 having a first thickness T1 (see annotated Fig. 8: P1, T1);
a second region P2 having a second thickness T2 less than the first thickness T1 of the first region P1 of the optical layer 01, 204 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 203, 2012, T1, T2, P1, P2),
and a step between the first region P1 and the second region P2 (see annotated Fig. 8: P1, P2, step),
wherein the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 overlaps the bonded portion of the circuit board 05, 06 in a plan view (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 05, 06, P2).
and wherein the second region P2 of the optical layer 01, 204 is spaced apart from the circuit board 05, 06 (see annotated Fig. 8: 01, 204, 05, 06, P2).
Yang et al. fails to teach applying a resin solution between the optical layer and the display panel through a gap between the optical layer and the circuit board; and forming a protective layer between the optical layer and the circuit board by curing the resin solution, and the circuit board extends into the step between the first region and the second region of the optical layer.
However, Maeng et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: applying a resin solution between the optical layer 150 and the display panel 360 through a gap 180 between the optical layer 150 and the circuit board 170; and forming a protective layer 185 between the optical layer 150 and the circuit board 170 by curing the resin solution (Fig. 6: 185, 170, 150, 360, paragraph 0084, 0112).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al. with the teachings of Maeng et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would prevent the delamination/separation of the circuit board even when the circuit board is severely bent in flexible device applications, as recognized by Maeng et al. (paragraph 0091).
Furthermore, Endo et al. teaches a display device, wherein the circuit board 22 extends into the step between the first region P1 and the second region P2 of the optical layer (see annotated Fig. 3: 22, P1, P2, see Claim 1, column 3, lines 7-18).
Note that an electrooptic layer sandwiched between the substrates 23 and 24 not shown in Fig. 3 will have a step between first region P1 and second region P2 (see Claim 1, column 3, lines 7-18, column 6, lines 43-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Yang et al. and Endo et al. in order to have the circuit board extend into the step between the first region and the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would ensure the circuit board is embedded within the step, thereby realizing thin display devices, as recognized by Endo et al. (column 5, lines 30-34).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20230056588 A1), in view of Endo et al. (US 7119801 B1) and Maeng et al. (US 20200218399 A1), as applied to Claim 20 above, further in view of Riegel et al. (WO 2016146438 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Yang et al. teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein the optical layer 203 comprises: an anti-reflection layer 2012, a support layer (a triacetate cellulose TAC layer according to paragraph 0077); and an adhesive layer 211 disposed below the support layer (Fig. 10A: 211, paragraph 0079).
While Yang et al. fails to explicitly teach that the support layer is disposed below the anti-reflection layer 2012 to support the anti- reflection layer 2012, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the support layer can be easily disposed below the anti-reflection layer 2012 so as to support the anti- reflection layer 2012.
The combination of Yang et al., Endo et al. and Maeng et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the adhesive layer is removed in the second region of the optical layer.
However, Riegel et al. teaches a display device comprising an optical layer 312 and an adhesive layer 202, wherein the adhesive layer 202a is removed in the second region of the optical layer 312b (Fig. 4A-4C: 312, 202, 302b, Abstract).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Yang et al., Maeng et al. and Riegel et al. in order to have the adhesive layer removed in the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would provide space to accommodate the circuit board of Yang et al. in the second region corresponding to the non-display area, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Yang et al., Maeng et al., Endo et al. and Riegel et al. fails to explicitly teach the method according to claim 19, wherein a portion of the support layer is removed in the second region of the optical layer.
However, Yang et al. does teach that some of the additional layers of the optical layer 203 are removed during subsequent processing (paragraph 0077).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a portion of the support layer can be removed in the second region of the optical layer. Doing so would provide space to accommodate the circuit board of Yang et al. in the second region corresponding to the non-display area, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0093).
Conclusion
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 03/07/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 11, 2026