DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Huh (US 2020/0212140 A1) fails to teach:
“wherein the first etch-stop layer includes a plurality of sub layers, and wherein the plurality of sub layers are extended from the display area”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The applicant asserts “Huh’s etch-stopper ES, is separately formed in the hole boundary portion THB, and does not extend from the display area”. However, the first insulating film IL1, the second insulating film IL2 and planarization layer PLN surrounding the trench TR function as an etch stop layer with sublayer similar to the device and are shown extending from the area containing pixels P in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
Examiner acknowledges the title of the invention has been changed and is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore the specification objection has been withdrawn.
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, 8, 10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huh (US 2020/0212140 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Huh teaches a display panel (an electroluminescence display device) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 35 and 76), comprising:
a glass substrate (a substrate SUB) including a display area (a display area AA) and a light-transmitting area (an area containing a through-hole TH) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 51-52, 54, and 76);
a circuit portion (the portion of a pixel P containing a pixel circuit PC) disposed in the display area (Fig. 1 and paragraph 62); and
a light-emitting portion (a light-emitting diode ED) disposed on the circuit portion and configured to emit light (Fig. 3 and paragraph 62),
wherein the glass substrate includes a first opening (the through-hole TH) disposed at a position corresponding to the light-transmitting area (the through hole is a hole for transmitting light) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 76), wherein
the display panel includes a first etch-stop layer (a pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion THB surrounding a trench TR) disposed on the glass substrate and surrounding the first opening (the pixel array layers 120 surrounding is shown surrounding the through-hole TH in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and paragraphs 80 and 84), wherein the light-transmitting area is configured to pass light incident to the display (the through hole is a hole for transmitting light) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 76),
wherein the first etch-stop layer includes a plurality of sub layers, and wherein the plurality of sub layers are extended from the display area (the layers within pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion extend from the display area and function as the sub-layers of the first etch-stop layer) (Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 5, wherein the first etch-stop layer includes an organic material (the planarization layer PLN can be formed of an organic film) (paragraph 99).
In regard to claim 8, Huh teaches wherein the first etch-stop layer includes a first sub- layer (a first insulating film IL1) disposed on the glass substrate (Fig. 3 and paragraph 137), and a second sub-layer (the planarization layer PLN can be formed of an organic film) disposed on the first sub-layer substrate (Fig. 3 and paragraph 99), wherein the first sub-layer includes an inorganic material (the first insulating film IL1 can be formed of an inorganic film) (paragraph 95), and wherein the second sub-layer includes an organic material (the planarization layer PLN can be formed of an organic film) (paragraph 99).
In regard to claim 10, Huh teaches wherein the second sub-layer further protrudes toward an inner side of the first opening (the planarization layer PLN is shown protruding towards the trench TR in Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 13, Huh teaches wherein the display area includes:
a buffer layer (a buffer film BUF) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 144);
a semiconductor layer disposed on the buffer layer (a semiconductor layer A) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 91);
a gate insulating film (gate insulating film GI) disposed on the semiconductor layer (Fig. 3 and paragraph 93);
a gate electrode (gate electrode G) disposed on the gate insulating film ;
a first insulating film (first insulating film IL1) disposed on the gate electrode (Fig. 3 and paragraph 95);
a source electrode (source electrode S) and a drain electrode (drain electrode D) disposed on the first insulating film (Fig. 3 and paragraph 96);
a planarization layer (planarization layer PLN) disposed on the source electrode and the drain electrode (Fig. 3 and paragraph 95); and
a bank layer (bank BN) disposed on the planarization layer (Fig. 3 and paragraph 101), and
wherein the second sub-layer is formed by extending the planarization layer or the bank layer to the light-transmitting area (the planarization layer PLN in the hole boundary portion THB serves as the second sublayer).
Furthermore, as the device contains an etch stop layer with multiple sub-layers the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation the second sub-layer is formed by extending the planarization layer or the bank layer to the light-transmitting area as recited in lines 10-11 has not been given patentable weight.
In regard to claim 19, Huh teaches a display device (an electroluminescence display device) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 35 and 76), comprising:
a glass substrate (a substrate SUB) including a display area (a display area AA) and a light-transmitting area (an area containing a through-hole TH) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 51-52, 54, and 76);
a circuit portion (the portion of a pixel P containing a pixel circuit PC) disposed in the display area (Fig. 1 and paragraph 62);
a light-emitting portion (a light-emitting diode ED) disposed on the circuit portion (Fig. 3 and paragraph 62); and
an electronic device disposed below the light-transmitting area (a camera or light sensor would be disposed at the bottom of the through-hole TH) (paragraph 76),
the display panel includes a first etch-stop layer (a pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion THB surrounding a trench TR) disposed on the glass substrate and surrounding the first opening (the pixel array layers 120 surrounding is shown surrounding the through-hole TH in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and paragraphs 80 and 84), wherein
the display device includes a first etch-stop layer disposed on the glass substrate and surrounding the first opening (an etch-stopper ES including the first and second thin film layers on the left and right side of the through-hole TH) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 137-139).
wherein the first etch-stop layer includes a plurality of sub layers, and wherein the plurality of sub layers are extended from the display area (the layers within pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion extend from the display area and function as the sub-layers of the first etch-stop layer) (Fig. 3).
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 2, 4, 6, 7, 15-18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh as applied to claims 1 or 19 above, in view of Jo et al. (US 2022/0013595 A1; hereinafter “Jo”).
In regard to claim 2, Huh teaches the first etch-stop layer includes a protrusion protruding toward an inner side of the first opening (the portion pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion surrounding a trench TR that extends beyond the planarization layer PLN functions as the protrusion as shown in Fig. 3).
Huh doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the glass substrate includes an inner side surface of the first opening, and wherein the protrusion protrudes toward the light-transmitting area more than the inner side surface of the first opening of the glass substrate.
Jo teaches a display panel (display device in which penetrating-holes are formed in at least a portion of a panel) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 3), wherein the glass substrate includes an inner side surface of the first opening (a substrate is shown with an inclined lower side surface on the right and left sides of the first hole H1) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 148), and wherein a protrusion (a portion of an etch stopper layer ESL that protrudes further than the lower portion of the substrate SUB) protrudes toward a light-transmitting area the portion of the Non-emission area containing a penetrating-holes PH1) more than the inner side surface of the first opening of the glass substrate (the portion of the etch stopper layer ESL protrudes further than the lower portion of the substrate SUB) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 95).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huh with the teachings of Jo to have the glass substrate include an inner side surface of the first opening, and wherein the protrusion protrudes toward the light-transmitting area more than the inner side surface of the first opening of the glass substrate since this layout allows for proper shaping of layers during manufacture as taught by Jo (paragraphs 96-99).
In regard to claim 4, Huh teaches an inclination angle of the inner side surface of the first opening (the angle of trapezoidal section structure of the planarization layer PLN surrounding the trench TR) and an inclination angle of a side surface of the protrusion are different from each other (the angle of a second insulating film IL2 on the side wall of the trench is shown to be 90°, while the trapezoidal section structure of the planarization layer PLN is tapered as shown in Fig. 3) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 117).
In regard to claim 6, Huh doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the glass substrate includes a second inclined surface formed at an edge and
wherein an angle of the second inclined surface is equal to an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening.
Jo teaches a display panel (display device in which penetrating-holes are formed in at least a portion of a panel) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 3), wherein the glass substrate includes a second inclined surface formed at an edge (the substrate is shown with an inclined surface on the right side of the first hole H1) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 148), and
wherein an angle of the second inclined surface is equal to an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening (the right and left side are shown with the same angle of inclination due to the width of the second hole H2 being consistent) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 150).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Jo with the teachings of Jo to have the glass substrate include a second inclined surface formed at an edge and an angle of the second inclined surface is equal to an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening since it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regard to claim 7, Huh in view of Jo teaches a second etch-stop layer (etch stopper layer ESL formed on the right side of the substrate) disposed on the second inclined surface (the etch-stopper ES is shown disposed on the substrate SUB in Jo, Fig. 10) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 97), the first etch-stop layer and the second etch-stop layer have the same layer structure (the layers that form the first and second etch stop layers have the same layer structure due to having the same segmented layers as shown in Jo Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 15, Huh teaches a display panel comprising:
a glass substrate (a substrate SUB) including a display area (a display area AA) and a light-transmitting area (an area containing a through-hole TH) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 51-52, 54, and 76);
a circuit portion (the portion of a pixel P containing a pixel circuit PC) disposed in the display area (Fig. 1 and paragraph 62); and
a light-emitting portion (a light-emitting diode ED) disposed on the circuit portion and configured to emit light (Fig. 3 and paragraph 62),
wherein the glass substrate includes a first opening (the through-hole TH) disposed at a position corresponding to the light-transmitting area (the through hole is a hole for transmitting light) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 76), wherein
the display panel includes a first etch-stop layer (a pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion surrounding a trench TR) disposed on the glass substrate and surrounding the first opening (the pixel array layers 120 surrounding is shown surrounding the through-hole TH in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and paragraphs 80 and 84),
wherein the first etch-stop layer includes a plurality of sub layers, and wherein the plurality of sub layers are extended from the display area (the layers within pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion extend from the display area and function as the sub-layers of the first etch-stop layer) (Fig. 3).
Huh doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the glass substrate includes the first opening disposed at a position corresponding to the light-transmitting area and a second inclined surface formed on a side surface,
wherein an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening and an inclination angle of the second inclined surface are the same.
Jo teaches a display panel (display device in which penetrating-holes are formed in at least a portion of a panel) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 3), wherein a glass substrate (a rigid substrate SUB) includes a first opening (a first hole H1) disposed at a position corresponding to a light-transmitting area (an area a penetrating-hole PH) and a second inclined surface formed on a side surface (the substrate has inclined side surfaces on the left and right sides as shown in Fig. 10) (Fig. 10 and paragraphs 97, 148-149 and 152),
wherein an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening and an inclination angle of the second inclined surface are the same (the right and left side are shown with the same angle of inclination due to the width of the second hole H2 being consistent) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 150).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huh with the teachings of Jo to have the glass substrate include a first opening disposed at a position corresponding to the light-transmitting area and a second inclined surface formed on a side surface, and an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening and an inclination angle of the second inclined surface are the same since it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regard to claim 16, Huh doesn’t explicitly teach the display panel further comprising
a second etch-stop layer disposed on the second inclined surface.
Jo teaches a display panel (display device in which penetrating-holes are formed in at least a portion of a panel) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 3), comprising:
a second etch-stop layer (an etch stopper layer ESL to the right of the first hole H1) disposed on a second inclined surface (the etch stopper layer ESL to the right of the first hole H1 is shown on the inclined surface of the substrate SUB in Fig. 10) (Fig. 10 and paragraphs 92 and 94).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huh with teachings of Jo to have a second etch-stop layer disposed on the second inclined surface since this allows the device to be formed with reduced chance of damaging layers during subsequent etching steps as taught by Jo (paragraph 98).
In regard to claim 17, Huh teaches wherein a first etch-stop layer and a second etch- stop layer have the same layer structure (the pixel array layers 120 on the right and left side of the trench TR are shown having the same layer structure in Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 18, Huh teaches wherein the first etch-stop layer includes a protrusion protruding toward an inner side of the first opening ((the portion pixel array layer 120 in a hole boundary portion surrounding a trench TR that extends beyond the planarization layer PLN functions as the protrusion shown in Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 20 Huh doesn’t explicitly teach
the glass substrate includes a second inclined surface formed at an edge, and
an angle of the second inclined surface is equal to an inclination angle of the first opening.
Jo teaches a display panel (display device in which penetrating-holes are formed in at least a portion of a panel) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 3),
wherein the glass substrate includes a second inclined surface formed at an edge (the substrate is shown with an inclined surface on the right side of the first hole H1) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 148), and
an angle of the second inclined surface is equal to an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening (the right and left side are shown with the same angle of inclination due to the width of the second hole H2 being consistent) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 150).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Jo with the teachings of Jo to have the glass substrate include a second inclined surface formed at an edge and an angle of the second inclined surface is equal to an inclination angle of an inner side surface of the first opening since this allows a hole line to be formed through the dive as taught by Jo (paragraph 160-161).
Furthermore, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regard to claim 22, Huh in view of Jo don’t explicitly wherein the second inclined surface formed on the side surface is formed based on laser ablation of a margin region of a mother substrate including the display device and an adjacent display device.
However, since Jo has a second inclined surfaces that are formed by lasers through a hole line (see for example paragraphs 142-143), and it has been held the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. This limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Jo as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Lee (US 2022/0173207 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Huh teaches a coating layer (an upper passivation film PAS) formed on an inner side surface of the first opening (the upper passivation film PAS is formed to be matched with the end of the through-hole TH to completely cover all of ends of the thin film layers formed between the through-hole TH and the trench TR and reaches to the end HL of the through-hole TH) (Fig. 3 and paragraph 141), and a lower surface of the protrusion (the lower side surface of the protrusion the portion pixel array layer 120 is shown covered by the upper passivation film PAS in Fig. 3).
Huh in view of Jo doesn’t explicitly teach a coating layer formed on a rear surface of the glass substrate.
Lee teaches a display panel (display panel 10a) (Fig.3 and paragraph 40), a coating layer (second insulating layer I2a) formed on a rear surface of a glass substrate (the second insulating layer I2a may be disposed on a portion of the lower surface of the substrate 100a) (Fig. 12 and paragraphs 42 and 67).
It would’ve been obvious at the time to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huh in view of Jo with the teachings of Lee to have a coating layer formed on a rear surface of the glass substrate since this layout provides increased protection and support for the device and components on the bottom side of the substrate as taught by Lee (paragraph 69).
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Shin et al. (US 2020/0328269 A1; hereinafter “Shin”).
In regard to claim 9, Huh teaches wherein the first etch-stop layer includes a third sub-layer (the second insulating film IL2) disposed between the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer (the second insulating film IL2 is shown between the planarization layer PLN and the first insulating layer IL1).
Huh does not explicitly teach wherein the third sub-layer includes a metal.
Shin teaches a display panel (a display apparatus 10) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 49), wherein a third sub-layer includes a metal (a first interlayer insulating layer 205 between a second interlayer insulating layer 207 and gate insulating layer 203 can be formed of aluminum oxide) (Fig. 4 and paragraphs 79 and 82).
It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huh with the teachings of Shin to have the third sub-layer include a metal since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a metallic oxide as an insulating material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Won (US 2020/0328375 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Huh doesn’t explicitly teach the first sub-layer includes an insertion groove, and wherein the second sub-layer includes a first protrusion disposed in the insertion groove.
In regard to claim 11, Won teaches a first sub-layer (thin-film element layer ATL) includes an insertion groove (portion between the edge of the thin-film element layer ATL and the hole coating layer HCVB acts as the insertion groove) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 56), and wherein a second sub-layer (a thin-film encapsulation layer 190) includes a first protrusion disposed in the insertion groove (the thin-film encapsulation layer 190 is shown in the portion between the edge of the thin-film element layer ATL and the hole coating layer HCVB as shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huh with the teachings of Won to have the first sub-layer includes an insertion groove, and wherein the second sub-layer includes a first protrusion disposed in the insertion groove since this layout allows for moisture protection of the device as taught by Won (paragraph 57).
In regard to claim 12, Huh in view of Won teaches the second sub-layer includes a second protrusion protruding toward an inner side of the first opening (the upper portion of the thin-film encapsulation layer 190 formed above the thin-film element layer ATL that extends towards the hole coating layer HCVB serves as the second protrusion as shown in Won Fig. 3), and wherein the second protrusion is disposed to be higher than an upper surface of the glass substrate (the thin-film encapsulation layer 190 is shown above the substrate 100 in Won Fig. 3).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0104558 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
In regard to claim 21, Huh doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the circuit portion comprises: a first active device formed using an oxide semiconductor in a first layer; and a second active device formed using a polycrystalline silicone in a second layer.
Kim teaches a display panel (a display panel 10) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 59), wherein a circuit portion (a portion of the device containing the first and second switching transistors ST1 and ST2) (Fig. 7 and paragraph 82), comprises: a first active device (a second switching transistors ST2) formed using an oxide semiconductor in a first layer (the first active layer 350 may be made of an oxide semiconductor) (Fig. 7 and paragraph 129); and a second active device (a first switching transistors ST1) formed using a polycrystalline silicone in a second layer (the second active layer 450 may be made of polycrystalline silicon) (Fig. 7 and paragraph 108).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huh with the teachings of Kim to have the circuit portion comprises: a first active device formed using an oxide semiconductor in a first layer; and a second active device formed using a polycrystalline silicone in a second layer since oxide and polycrystalline are known semiconductor materials and 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, 125 USPQ 416.
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 SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893