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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “Wherein” should be changed to “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms: “relatively large” in claim 16, line 16 and “relatively small” in claim 20, line 2 are relative terms which render these claims indefinite. These terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The areas of the connecting part and the portion of the body adjacent the connecting part are rendered indefinite by the use of these indefinite terms. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is being construed as reciting that the connecting part has a first area and claim 20 is being construed as reciting that the portion of the body adjacent to the connecting part has a second area smaller than the first area.
Claims 17-20 depend from claim 16 and are therefore also indefinite for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, 13, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0199732 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kudo discloses a mask assembly (Abstract of Kudo, deposition mask) comprising: a frame (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, frame #3) including: a first lateral part and a second lateral part extending in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, one pair of opposing sides of frame #3); and a third lateral part and a fourth lateral part extending in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, other pair of opposing sides of frame #3), the third lateral part and the fourth lateral part being connected with the first lateral part and the second lateral part and defining a frame opening (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, sides of frame #3 form opening); an open sheet (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, support member #2) including: a body part in which a plurality of sheet openings arranged in the first direction and the second direction and overlapping the frame opening is defined (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, support member #2 includes openings #10); and a connecting part protruding from the body part and at least partially overlap the frame, the connecting part including: a first connecting part overlapping the first lateral part; a second connecting part overlapping the second lateral part; third connecting parts overlapping at least a portion of the third lateral part; and fourth connecting parts overlapping at least a portion of the fourth lateral part (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, portions of support member #2 that overlap sides of frame #3); and masks (FIGS. 1A-1B of Kudo, mask sheet #1), each including: a deposition part in which deposition openings overlapping a corresponding sheet opening among the plurality of sheet openings are defined (FIGS. 1A-1B, [0026] of Kudo, mask sheet #1 includes film layer #4 having a plurality of opening patterns corresponding to openings #10 in support member #2); and coupling parts protruding from the deposition part and spaced apart from each other with the deposition part therebetween (FIGS. 1A-1B, [0026] of Kudo, portions of film layer #4 between opening patterns which overlap support member #2).
Regarding claim 2, Kudo discloses that the third connecting parts are spaced apart from each other in the second direction, wherein the fourth connecting parts are spaced apart from each other in the second direction, and wherein the third connecting parts and the fourth connecting parts do not overlap the plurality of sheet openings when viewed in the first direction and the second direction (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, portions of support member #2 that overlap sides of frame #3 are spaced apart from one another along length of frame).
Regarding claim 3, Kudo discloses that a first portion of the body part adjacent to the third lateral part is spaced apart from the third lateral part by a predetermined gap, and wherein a second portion of the body part adjacent to the fourth lateral part is spaced apart from the fourth lateral part by a predetermined gap (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, portions of support member #2 forming openings adjacent frame members spaced from frame members to form a gap).
Regarding claim 4, Kudo discloses that one portion of each of the third connecting parts overlaps the frame opening, and a remaining portion of each of the third connecting parts overlaps the third lateral part, and wherein one portion of each of the fourth connecting parts overlaps the frame opening, and a remaining portion of each of the fourth connecting parts overlaps the fourth lateral part (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, portions of support member #2 overlapping frame members also overlap frame opening adjacent frame members).
Regarding claim 5, Kudo discloses first welding protrusions formed on the remaining portion of each of the third connecting parts; and second welding protrusions formed on the remaining portion of each of the fourth connecting parts ([0034] of Kudo, frame and support member joined together by spot welding).
Regarding claim 6, Kudo discloses that two third connecting parts adjacent to each other among the third connecting parts, the third lateral part, and the first portion of the body part define an empty space extending in the second direction in a plan view, and wherein two fourth connecting parts adjacent to each other among the fourth connecting parts, the fourth lateral part, and the second portion of the body part define an empty space extending in the second direction in the plan view (FIG. 14A of Kudo, portions of support member overlapping frame members are spaced apart along length of frame members).
Regarding claim 7, Kudo discloses that the first connecting part extends in the first direction and entirely overlaps the first lateral part, and wherein the second connecting part extends in the first direction and entirely overlaps the second lateral part (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, belt shaped members #24 forming support member #2 completely overlap frame members).
Regarding claim 8, Kudo discloses that each of the coupling parts extends in the first direction (FIG. 1C of Kudo, coupling parts of mask #1 surround opening patterns and therefore extend in both frame directions and therefore would necessarily extend in the first direction).
Regarding claim 9, Kudo discloses welding protrusions formed on the first connecting part and the second connecting part ([0034] of Kudo, frame and support member joined together by spot welding which would necessarily form spots or protrusions of welded material).
Regarding claim 12, Kudo discloses that the frame, the open sheet, and the masks include one of invar and stainless steel ([0029] of Kudo, metal layer #5 of mask sheet #1 made of invar; [[0032] of Kudo, support member made of invar; [0034] of Kudo, frame #3 made of invar; claim only requires one of the recited materials).
Regarding claim 13, Kudo discloses each of the first connecting part and the second connecting part, when viewed in the second direction, overlaps sheet openings arranged in the first direction among the plurality of sheet openings (FIGS. 1A-1C of Kudo, portions of support member #2 that overlap sides of frame #3 extend along the length of each side of frame and therefore overlap openings in support member #2).
Regarding claim 21, Kudo discloses a mask assembly (Abstract of Kudo, deposition mask) comprising: a frame (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, frame #3) including: a first lateral part and a second lateral part extending in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, one pair of opposing sides of frame #3); and a third lateral part and a fourth lateral part extend in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, other pair of opposing sides of frame #3), the third lateral part and the fourth lateral part being connected with the first lateral part and the second lateral part and defining a frame opening (FIGS. 1A-1B or 14A-14B of Kudo, sides of frame #3 form opening); an open sheet (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, belt shaped members 24A 24B form support member #2 including openings #10) including: first sticks extending in the first direction and spaced apart from each other in the second direction (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, belt shaped members 24A); and second sticks extending in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, belt shaped members 24B), the second sticks being intersecting the first sticks and defining a plurality of sheet openings (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, belt shaped members 24A 24B form openings #10); and masks (FIGS. 1A-1B of Kudo, mask sheet #1), each including: a deposition part in which deposition openings overlapping a corresponding sheet opening among the plurality of sheet openings are defined (FIGS. 1A-1B, [0026] of Kudo, mask sheet #1 includes film layer #4 having a plurality of opening patterns corresponding to openings #10 in support member #2); and coupling parts protruding from the deposition part and spaced apart from each other with the deposition part therebetween (FIGS. 1A-1B, [0026] of Kudo, portions of film layer #4 between opening patterns which overlap support member #2), wherein stick recesses are defined in a thickness direction on sticks disposed away from the frame among the first sticks and the second sticks, and portions of sticks disposed adjacent to the frame are inserted into the corresponding stick recesses (FIG. 14B of Kudo, belt shaped members #24A have grooves #25 for insertion of belt shaped members #24B).
Regarding claim 22, Kudo discloses each of the first sticks includes first connecting portions coupled with the first lateral part and the second lateral part and a first central portion disposed between the first connecting portions and overlapping the frame opening, and wherein each of the second sticks includes second connecting portions coupled with the third lateral part and the fourth lateral part and a second central portion disposed between the second connecting portions and intersecting the first central portions and define the plurality of sheet openings (FIGS. 14A-14B of Kudo, portions of belt shaped members #24A #24B extend across frame opening and overlap sides of frame #3).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (International Patent Publication No. WO 2019/203510 A1, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses a mask assembly manufacturing method ([0105] of Lee, process of manufacturing a frame integrated mask) comprising: providing a frame including first lateral parts extending in a first direction and second lateral parts extending in a second direction crossing the first direction and defining a frame opening with the first lateral parts (FIG. 6a of Lee, frame unit #210); stretching an open sheet including a body part in which sheet openings overlapping the frame opening and connecting parts protruding from the body part are defined (FIG. 6b, [0109] of Lee, mask cell sheet portion stretched); coupling the connecting parts to the frame through a first welding process (FIG. 6b, [0109] of Lee, stretched mask cell sheet portion attached to frame #210; [0110] of Lee, mask cell sheet portion attached to frame by welding #W); stretching a mask ([0213] of Lee, tension applied to plurality of masks #100) including: a deposition part in which deposition openings overlapping one sheet opening among the sheet openings are defined (FIG. 12 of Lee, mask #100 includes mask cell #C having patterned openings #P); and coupling parts protruding from the deposition part in the second direction and extend in the first direction (FIG. 12 of Lee, mask #100 includes dummy portion #DM extending from mask cell #C); and coupling the coupling parts to the open sheet through a second welding process (FIG. 16a, [0189] of Lee, mask #100 attached to frame by welding), wherein a connecting part having a relatively large area coupled with the frame among the connecting parts extends in the first direction (FIG. 6b of Lee, mask cell sheet portion #220 welded to frame #210 includes connecting parts #223 #225 extending in first and second directions), and wherein the stretching the mask includes stretching the coupling parts in the second direction ([0213] of Lee, tension applied to plurality of masks #100 would necessarily stretch coupling parts; FIG. 19a of Lee, mask #100 welded to connecting part #223 which extends along the X axis perpendicular to stretching direction of mask along Y axis).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses an arrangement direction of welding protrusions formed on the connecting part having the relatively large area coupled with the frame among the connecting parts is the same as an arrangement direction of welding protrusions formed on the coupling parts (FIGS. 6b and 19a of Lee, welds #W between mask cell sheet portion and frame and welds #WB between mask and mask cell sheet portion extend in same direction).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo.
Regarding claim 14, Kudo does not specifically disclose that each of the masks has a thickness of about 10 micrometers to about 30 micrometers. Kudo, however, discloses that the metal layer #5 of the mask sheet #1 has a thickness of 5-20 µm ([0040] of Kudo) and that the film layer #4 of the mask sheet #1 has a thickness of 5-30 µm ([0035] of Kudo). Kudo therefore discloses that the mask sheet #1 which includes the metal and film layers has a thickness of 10 to 50 µm ([0032] of Kudo). Kudo therefore clearly teaches a mask thickness range (i.e., 10 to 50 µm) that overlaps with that recited in claim 15 (i.e., 10 to 30 µm) which would render the claimed thickness range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 15, Kudo does not specifically disclose that the open sheet (i.e., the support member #2) has a thickness of about 50 micrometers to about 200 micrometers. Kudo, however, discloses that the support member #2 has a thickness of 100 to 300 µm ([0032] of Kudo). Kudo therefore clearly teaches a thickness range (i.e., 100 to 300 µm) that overlaps with that recited in claim 15 (i.e., 50 to 200 µm) which would render the claimed thickness range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo in view of Ikenaga et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 6701543 B2, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kudo does not specifically disclose that the widths of the first lateral part and the second lateral part in the first direction are greater than widths of the third lateral part and the fourth lateral part in the second direction as recited in claim 10 or that the widths of the first lateral part and the second lateral part in the first direction are smaller than widths of the third lateral part and the fourth lateral part in the second direction as recited in claim 11. Ikenaga, however, discloses a frame for a vapor deposition mask wherein the frame members extending in a first direction are wider than the frame members extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (FIG. 1, pg. 27, frame #15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a frame having wider frame members extending in a first direction since Ikenaga establishes that such frames were known for vapor deposition masks. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding the limitation that the widths of the first and second lateral parts are greater or smaller than that of the third and fourth lateral parts, it is noted that either set of opposing frame members of Ikenaga could be considered the first and second lateral parts.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Obata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0092862 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lee does not specifically disclose that each of the coupling parts includes a first portion protruding from the deposition part and a second portion protruding from the first portion, and wherein the stretching the mask includes stretching the second portion in a direction in which the second portion protrudes. Obata, however, discloses a method for stretching a vapor deposition mask which comprises attaching a stretching assistance member to the edge of the mask and stretching the mask pulling the stretching assistance member (Abstract, [0006] of Obata). According to Obata, the stretching method is simple, lightweight and satisfies high definition ([0014] of Obata). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach stretching assistance members to the edges of the mask in the method of Lee and to stretch the mask by pulling the stretching assistance members. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a method that is simple, lightweight and which satisfies high definition as taught by Obata ([0014] of Obata).
Regarding claim 18, Obata discloses removing the second portions from the mask ([0085] of Obata, stretching assistance members #50 removed from mask after fixing mask to frame).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kudo.
Regarding claim 20, Lee does not specifically disclose that a portion of the body part adjacent to a connecting part having a relatively small area coupled with the frame among the connecting parts is spaced apart from the frame by a predetermined gap. Kudo, however, discloses a support member for a deposition mask comprising belt shaped members #24 in the form of a grid attached to a frame #3 such that a gap is formed between the belt shaped member adjacent each of the frame members (FIG. 14A of Kudo). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the grid of Kudo as the mask cell sheet portion in the method of Lee since Kudo establishes that such structures were known for use as supports for vapor deposition masks (FIG. 14A of Kudo). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo in view of Obata.
Regarding claim 23, while Kudo discloses that a first central portion of each of first sticks adjacent to the first lateral part and the second lateral part among the first sticks is coupled with the first lateral part and the second lateral part ([0034] of Kudo, frame and support member joined together by spot welding), Kudo does not specifically disclose that the widths of the first sticks in the first direction are greater than widths of the second sticks in the second direction, wherein the first sticks are disposed farther away from the frame than the second sticks. Obata, however, discloses a reinforcement frame #65 for a vapor deposition mask comprising a grid of reinforcement frame members (FIG. 17c of Obata) wherein the width of the reinforcement frame members extending in a first direction is larger than that of the members extending in the perpendicular direction ([0140] of Obata). Obata also discloses spacing the wider crosswise direction grid members further from the frame than the narrower lengthwise grid members (FIG. 1a of Obata). According to Obata, using wider frame members in the first direction provides a frame with enhanced rigidity while reducing the spacing between adjacent masks and thereby increasing the number of masks that can be used with the frame ([0139]-[0140] of Obata). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reinforcement frame members of different widths in each direction in the method of Kudo. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the spacing between adjacent masks thereby increasing the number of masks that can be used with the frame while maintaining the rigidity of the structure as taught by Obata ([0139]-[0140] of Obata).
Regarding claim 24, Kudo discloses that each of the coupling parts is coupled to a corresponding first central portion among the first central portions (FIG. 7 of Kudo, spot welds #20 between mask #1 and support member #2).
Regarding claim 25, while Kudo discloses that the second central portion of each of second sticks adjacent to the third lateral part and the fourth lateral part among the second sticks is coupled with the third lateral part and the fourth lateral part ([0034] of Kudo, frame and support member joined together by spot welding), Kudo does not specifically disclose that the widths of the first sticks in the first direction are greater than widths of the second sticks in the second direction, wherein the second sticks are disposed farther away from the frame than the first sticks. Obata, however, discloses a reinforcement frame #65 for a vapor deposition mask comprising a grid of reinforcement frame members (FIG. 17c of Obata) wherein the width of the reinforcement frame members extending in a first direction is larger than that of the members extending in the perpendicular direction ([0140] of Obata). Obata also discloses spacing the crosswise direction grid members which are wider closer to the frame than the lengthwise grid members (FIG. 17c of Obata). According to Obata, using wider frame members in the first direction provides a frame with enhanced rigidity while reducing the spacing between adjacent masks and thereby increasing the number of masks that can be used with the frame ([0139]-[0140] of Obata). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reinforcement frame members of different widths in each direction in the method of Kudo. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the spacing between adjacent masks thereby increasing the number of masks that can be used with the frame while maintaining the rigidity of the structure as taught by Obata ([0139]-[0140] of Obata).
Regarding claim 26, Kudo discloses that each of the coupling parts is coupled to a corresponding second central portion among the second central portions (FIG. 7 of Kudo, spot welds #20 between mask #1 and support member #2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746