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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 14 April 2026 of Applicant’s amendments in which claims 1 and 5 are amended and claim 3 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 18-24, recites “the second contact hole includes a first side having a first inclined angle and a second side having a second inclined angle smaller than the first inclined angle, wherein the first side of the second contact hole is closest to the first contact hole, wherein the second side of the second contact hole is furthest from the first contact hole, and wherein each of the first side and the second side of the second contact hole extends linearly from a bottom surface to a top surface of the planarization layer,” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the first and second sides recited in lines 18-24 are the same as: (1) two of the fifth through eighth sides recited in dependent claims 5 and 6 and (2) the first and second sides recited in lines 15 and 16 of claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of claim 1 and the dependent claims, this subject matter will be interpreted as “the second contact hole includes a fifth side having a first inclined angle and an eighth side having a second inclined angle smaller than the first inclined angle, wherein the fifth side of the second contact hole is closest to the first contact hole, wherein the eighth side of the second contact hole is furthest from the first contact hole, and wherein each of the fifth side and the eighth side of the second contact hole extends linearly from a bottom surface to a top surface of the planarization layer.” Claims 2 and 3-12 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 1.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it depends from claim 3, which is cancelled. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 4 will be interpreted to depend from base claim 1.
Claim 5, lines 3 and 6, respectively recite “a fifth side” and “an eighth side,” which are indefinite in view of the interpretation of claim 1 identified above. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with base claim 1, this subject matter will be interpreted respectively as “the fifth side” and “the eighth side.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As intervening claim 5 and base claim 1 are interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejections applied thereto, claim 6 fails to further limit the scope of intervening claim 5 because it repeats subject matter recited in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20180033851A1) in view of Nagami (US20130020579A1), Ryu et al. (US20050110019A1), Yuan et al. (US20220278182A1), and Cha et al. (US20190326560A1).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Kim teaches in Fig. 6 an electroluminescence display comprising:
a pixel area (Fig. 6) disposed on a substrate (SUB) and including an emission area (vertical with respect to OLE) and a non-emission area (vertical with respect to BN) {¶0010, 0017};
a driving element (DT) disposed in the non-emission area (vertical with respect to BN) {¶0010};
a passivation layer (PAS) on the driving element (DT) {¶0013};
a color filter (CF) disposed in the pixel area (Fig. 6) on the passivation layer (PAS) {¶0018};
a planarization layer (OC) on the color filter (CF) {¶0018, 0055};
a first contact hole (portion of contact hole through PAS) penetrating through the passivation layer (PAS) and exposing the driving element (DT) {¶0015};
a second contact hole (portion of contact hole through OC) penetrating through the planarization layer (OC) and exposing entire portion of the first contact hole (portion of contact hole through PAS) {¶0015}; and
a light emitting element (OLE) disposed at the emission area (vertical with respect to OLE) on the planarization layer (OC) and connecting to the driving element (DT) through the second contact hole (portion of contact hole through OC) and the first contact hole (portion of contact hole through PAS) {¶0015, 0038}.
Kim does not teach wherein a boundary of the first contact hole is entirely disposed within a bottom boundary of the second contact hole to define a stepped profile having a first width on a first side and a second width on a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first width is different from the second width.
In an analogous art, Nagami teaches in Figs. 1G and 2 and paragraph [0041] a boundary of a first contact hole (contact hole within 106) is entirely disposed within a bottom boundary of a second contact hole (contact hole within 120) to define a stepped profile having a first width on a first side and a second width on a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first width is different from the second width. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display based on the teachings of Nagami – such that a boundary of the first contact hole is entirely disposed within a bottom boundary of the second contact hole to define a stepped profile having a first width on a first side and a second width on a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first width is different from the second width – to: (1) to suppress the variation in relative positional shift of the through holes in the … opening portions {Nagami ¶0030} and/or (2) provide a display device which can suppress waveform distortion and lowered transmission coefficient of pixels, and suppress display irregularity {Nagami ¶0011}. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., contact holes, stepped profile) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Nagami) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Kim as modified by Nagami does not teach wherein the second contact hole includes a fifth side having a first inclined angle and an eighth side having a second inclined angle smaller than the first inclined angle, wherein the fifth side of the second contact hole is closest to the first contact hole, wherein the eighth side of the second contact hole is furthest from the first contact hole.
In an analogous art, Ryu teaches in Figs. 7A-C {see e.g., annotated copy of Ryu’s Fig. 7C below} a second contact hole (contact hole in 180q) includes a fifth side having a first inclined angle and an eighth side having a second inclined angle smaller than the first inclined angle, wherein the fifth side of the second contact hole is closest to the first contact hole, and wherein the eighth side of the second contact hole is furthest from the first contact hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami based on the teachings of Ryu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to make safe contact between the contact hole and the electrode. Ryu ¶0098. Moreover, all the claimed elements (contact holes, inclined side angles) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ryu), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of providing space for an electrical conductor between a TFT and a light emitting element), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
569
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim as modified by Nagami and Ryu does not teach each of the fifth side and the eighth side of the second contact hole extends linearly from a bottom surface to a top surface of the planarization layer.
In an analogous art, Yuan teaches in Fig. 3j and paragraph [0040] that each of a fifth side (e.g., left side) and an eighth side (e.g., right side) of a second contact hole (portion of hole extending above 31, within 32, and filled with 5) extends linearly from a bottom surface to a top surface of a layer (32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami and Ryu based on the teachings of Yuan, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (contact hole, linearly inclined side angles) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Yuan), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of providing space for an electrical conductor between a TFT and a light emitting element), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Yuan does not teach the layer is a planarization layer.
However, Yuan teaches in paragraph [0052] the layer is a passivation layer.
Cha teaches in paragraph [0051] a passivation layer may be a planarization layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami, Ryu, and Yuan based on the teachings of Cha, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches in Fig. 6 the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the color filter (CF) is spaced apart from the second contact hole (portion of contact hole through OC) with a predetermined distance.
Regarding claim 4, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the first inclined angle is between 60 degree and 80 degree, and the second inclined angle is between 30 degree and 50 degree.
Ryu teaches in Fig. 7C and paragraph [0092] the first inclined angle is between 60 degree and 80 degree {30 to 85 degrees}, and the second inclined angle is between 30 degree and 50 degree {30 to 85 degrees}. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the first contact hole includes a first side, a second side, a third side and a fourth side, wherein the second contact hole includes the fifth side parallel to and spaced apart from the first side with a first distance, a sixth side parallel to and spaced apart from the second side with a second distance, a seventh side parallel to and spaced apart from the third side with a third distance, and the eighth side parallel to and spaced apart from the fourth side with a fourth distance, wherein the first distance and the second distance and the third distance are same, and wherein the fourth distance is longer than the first distance.
Nagami teaches in Fig. 1E (see Annotated and Exploded View Copy of Nagami’s Fig. 1E, below} and 2 a first contact hole (contact hole within 106) includes a first side, a second side, a third side and a fourth side, wherein a second contact (contact hole within 120) hole includes a fifth side parallel to and spaced apart from the first side with a first distance, a sixth side parallel to and spaced apart from the second side with a second distance, a seventh side parallel to and spaced apart from the third side with a third distance, and an eighth side parallel to and spaced apart from the fourth side with a fourth distance, wherein the second distance and the third distance are same {see Examiner’s Note, below}, and wherein the fourth distance is longer than the first distance {see Examiner’s Note, below}. The motivation for this modification is the same as that identified with respect to base claim 1.
Kim and Nagami do not necessarily teach the first distance is the same as the second distance and the third distance.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close … [because] one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Moreover, supplementary or complementary, Ryu teaches in Figs. 7A-C {see e.g., annotated copy of Ryu’s Fig. 7A below} the first contact hole includes a first side, a second side, a third side and a fourth side, wherein the second contact hole includes a fifth side parallel to and is spaced apart from the first side with a first distance, a sixth side parallel to and spaced apart from the second side with a second distance, a seventh side parallel to and spaced apart from the third side with a third distance, and an eighth side parallel to and spaced apart from the fourth side, wherein the first distance and the second distance and the third distance are same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha based on the further teachings of Ryu – such that the first contact hole includes a first side, a second side, a third side and a fourth side, wherein the second contact hole includes a fifth side parallel to and is spaced apart from the first side with a first distance, a sixth side parallel to and spaced apart from the second side with a second distance, a seventh side parallel to and spaced apart from the third side with a third distance, and an eighth side parallel to and spaced apart from the fourth side with a fourth distance, wherein the first distance and the second distance and the third distance are same – to make safe contact between the contact hole and the electrode. Ryu ¶0098. Moreover, all the claimed elements (contact holes, sides, distances between sides) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ryu), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of providing space for an electrical conductor between a TFT and a light emitting element), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Examiner’s Note: “The Examiner is authorized to make a finding of relative dimensions that are, as here, clearly depicted in a drawing.” Ex parte Wright, 091818 USPTAB, 2017-001093 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 2018).
PNG
media_image2.png
554
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
563
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 5, but Kim does not teach wherein the second contact hole includes: a first inclined sidewall disposed at the fifth side; and a second inclined sidewall disposed at the eighth side, and wherein the second inclined sidewall has a second inclined angle smaller than a first inclined angle of the first inclined sidewall.
Ryu teaches in Figs. 7A-C {see e.g., annotated copy of Ryu’s Fig. 7C below} the second contact hole (contact hole in 180q) includes: a first inclined sidewall disposed at the fifth side; and a second inclined sidewall disposed at the eighth side, and wherein the second inclined sidewall has a second inclined angle smaller than a first inclined angle of the first inclined sidewall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha based on the further teachings of Ryu – such that the second contact hole includes: a first inclined sidewall disposed at the fifth side; and a second inclined sidewall disposed at the eighth side, and wherein the second inclined sidewall has a second inclined angle smaller than a first inclined angle of the first inclined sidewall – to make safe contact between the contact hole and the electrode. Ryu ¶0098. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., contact hole, inclined sidewalls) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ryu), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of providing space for an electrical conductor between a TFT and a light emitting element), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
569
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 6, but Kim does not teach wherein the first inclined angle is between 60 degree and 80 degree, and the second inclined angle is between 30 degree and 50 degree.
Ryu teaches in Fig. 7C and paragraph [0092] the first inclined angle is between 60 degree and 80 degree {30 to 85 degrees}, and the second inclined angle is between 30 degree and 50 degree {30 to 85 degrees}. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches in Fig. 6 the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the light emitting element (OLE) includes:
a first electrode (ANO) connected to the driving element (DT) {¶0012};
an emission layer (OL) disposed on the first electrode (ANO) {¶0012}; and
a second electrode (CAT) disposed on the emission layer (OL) {¶0012}.
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the second contact hole defines a stepped profile with the passivation layer along an entire periphery of the first contact hole.
Nagami teaches in Figs. 1E and 2 and paragraphs [0041, 0042] a second contact hole (contact hole within 120) defines a stepped profile with a passivation layer (106) along an entire periphery of a first contact hole (contact hole within 106). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, and in an alternative basis for rejecting claim 12 with respect to that identified above, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the second contact hole defines a stepped profile with the passivation layer along an entire periphery of the first contact hole.
Ryu teaches in Figs 3A-C. and paragraph [0093] a second contact hole (contact hole within 180q) defines a stepped profile with a passivation layer (180p) along an entire periphery of a first contact hole (contact hole within 180p). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami based on the teachings of Ryu – such that the second contact hole defines a stepped profile with the passivation layer along an entire periphery of the first contact hole – to ensure[] the reliability of the contact between the pixel electrode and the expansion [(i.e., the contact)]. Ryu ¶0093.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20190189727A1) (“Kim ‘727”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 8, and Kim further teaches wherein the first electrode (ANO) includes a transparent conductive material {¶0018}.
Kim does not teach the transparent conductive material has one of indium-zinc-oxide and indium-tin-oxide {¶0018}.
In an analogous art, Kim ‘727 teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0094] a transparent conductive material having one of indium-zinc-oxide and indium-tin-oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha based on the teachings of Kim ‘727 – such that Kim’s first electrode includes a transparent conductive material having one of indium-zinc-oxide and indium-tin-oxide – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches the electroluminescence display according to claim 8, and Kim further teaches wherein the second electrode (CAT) includes a reflective metal material {¶0019}.
Kim does not teach the reflective metal material having one of aluminum, silver, molybdenum, gold, magnesium, calcium and barium.
Kim ‘727 teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0063] the reflective metal material having one of aluminum, silver, or molybdenum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha based on the teachings of Kim ‘727 – such that Kim’s second electrode includes a reflective metal material having one of aluminum, silver, molybdenum, gold, magnesium, calcium and barium – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suh et al. (US20090236977A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha teaches in Fig. 6 the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the driving element includes:
a semiconductor layer (DA) on the substrate (SUB) {¶0012};
a gate insulating layer (GI) on the semiconductor layer (DA) {¶0013};
a gate electrode (DG) on the gate insulating layer (GI), the gate electrode overlapping with a middle portion of the semiconductor layer (DA) {¶0012};
a source (DS) electrode contacting one side of the semiconductor layer (DA) {¶0012}; and
a drain electrode (DD) contacting another side of the semiconductor layer (DA) {¶0012}.
Kim does not teach a source electrode on the gate insulating layer and a drain electrode on the gate insulating layer.
In an analogous art, Suh teaches in Fig. 1E and paragraph [0021] a source electrode (160a) on the gate insulating layer (130) and a drain electrode (160b) on the gate insulating layer (130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s electroluminescence display as modified by Nagami, Ryu, Yuan, and Cha based on the teachings of Suh – such that a source electrode on the gate insulating layer and a drain electrode on the gate insulating layer – so that a thin film transistor is formed. Suh ¶0021.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights