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 .
Status of the Application
The Amendment filed on 12/12/2025, responding to the Office action mailed on 9/29/2025, has been entered into the record. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (EP 3944225 A1).
Re Claim 1 Kim teaches a display device (FIG. 2A), comprising:
a stretchable lower substrate (DP, page 12 col 2, “flexible display panel”);
a pattern layer (DA1, page 10 last par, FIG. 2C and 3A) on the lower substrate (DP), the pattern layer including a plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX, page 13 par 2 states, “The main pixels M_PX may include a plurality of red pixels, a plurality of green pixels, and a plurality of blue pixels.”), a plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, page 13 par 4 states, “The first sub-pixels S_PX1 may include a plurality of red pixels…”), and a plurality of line patterns (GWL, page 25 par 1, “The four signal lines may be the first scan line GWL”, FIG. 4A for S_PX1, FIG. 7A for M_PX);
a plurality of sub-pixels (page 13 par 2 states, “The main pixels M_PX may include a plurality of red pixels, a plurality of green pixels, and a plurality of blue pixels.”) on each of the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX);
an additional sub-pixel (S_ED1, page 13 par 4) on each of the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1);
a plurality of connection lines (EL, page 18 par 2) on each of the plurality of line patterns (GWL, FIG. 5A), the plurality of connection lines (EL) connecting the plurality of sub-pixels (pixels in M_PX, M_PD is circuit for M_PX, page 18 par 3, FIG. 5A) and the additional sub- pixel (S_ED1, FIG. 4A),
wherein additional sub-pixels (S_ED1) of some sub-plate patterns (S_PX1) among the plurality of sub-plate patterns include light emitting elements (page 13 par 4 calls S_ED1 “first sub-light emitting element”, FIG. 3A),
wherein the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX, page 13 par 2 states, “The main pixels M_PX may include a plurality of red pixels, a plurality of green pixels, and a plurality of blue pixels.”) and the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, page 13 par 4 states, “The first sub-pixels S_PX1 may include a plurality of red pixels…”) are spaced apart from each other (FIG. 3A), and the plurality of line patterns (GWL, page 25 par 1, “The four signal lines may be the first scan line GWL”, FIG. 4A for S_PX1, FIG. 7A for M_PX) are disposed between the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX) and between the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX) and the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, FIG. 3A and 3B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP 3944225 A1) in view of Kikuchi (WO 2021201139 A1).
Re Claim 2 Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX) are disposed in a matrix (FIG. 3A) form including a plurality in rows and a plurality of columns (FIG. 3A pattern repeats in DR1 and DR2, page 12 last par states, “FIG. 3A is an enlarged plan view of region A1 illustrated in FIG. 2B…”).
Kim does not teach the plurality of sub-plate patterns are between the plurality of respective rows where the plurality of main plate patterns are disposed and between the plurality of respective columns where the plurality of main plate patterns are disposed.
Kikuchi teaches the plurality of sub-plate patterns (FIG. 11 and 12A, plate with 23b, page 11 par 3) are between the plurality of respective rows where the plurality of main plate patterns (21p1, 22p1, 22p2, & 21p2, page 12 par 2) are disposed and between the plurality of respective columns where the plurality of main plate patterns are disposed (FIG. 11 and 12A)
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kikuchi in combination with Kim in the above manner for the motivation of optimally integrating the sub plate patterns between the main plate patterns to build a light emitting device that allows the plates to easily align in a grid/matrix like design to integrate multiple pixels into one display device. Page 3, par 5 states, “The plurality of SMDs 12 are two-dimensionally arranged in a grid pattern on the substrate 11. In the following description, the row direction of the two-dimensional arrangement is referred to as the X-axis direction (first direction), and the column direction orthogonally intersecting the row direction is referred to as the Y-axis direction (second direction). The SMD 12 is an SMD (4in1SMD) in which four pixels are integrated into one chip.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kikuchi into the structure of Kim.
Re Claim 3 Kim in view of Kikuchi teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of main plate patterns (Kikuchi, 21p1, 22p1, 22p2, & 21p2) and the plurality of sub-plate patterns (23b) are alternately disposed in a row direction and a column direction (Page 11 par 3, main plates 21p1, 22p1, 22p2, & 21p2 for rows and columns, and 23b forms its own rows and columns, FIG. 11 and 12A).
Re Claim 9 Kim teaches a display device (FIG. 2A), comprising:
a stretchable lower substrate (DP, page 12 col 2, “flexible display panel”);
a pattern layer (DA1, page 10 last par, FIG. 2C and 3A) on the lower substrate (DP), the pattern layer including a plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX, page 13 par 2 states, “The main pixels M_PX may include a plurality of red pixels, a plurality of green pixels, and a plurality of blue pixels.”), a plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, page 13 par 4 states, “The first sub-pixels S_PX1 may include a plurality of red pixels…”), and a plurality of line patterns (GWL, page 25 par 1, “The four signal lines may be the first scan line GWL”, FIG. 4A for S_PX1, FIG. 7A for M_PX);
a plurality of sub-pixels (page 13 par 2 states, “The main pixels M_PX may include a plurality of red pixels, a plurality of green pixels, and a plurality of blue pixels.”) on each of the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX), each of the plurality of sub-pixels including a pixel circuit (FIG. 7A);
an additional sub-pixel (S_ED1, page 13 par 4) on each of the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1), the additional sub- pixel including the pixel circuit (FIG. 4A);
a plurality of lines (GIL, page 18 par 2) in each of the plurality of sub-pixels (FIG. 7A) and the additional sub-pixel (FIG. 4A), the plurality of lines connected to pixel circuits of the plurality of sub-pixels and the additional sub-pixel (FIG. 4A and 7A); and
a plurality of connection lines (DLa, page 16 par 1) on each of the plurality of line patterns (GWL, FIG. 5A), the plurality of connection lines (DLa) connecting the plurality of lines (GIL) of the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX) and the plurality of lines (GIL) of the sub-plate patterns (S_PX1),
wherein the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX) are in different columns from those of the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, FIG. 3A), and
wherein the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX, page 13 par 2 states, “The main pixels M_PX may include a plurality of red pixels, a plurality of green pixels, and a plurality of blue pixels.”) and the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, page 13 par 4 states, “The first sub-pixels S_PX1 may include a plurality of red pixels…”) are spaced apart from each other (FIG. 3A), and the plurality of line patterns (GWL, page 25 par 1, “The four signal lines may be the first scan line GWL”, FIG. 4A for S_PX1, FIG. 7A for M_PX) are disposed between the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX) and between the plurality of main plate patterns (M_PX) and the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, FIG. 3A and 3B).
Kim does not teach the plurality of main plate patterns are in different rows from those of the plurality of sub-plate patterns.
Kikuchi teaches the plurality of main plate patterns (21p1, 22p1, 22p2, & 21p2) are in different rows from those of the plurality of sub-plate patterns (plate with 23b, FIG. 11).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kikuchi in combination with Kim in the above manner for the motivation of optimally arranging the pixels and subpixels in in different rows. Multiplexing makes it easier to control multiple LEDs when arranged in a matrix like grid.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kikuchi into the structure of Kim.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP 3944225 A1) in view of Akimoto (US 20200212269 A1).
Re Claim 4 Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach the plurality of sub-pixels include at least one defective sub-pixel, wherein remaining sub-pixels excluding the at least one defective sub-pixel among the plurality of sub-pixels include the light emitting elements.
Akimoto teaches the plurality of sub-pixels include at least one defective sub-pixel (22d) [0037], wherein remaining sub-pixels (22R, 22G, 22B) excluding the at least one defective sub-pixel (22d) among the plurality of sub-pixels include the light emitting elements (FIG. 8) [0030].
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Akimoto in combination with Kim in the above manner for the motivation of adding a defect pixel to the circuit to help stabilize and optimize the light output. The abstract states, “The plurality of pixels includes at least one pixel in which the plurality of first subpixels includes a defective subpixel which is supposed to emit predetermined light with a predetermined color.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Akimoto into the structure of Kim.
Re Claim 5 Kim in view of Akimoto teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein a main plate pattern on which the at least one defective sub-pixel is disposed among the plurality of main plate patterns (Akimoto, defective pixel is on main plate pattern, 20, [0030], FIG. 8).
Kim in view Akimoto does not explicitly teach the main plates patterns are adjacent to the some sub-plate patterns including the light emitting elements.
Kim teaches the main plates patterns (M_PX) are adjacent to the some sub-plate patterns (S_PX1) including the light emitting elements (S_ED1, FIG. 4A).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in combination with Kim in view of Akimoto in the above manner for the motivation of optimally integrating the plates and sub plates to allow for an image of the perfect size for the end user. Page 2 par 4 states, “In response to the demand in the market, research has been conducted to reduce a region in which an image is not displayed in an electronic apparatus. At the same time, research has been conducted to enlarge a display region in which an image is displayed to a user.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kim into the structure of Kim in view of Akimoto.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP 3944225 A1) in view of Baek (US 20200176531 A1).
Re Claim 6 Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach the plurality of sub-pixels include a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel, and a third sub-pixel, wherein each of the plurality of main plate patterns has a different order in which the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel are disposed.
Baek teaches the plurality of sub-pixels include a first sub-pixel (R), a second sub-pixel (G), and a third sub-pixel (B)[0029], wherein each of the plurality of main plate patterns (n, n+1, n+2, n+3) [0038] has a different order in which the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel are disposed (FIG. 2).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Baek in combination with Kim in the above manner for the motivation of arranging the LED arrays to be in different order based on colors. Arranging LEDs in different patterns offers benefits including control over light distribution.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Baek into the structure of Kim.
Re Claim 7 Kim in view of Baek teach the display device of claim 6, wherein in some main plate patterns of the plurality of main plate patterns (Baek, FIG. 2, n), the plurality of sub-pixels are disposed in an order of the first sub-pixel (R), the second sub-pixel (G), and the third sub-pixel (B), and responsive to the third sub-pixel being a defective sub-pixel, the light emitting elements are disposed on sub-plate patterns (n, n+1) in columns (m-3, m-2).
The limitation “…responsive to the third sub-pixel being a defective sub-pixel,…” is merely functional/intended use limitation that do structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114.
Kim in view of Baek does not explicitly teach sub-plate patterns in columns are adjacent to the some main plate patterns among the plurality of sub-plate patterns.
Kim teaches sub-plate patterns (S_PX1) in columns (FIG. 3A, FUIG. 3A repeated in DR1 and DR2 in FIG. 2B) are adjacent to the some main plate patterns (M_PX) among the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, FIG. 3A and 2B).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in combination with Kim in view of Baek in the above manner for the motivation of placing sub plate patterns adjacently to the main plate patterns for easy and optimal alignment to create an ideal image on a display device. Page 2 par 4 states, “In response to the demand in the market, research has been conducted to reduce a region in which an image is not displayed in an electronic apparatus. At the same time, research has been conducted to enlarge a display region in which an image is displayed to a user.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kim into the structure of Kim in view of Baek.
Re Claim 8 Kim in view of Baek teach the display device of claim 7, wherein in other some main plate patterns among the plurality of main plate patterns (Baek, FIG. 2, n+1), the plurality of sub-pixels are disposed in an order of the second sub-pixel (G), the third sub-pixel (B), and the first sub-pixel (R), and responsive to the first sub-pixel being a defective sub-pixel.
The limitation “…responsive to the third sub-pixel being a defective sub-pixel,…” is merely functional/intended use limitation that do structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114.
Kim teaches the light emitting elements (S_ED1) are disposed on sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, FIG. 4A) in columns (FIG. 3A, FUIG. 3A repeated in DR1 and DR2 in FIG. 2B) adjacent to the other some main plate patterns (M_PX) among the plurality of sub-plate patterns (S_PX1, FIG. 3A and 2B).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in combination with Kim in view of Baek in the above manner for the motivation of placing sub plate patterns adjacently to the main plate patterns for easy and optimal alignment to create an ideal image on a display device. Page 2 par 4 states, “In response to the demand in the market, research has been conducted to reduce a region in which an image is not displayed in an electronic apparatus. At the same time, research has been conducted to enlarge a display region in which an image is displayed to a user.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kim into the structure of Kim in view of Baek.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP 3944225 A1) in view of Kikuchi (WO 2021201139 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20050264228 A1, “Kim2”).
Re Claim 10 Kim in view of Kikuchi teaches the display device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of lines include,
a scan line (Kikuchi, page 4 last par, GT1) supplying a scan signal to the pixel circuit (20G, FIG. 3B);
a data line (page 4 last par, G1) supplying a data voltage to the pixel circuit(20G, FIG. 3B);
a reference line (GND) supplying a reference voltage to the pixel circuit (FIG. 8B); and
a high potential power line (VDD) supplying a high potential power voltage to the pixel circuit (FIG. 3B);
Kim in view of Kikuchi does not teach an emission control line supplying an emission control signal to the pixel circuit; and
a low potential power line supplying a low potential power voltage to the pixel circuit.
Kim2 teaches an emission control line (E1) [0048] supplying an emission control signal to the pixel circuit (105, FIG. 3) [0035]; and
a low potential power line (VSS) supplying a low potential power voltage to the pixel circuit (OLED, FIG. 4).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim3 in combination with Kim in view of Kikuchi in the above manner for the motivation of adding emission control and low potential power lines to the circuit. The connection lines are critical for the display device to function optimally. [0005] states, “An organic EL display uses light emitted from an electrically excited organic light emitting diode OLED to display characters or images.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed the invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kim2 into the structure of Kim in view of Kikuchi.
Re Claim 11 Kim in view of Kikuchi and Kim2 teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the emission control line (Kim2, E1, FIG. 3) and the high potential power line (VDD) of the main plate pattern disposed in a first row among the plurality of main plate patterns (105) [0035] are electrically connected to emission control lines (E2) and the high potential power lines (VDD) of the plurality of sub-plate patterns (use 155 to left of E2) disposed in a second row (FIG. 3), respectively, through the plurality of connection lines (use Kikuchi, FIG. 12B shows sub plate pattern and main late patterns are electrically connected).
Re Claim 12 Kim in view of Kikuchi and Kim2 teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the scan line (Kim2, S3) and the low potential power line (VSS) of the main plate pattern disposed in a third row (FIG.3 and FIG. 4) among the plurality of main plate patterns (OLED in 3rd row) are electrically connected to scan lines and low potential power lines of the plurality of sub-plate patterns disposed in the second row (use OLED in 2nd row as sub plates), respectively, through the plurality of connection lines (use Kikuchi, FIG. 12B shows sub plate pattern and main late patterns are electrically connected).
Re Claim 13 Kim in view of Kikuchi and Kim2 teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the data line includes a plurality of data lines (Kikuchi, R1, B1, G1, and G2) and the plurality of data lines are disposed in each of the plurality of main plate patterns (21p1, 22p1, 22p2, & 21p2, FIG. 13A and B),
wherein one of the plurality of data lines (R1) of the main plate pattern disposed in a first column among the plurality of main plate patterns is electrically connected to data lines of the plurality of sub-plate patterns (plate with 23B) disposed in a second column through the plurality of connection lines (B1, FIG. 13A and B).
Re Claim 14 Kim in view of Kikuchi and Kim2 teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the reference line of the main plate pattern disposed in a third column (Kikuchi, G1) among the plurality of main plate patterns (21p1, 22p1, 22p2, & 21p23) is electrically connected to reference lines (GND, FIG. 8B) of the plurality of sub-plate patterns (plate with 23B) disposed in the second column through the plurality of connection lines (FIG. 12A and B).
Re Claim 15 Kim in view of Kikuchi and Kim2 teach the display device of claim 14, wherein in one main plate pattern (Kikuchi, 21p1) among the plurality of main plate patterns (21p1, 22p1, 22p2, & 21p23), responsive to any one of the plurality of sub-pixels (23B) being defective, a light emitting element (23b) connected to the pixel circuit (FIG. 13B) is disposed on the sub-plate pattern (plate with 23b) disposed in a row and column adjacent to the one main plate pattern (FIG. 12A).
The limitation “…responsive to any one of the plurality of sub-pixels being defective…” is merely functional/intended use limitation that do structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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.
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 KENNETH MARK SIPLING whose telephone number is (571)272-3269. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/KENNETH MARK SIPLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 5/18/26
Prosecution Insights