DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/15/2026 and 5/20/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, and 17 have been amended.
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.
Claim 1-20 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.
Claim 1 reciting “the electrode body portion completely covers all edges of the first bank pattern or all edges of the second bank pattern” is not fully supported. The bank patterns BP1,BP2 are three dimensional objects. As shown in the cross-sectional view, e.g. FIG. 5, at least the bottom edges of the bank patterns BP1,BP2 are not covered by the electrode body portion RME1,RME2 from the bottom side. The electrode body portion appear to only completely cover some edges of the bank patterns BP1,BP2 depending on view shown in drawings. Therefore, there is insufficient written description support for the entirety of the scope recited in the claim.
Claim 15 reciting “the first electrode body portion completely covers all edges of the first bank pattern and the second electrode body portion completely covers all edges of the second bank pattern” is not fully supported for reason similar to claim 1 as detailed above.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reciting “the electrode body portion completely covers all edges of the first bank pattern and all edges of the second bank pattern” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is intended by “completely covers all edges”. As detailed above, according to Applicant’s disclosure, at least some edge of the bank patterns are not covered by the electrode body portion in some views. Therefore, it is unclear if “all edges” is intended to refer to a subset of edges of the bank patterns. Or if the limitation is intended to be true only on a specific view.
Claim 15 reciting “the first electrode body portion completely covers all edges of the first bank pattern and the second electrode body portion completely covers all edges of the second bank pattern” renders the claim indefinite for reason similar to claim 1 as detailed above.
Claim 17 reciting “the bank layer overlaps the first electrode body portion and the second electrode body portion about 7 µm or more” renders the claim indefinite. Firstly, it is unclear what dimension is “about 7 µm or more” intended to specify? Is it referring to a dimension of the “overlap” or a dimension of the bank layer or electrode body portions? In the case that it is intended to refer to the overlap, it is further unclear whether “about 7 µm or more” is intended to characterize the overlap between the bank layer and the first electrode body portion, or the overlap between the bank layer and the second electrode body portion, or the overlap between both the first and second electrode body portions.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US 2021/0313498 A1 (Kim).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
1035
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
880
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5 & 26) a display device comprising:
subpixels PX1,PX2,PX3 respectively comprising light-emitting elements 30;
a first electrode 21_4 extended in a first direction DR2;
a second electrode 22_4 spaced apart from the first electrode 21_4 in a second direction DR1 crossing the first direction DR2, and extended in the first direction DR2;
a first bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) extended in the first direction DR2, and overlapped with the first electrode 21_4;
a second bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) spaced apart from the first electrode 21_4, and overlapped with the second electrode 22_4; and
a bank layer BNL2 (layer with opening defining emission area EMA) extended in the second direction DR1, and surrounding the subpixels PX1,PX2,PX3,
wherein at least one of the first electrode 21_4 or the second electrode 22_4 comprises:
an electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2; and
an electrode body portion RE-E connected to the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and having a width that is greater than that of the electrode extension portion (RE-E wider than RE-B,RE-C),
wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the electrode body portion RE-E with a first width (BNL2 overlap RE-E in region outside the emission area EMA, and RE-E has a “first width”), and comprises an organic insulating material (¶ 142), and
wherein the electrode body portion RE-E “completely covers all edges of the first bank pattern or all edges of the second bank pattern” (the bank patterns corresponding to select portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21_4,22_4, see highlighted regions in FIG. 26 annotated above, wherein “all edges” of the select bank patterns are all completely covered by the electrode body portions RE-E having a larger footprint the highlighted bank patterns; furthermore, as best understood, “all edges” may correspond to edges of bank patterns BNL1_4 that are exposed through the emission area EMA defined by bank layer BNL2 in the plan view as shown in FIG. 4, wherein the electrode body portion RE-E completely covers “all edges” of the bank pattern exposed in the emission area EMA; further alternatively, in a view of a cross-section through RE-E and BNL1_4 along the DR2 direction, the bank patterns would be “completely covered” by the electrode body portion RE-E, and “all edges” at the upper surface of the bank portion would be completely covered in such cross-section view).
In re claim 5, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein portions of the bank layer BNL2 extending in the second direction DR1 are spaced spart in the second direction DR2 (e.g. upper/lower horizontal portions of BNL2 are spaced apart in DR2 across emission area)
In re claim 6, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the first electrode 21_4 comprises a first electrode extension portion as the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and a first electrode body portion as the electrode body portion RE-E,
wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises a second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2, and a second electrode body portion RE-E connected to the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and
wherein the first electrode extension portion (RE-B,RE-C of 21_4) has a shape RE-B that is bent in a diagonal direction inclined toward the second electrode body portion (RE-E of 22_4) from the first direction DR2.
In re claim 7, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises a second electrode extension portion as the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and a second electrode body portion as the electrode body portion RE-E,
wherein the first electrode 21_4 comprises a first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2, and a first electrode body portion RE-E connected to the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and
wherein the second electrode extension portion (RE-B,RE-C of 22_4) has a shape RE-B that is bent in a diagonal direction inclined toward the first electrode body portion (RE-E of 21_4) from the first direction DR2.
PNG
media_image3.png
704
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 8, Kim discloses (see FIG. 26 above modified to show plural subpixels) wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises a first electrode line (22_4 of left subpixel) and a second electrode line (22_4 of right subpixel) spaced apart from each other with the first electrode (21_4 of middle and right subpixels) interposed therebetween, and
wherein the light emitting elements comprise a first light-emitting element (30 of middle subpixel) between the first electrode (including 21_4 of right subpixel and middle subpixel) and the first electrode line (22_4 of left subpixel), and a second light-emitting element (30 of middle or right subpixel) between the first electrode (including 21_4 of right subpixel and middle subpixel) and the second electrode line (22_4 of right subpixel).
In re claim 9, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) further comprising:
a first connection electrode CNE1 on the first electrode 21_4, and in contact with the first light-emitting element 30 (of middle subpixel); and
a second connection electrode CNE2 on the second electrode 22_4, and in contact with the second light-emitting element 30,
wherein the first connection electrode CNE1 or the second connection electrode CNE2 are on the electrode body portion RE-E (of different electrodes)”.
PNG
media_image4.png
720
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re claim 10, “subpixels” can be defined corresponding to the annotated regions in FIG. 26 above. As such, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises the electrode body portion RE-E over adjacent ones of the subpixels.
PNG
media_image5.png
704
549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In re claim 11, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26 see annotated above) wherein a width W1 of the electrode body portion RE-E in the second direction DR1 is greater than a width W2 of the bank layer BNL2 (width between EMA of adjacent subpixels) in the second direction DR1.
In re claim 12, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the electrode body portion RE-E overlaps the bank layer BNL2 between the adjacent ones of the subpixels (overlap region between adjacent EMA regions).
In re claim 13, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26)
wherein the electrode body portion RE-E overlaps any one of the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern (the bank patterns corresponding to portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21_4,22_4 are covered by the electrode body portions RE-E; see FIG. 26 annotated above), and
wherein the electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C is spaced apart from the first bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4) and the second bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4) in plan view (RE-C displaced from BNL1_4 in DR2 direction).
In re claim 14, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the first bank pattern and the second bank pattern (the bank patterns corresponding to portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21_4,22_4 are covered by the bank layer BNL2; see FIG. 5 & 26 annotated above).
In re claim 15, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5 & 26) a display device comprising:
subpixels PX1,PX2,PX3 respectively comprising light-emitting elements 30;
a first electrode 21_4 extended in a first direction DR2;
a second electrode 22_4 spaced apart from the first electrode 21 in a second direction DR1 crossing the first direction DR2, and extended in the first direction DR2;
a first bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) extended in the first direction DR2, and overlapped with the first electrode 21_4;
a second bank pattern (pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4, see FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above) spaced apart from the first electrode 21_4, and overlapped with the second electrode 22_4; and
a bank layer BNL2 (layer with opening defining emission area EMA) extended in the second direction DR1, and surrounding the subpixels PX2,PX2,PX3;
wherein the first electrode 21_4 comprises:
a first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2; and
a first electrode body portion RE-E connected to the first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and having a width that is greater than that of the first electrode extension portion (RE-E wider than RE-B,RE-C),
wherein the second electrode 22_4 comprises:
a second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C extended in the first direction DR2; and
a second electrode body portion RE-E connected to the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C, and having a width that is greater than that of the second electrode extension portion (RE-E wider than RE-B,RE-C), and
wherein the first electrode extension portion (RE-B,RE-C of 21_4) has a shape RE-B that is bent in a diagonal direction inclined toward the second electrode body portion (RE-E of 22_4) from the first direction DR2,
wherein the first electrode body portion (RE-E of 21_4) “completely covers all edges of the first bank pattern” and the second electrode body portion (RE-E of 22_4) “completely covers all edges of the second bank pattern” (the bank patterns corresponding to select portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21_4,22_4, see highlighted regions in FIG. 26 annotated above, wherein “all edges” of the select bank patterns are all completely covered by the electrode body portions RE-E having a larger footprint the highlighted bank patterns; furthermore, as best understood, “all edges” may correspond to edges of bank patterns BNL1_4 that are exposed through the emission area EMA defined by bank layer BNL2 in the plan view as shown in FIG. 4, wherein the electrode body portion RE-E completely covers “all edges” of the bank pattern exposed in the emission area EMA; further alternatively, in a view of a cross-section through RE-E and BNL1_4 along the DR2 direction, the bank patterns would be “completely covered” by the electrode body portion RE-E, and “all edges” at the upper surface of the bank portion would be completely covered in such cross-section view).
In re claim 16, Kim disclose (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the first electrode body portion RE-E (of 21_4) and the second electrode body portion RE-E (of 22_4).
In re claim 18, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein a width of the first electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C (of 21_4) in the second direction DR1 is the same as (same RE-B,RE-C) that of the second electrode extension portion RE-B,RE-C (of 22_4) in the second direction DR2.
In re claim 19, in an alternative interpretation, the electrode body portions include both RE-C and RE-E (FIG. 26). As such, Kim discloses wherein a width of the first electrode body portion in the second direction DR1 (width measured at RE-C of the combined RE-C and RE-E of 21_4) is less than that of the second electrode body portion in the second direction DR1 (width measured at RE-E of the combined RE-C and RE-E of 22_4).
In re claim 20, Kim discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 26) wherein the first electrode extension portion RE-B (21_4) is connected to a conductive layer CDP through a first electrode contact hole CT1,
wherein the second electrode extension portion RE-B (of 22_4) is connected to the conductive layer VL2 through a second electrode contact hole CT2, and
wherein the first electrode contact hole CT1 and the second electrode contact hole CT2 are separated from the bank layer in plan view (“bank layer” corresponds to a portion of BNL2 outside CT1,CT2 in plan view) in plan view.
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 2, 3, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above.
In re claim 2, Kim discloses (FIG. 26) the electrode body portion RE-E has the first width that is greater the rest of the electrodes (¶ 234-235). Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the first width of the electrode body portion RE-E is “about 7 µm or more”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of the electrode body portion to obtain the desired connection layout as taught by Kim. “[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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 3, Kim discloses the claimed invention including the bank layer BNL2.
Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the bank layer BNL2 is about 2 µm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the bank layer to prevent ink spill over between neighboring subpixels as taught by Kim (¶ 142). “[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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In
In re claim 17, as best understood, Kim discloses (e.g. FIG. 26) wherein the bank layer BNL2 overlaps the first electrode body portion RE-E (of 21_4) and the second electrode body portion RE-E (of 22_4). As best understood, “about 7 µm or more” refers to an overlap amount.
Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the amount of overlap between the bank layer BNL2 and the electrode body portion RE-E, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize overlap amount to obtain desired emission area size and pixel density. “[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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirasaki et al. US 2007/0075638 A1 (Shirasaki).
In re claim 4, Kim discloses (FIG. 5) the bank layer BNL2 defining the emission areas of display pixels is formed of an organic polyimide (¶ 142). Kim does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constant of the bank layer is about 2 to about 4.
However, Shirasaki discloses a display device (FIG. 5) comprising a bank layer 20 for defining light emission areas, wherein the bank layer is formed of polyimide and has a dielectric constant of 2.6-3.4 (¶ 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Kim’s polyimide bank layer BNL2 to have a dielectric constant of 2.6-3.4 teaching the claimed range of about 2 to about 4 as taught by Shirasaki for desired electrical and structural properties.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims rejected over Kim, Applicant argues the bank pattern BNL1_4 extends past the extension body portions RE-E and the RE-E does not completely covers all edges of the bank pattern (Remark, pages 8-10).
This is not persuasive.
No specific “first bank pattern” and “second bank pattern” have been claimed that would structurally distinguish over select pattern portions of bank BNL1_4 directly under the electrodes 21_4,22_4. For example, the first bank pattern correspond to only a pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 21_4 and the second bank pattern correspond to only a pattern portion of BNL1_4 directly under 22_4. See highlighted regions in FIGs. 5 and 26 annotated above. As such, the bank patterns corresponding to only portions of BNL1_4 directly under respective electrodes 21-4,22_4 have “all edges” in plan view that are completely covered by the electrode body portions RE-E due to the electrode body portions RE-E having a larger footprint the highlighted bank patterns.
Furthermore, “all edges”, as best understood, may correspond to select edges in accordance with Applicant’s disclosure as detailed in the § 112 rejections above. Kim’s bank patterns BNL1_4 have edges that are exposed through the emission area EMA defined by bank layer BNL2 in the plan view as shown in FIG. 4, wherein the electrode body portion RE-E completely covers “all edges” of the bank pattern exposed in the emission area EMA.
Further alternatively, in a view of a cross-section through RE-E and BNL1_4 along the DR2 direction, the bank patterns would be “completely covered” by the electrode body portion RE-E, and “all edges” at the upper surface of the bank portion would be completely covered in such cross-section view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights