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
Applicant’s amendment dated 01/08/2026, in which claims 1, 5, 7-8, 14, 20, 22-23, 30 were amended, claims 4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15-19, 21, 24-26 and 31 were cancelled, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode; and in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is higher in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode” as required in claim 7 and claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 22, claim 7 and claim 22 each recites the limitation “in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is higher in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode” while claim 1 requires “in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode.” However, the specification does not provide any description of an invention having a density of the first quantum dots and a density of the second quantum dots are both higher in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode. Accordingly, claims 7 and 22 not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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, 2-3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nozawa et al. (US Pub. 20210202551) as evidenced by Lin (US Pub. 20250081717) in view of Nakayama (US Pub. 20180240921).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Nozawa et al. discloses in Fig. 2-6, Fig. 14, paragraph [0005] a light-emitting element, comprising:
an anode [11];
a cathode [12] provided across from the anode [11]; and
a light-emitting layer [15] provided between the anode [11] and the cathode [12], and containing first quantum dots [60] and second quantum dots [65], the first quantum dots [60] each having a core-shell structure including a first core [61] and a first shell [62] provided on a surface of the first core [61], and the second quantum dots [65] each having a core-shell structure including a second core [66] and a second shell [67] provided on a surface of the second core [66][paragraph [0103]-[0116], [0185]-0188]][paragraph [0018] of Lin provide evidence that a layer formed of quantum dots composed of CdTe/ZnS and/or CdZnS/ZnSe as disclosed in paragraph [0110] and [0116] of Nozawa et al. can function as a light emitting layer];
wherein a conduction band minimum (CBM) of the first shell [62] is lower than a conduction band minimum (CBM) of the second shell [67], and a valence band maximum (VBM) of the first shell [62] is lower than a (valence band maximum) VBM of the second shell [67][Fig. 3 and Fig. 4].
PNG
media_image1.png
703
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nozawa et al. further discloses in paragraph [0110], [0116], the shells 62 and 67 are formed of different materials and materials of the shells 62 and 67 are not particularly limited. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for a conduction band minimum (CBM) and a valence band maximum (VBM) of the first shell with respect to a conduction band minimum (CBM) and a valence band maximum (VBM) of the second shell: a conduction band minimum (CBM) and a valence band maximum (VBM) of the first shell is higher than/lower than/same as a conduction band minimum (CBM) and a valence band maximum (VBM) of the second shell. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try a conduction band minimum (CBM) of the first shell is lower than a conduction band minimum (CBM) of the second shell, and a valence band maximum (VBM) of the first shell is lower than a (valence band maximum) VBM of the second shell to yield suitable shell materials of red and green quantum dots.
Nozawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode;
wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is lower in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode.
Nakayama discloses in Fig. 5A-5B
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the second quantum dots [14b] having higher conduction band and valence band is higher in a proximity of a first electrode [3A] collecting holes [h] than in a proximity of an opposite electrode [3B];
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the first quantum dots [14a] having lower conduction band and valence band is lower in the proximity of the first electrode [3A] collecting holes [h] than in the proximity of the opposite electrode [3B].
As stated above, paragraph [0018] of Lin provide evidence that a quantum dot layer 15 composed of CdTe/ZnS and/or CdZnS/ZnSe quantum dots as disclosed in paragraph [0110] and [0116] of Nozawa et al. can function as a light emitting layer. Nozawa et al. discloses in paragraph [0117] the anode 11 collects holes. Nozawa et al. further discloses the first quantum dots [60] comprising lower conduction band and valence band and the second quantum dots [65] comprising higher conduction band and valence band.
Consequently, applying the distribution of quantum dots having different energy level taught by Nakayama into Nozawa et al. would result to “wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode; wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is lower in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode.”
Nakayama also discloses alternative embodiment in Fig. 2A-2B
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the second quantum dots [14b] having higher conduction band and valence band is lower in a proximity of a first electrode [3A] collecting electrons [e] than in a proximity of a second electrode [3B];
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the first quantum dots [14a] having lower conduction band and valence band is higher in the proximity of the first electrode [3A] collecting electron [e] than in the proximity of the second electrode [3B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakayama into the method of Nozawa et al. to include wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode; wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is lower in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving the collection efficiency of carriers in the anode and cathode [paragraph [0023] of Nakayama].
Regarding claims 2-3, Nozawa et al. discloses
wherein a VBM of the second core [66] is lower than the VBM of the second shell [67][Fig. 4];
wherein a VBM of the first core [61] is higher than the VBM of the first shell [62][Fig. 3].
PNG
media_image1.png
703
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Nozawa et al. discloses in Fig. 14, paragraph [0185]
wherein the light-emitting layer comprises only the first quantum dots [60] and the second quantum dots [65].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nozawa et al. (US Pub. 20210202551) in view of Nakayama (US Pub. 20180240921) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ryohwa et al. (WO2019180877), hereafter Ryohwa et al. (US Pub. 20210036254) is used as English translation.
Regarding claim 10, Nozawa et al. discloses in Fig. 14 a particle size of the second core [66] is equal to a particle size of the first core [61].
Nozawa et al. fails to disclose
wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material.
Nozawa et al. discloses in paragraph [0110], [0116], materials of the cores 61 and 66 are not particularly limited.
Ryohwa et al. discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraph [0033], [0063]-[0064]
wherein the first core [62A] and the second core [63A] are made of a same material [InP], and a particle size of the second core [63A] is smaller than a particle size of the first core [62A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ryohwa et al. into the method of Nozawa et al. to include wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable core material of quantum dots so that first and second quantum dots can be manufactured using the same material [paragraph [0033] of Ryohwa et al.].
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for a material and a particle size of the second core with respect to a material and a particle size of the first core: the first core and the second core are made of a same or different material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than/greater than/equal to a particle size of the first core. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than a particle size of the first core to yield quantum dots having different characteristics.
Claims 14, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nozawa et al. (US Pub. 20210202551) in view of Nakayama (US Pub. 20180240921) and Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210013377) as evidenced by Lin (US Pub. 20250081717).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Nozawa et al. discloses in Fig. 2-6, Fig. 14, paragraph [0005] a light-emitting element, comprising:
an anode [11];
a cathode [12] provided across from the anode [11]; and
a light-emitting layer [15] provided between the anode [11] and the cathode [12], and containing first quantum dots [60] and second quantum dots [65], the first quantum dots [60] each having a core-shell structure including a first core [61] and a first shell [62] provided on a surface of the first core [61], and the second quantum dots [65] each having a core-shell structure including a second core [66] and a second shell [67] provided on a surface of the second core [66][paragraph [0103]-[0116], [0185]-0188]][paragraph [018] of Lin provide evidence that a layer formed of quantum dots composed of CdTe/ZnS and/or CdZnS/ZnSe as disclosed in paragraph [0110] and [0116] of Nozawa et al. can function as a light emitting layer];
wherein the first shell [62] contains at least S or Se [ZnS].
Nozawa et al. fails to disclose
the second shell contains Te.
However, Nozawa et al. discloses in paragraph [0110], [0116], the shells 62 and 67 are formed of different materials and materials of the shells 62 and 67 are not particularly limited.
Kim et al. discloses in paragraph [0075]-[0077]
a shell contains Te [ZnTe, CdTe, HgTe].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Nozawa et al. to include the second shell contains Te. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable materials for preparing shells [paragraph [0076] of Kim et al.].
Nozawa et al. fails to disclose
wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode;
wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is lower in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode.
Nakayama discloses in Fig. 5A-5B
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the second quantum dots [14b] having higher conduction band and valence band is higher in a proximity of the anode [3A] collecting holes [h] than in a proximity of the cathode [3B];
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the first quantum dots [14a] having lower conduction band and valence band is lower in the proximity of the anode [3A] collecting holes [h] than in the proximity of the cathode [3B].
As stated above, paragraph [0018] of Lin provide evidence that a quantum dot layer 15 composed of CdTe/ZnS and/or CdZnS/ZnSe quantum dots as disclosed in paragraph [0110] and [0116] of Nozawa et al. can function as a light emitting layer. Nozawa et al. discloses in paragraph [0117] the anode 11 collects holes. Nozawa et al. further discloses the first quantum dots [60] comprising lower conduction band and valence band and the second quantum dots [65] comprising higher conduction band and valence band.
Consequently, applying the distribution of quantum dots having different energy level taught by Nakayama into Nozawa et al. would result to “wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode; wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is lower in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode.”
Nakayama discloses in Fig. 5A-5B
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the second quantum dots [14b] having higher conduction band and valence band is higher in a proximity of a first electrode [3A] collecting holes [h] than in a proximity of a second electrode [3B];
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the first quantum dots [14a] having lower conduction band and valence band is lower in the proximity of the first electrode [3A] collecting holes [h] than in the proximity of the second electrode [3B].
Nozawa et al. discloses the quantum dot layer is the light emitting layer and the anode 11 collects holes and the second electrode is the cathode. Nozawa et al. further discloses the first quantum dots [60] comprising lower conduction band and valence band and the second quantum dots [65] comprising higher conduction band and valence band.
Consequently, applying the distribution of quantum dots having different energy level taught by Nakayama into Nozawa et al. would result to “wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode; wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is lower in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode.”
Nakayama also discloses alternative embodiment in Fig. 2A-2B
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the second quantum dots [14b] having higher conduction band and valence band is lower in a proximity of a first electrode [3A] collecting electrons [e] than in a proximity of a second electrode [3B];
wherein, in a quantum dot layer [7], a density of the first quantum dots [14a] having lower conduction band and valence band is higher in the proximity of the first electrode [3A] collecting electron [e] than in the proximity of the second electrode [3B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakayama into the method of Nozawa et al. to include wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the second quantum dots is higher in a proximity of the anode than in a proximity of the cathode; wherein, in the light-emitting layer, a density of the first quantum dots is lower in the proximity of the anode than in the proximity of the cathode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving the collection efficiency of carriers in the anode and cathode [paragraph [0023] of Nakayama].
Regarding claim 23, Nozawa et al. discloses in Fig. 14, paragraph [0185]-[0187]
wherein the light-emitting layer [15] is composed only of the first quantum dots [60] and the second quantum dots [65].
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nozawa et al. (US Pub. 20210202551) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210013377) and Nakayama (US Pub. 20180240921) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Ryohwa et al. (WO2019180877), hereafter Ryohwa et al. (US Pub. 20210036254) is used as English translation.
Regarding claim 27, Nozawa et al. fails to disclose in Fig. 14
wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than a particle size of the first core.
However, Nozawa et al. discloses in Fig. 5, paragraph [0186]-[0188], [0120]-[0124],
a particle size of the second core [core of 63A] is smaller than a particle size of the first core [core of 63B].
Nozawa et al. discloses in paragraph [0129] that “[a] difference in the absorption spectrum can be achieved, for example, by making the average of the sizes of the cores in the quantum dot group 63A and the average of the sizes of the cores in the quantum dot group 63B different from each other.” Nozawa et al. discloses in paragraph [0110], [0116], materials of the cores 61 and 66 are not particularly limited.
Ryohwa et al. discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraph [0063]-[0064]
wherein the first core [62A] and the second core [63A] are made of a same material [InP], and a particle size of the second core [63A] is smaller than a particle size of the first core [62A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ryohwa et al. into the method of Nozawa et al. to include wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than a particle size of the first core. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable core material of quantum dots so that first and second quantum dots having different characteristics can be manufactured using the same material [paragraph [0033] of Ryohwa et al.].
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for a material and a particle size of the second core with respect to a material and a particle size of the first core: the first core and the second core are made of a same or different material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than/greater than/equal to a particle size of the first core. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than a particle size of the first core to yield quantum dots having different characteristics.
Regarding claim 28, Nozawa et al. discloses in Fig. 14 a particle size of the second core [66] is equal to a particle size of the first core [61].
Nozawa et al. fails to disclose
wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material.
Nozawa et al. discloses in paragraph [0110], [0116], materials of the cores 61 and 66 are not particularly limited.
Ryohwa et al. discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraph [0033], [0063]-[0064]
wherein the first core [62A] and the second core [63A] are made of a same material [InP], and a particle size of the second core [63A] is smaller than a particle size of the first core [62A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ryohwa et al. into the method of Nozawa et al. to include wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable core material of quantum dots so that first and second quantum dots can be manufactured using the same material [paragraph [0033] of Ryohwa et al.].
In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for a material and a particle size of the second core with respect to a material and a particle size of the first core: the first core and the second core are made of a same or different material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than/greater than/equal to a particle size of the first core. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try wherein the first core and the second core are made of a same material, and a particle size of the second core is smaller than a particle size of the first core to yield quantum dots having different characteristics.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nozawa et al. (US Pub. 20210202551) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210013377) and Nakayama (US Pub. 20180240921) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Murayama et al. (US Pub. 20160233449)
Regarding claim 29, Nozawa et al. fails to disclose
wherein at least the second quantum dots have ligands bonded to an exterior of the second shell.
Murayama et al. discloses in Fig. 1- Fig. 2, paragraph [0103], [0107]
wherein at least the second quantum dots [8] have ligands [14] bonded to an exterior of the second shell [13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Murayama et al. into the method of Nozawa et al. to include wherein at least the second quantum dots have ligands bonded to an exterior of the second shell. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of enabling to efficiently inject carriers into the second quantum dots [paragraph [0107] of Murayama et al.].
Regarding claim 30, Nozawa et al. fails to disclose
a hole transport layer provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer,
the hole transport layer comprising an inorganic material.
Murayama et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0060]-[0061], [0100], [0229]
a hole transport layer [4] provided between the anode [2] and the light-emitting layer [5],
the hole transport layer [4] comprising an inorganic material [“while the EL elements where the hole transport layers 4 and electron transport layers 6 adjacent to the light-emitting layers are formed from organic compounds have been described in the embodiments described above, the same applies to a case where the layers are formed from inorganic compounds”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Murayama et al. into the method of Nozawa et al. to include a hole transport layer provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer, the hole transport layer comprising an inorganic material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nozawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of a light emitting device which is able to emit light with high efficiency [paragraph [0060]-[0061], [0071] of Murayama et al.].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 14, 20, 22-23, 27-30 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.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893