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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-7, 9-16, 19-21 and 23 in the reply filed on March 02nd, 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 22 and 23 have been amended. Claims 8, 17 and 18 have been cancelled. Claim 22 has been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 19-23 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-7, 9-16, 19-21 and 23 as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/08/2023 are objected.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features: “a light-emitting layer covering the separation slot between adjacent first cut-off slots” as recited in amended claims 1, 22 and 23, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes para. [0070] of the instant application’s specification discloses that “at least part of film layers of the light-emitting layer (OL) can be discontinuous at the first cut-off slot (CUS1)”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 15-16, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN 111722761, hereinafter as Ye ‘761) in view of Nakatani (US 2010/0252857, hereinafter as Naka ‘857), in view of Lee (US 2017/0133620, hereinafter as Lee ‘620) and further in view of Xu (CN 111564484, hereinafter as Xu ‘484).
Regarding Claim 1, Ye ‘761 teaches a display panel, comprising:
a driving backplane (Fig. 2, (201); [0041]);
a first electrode layer (2021; [0043]), disposed on one side of the driving backplane;
a pixel definition layer (2019; [0042]), arranged on the side, same as the first electrode layer, of the driving backplane and exposing each of the first electrodes, wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a cut-off layer (2019), the cut-off layer is provided with a separation slot (50; [0055]) located outside the first electrodes (2021), and a first cut-off slot is provided on a sidewall of the separation slot (50); a light-emitting layer (2022; [0044]), covering the cut-off layer (2019) and the first electrode layer (2021); and a second electrode (2023; [0044]), covering the light-emitting layer (2022).
Ye ‘761 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a filling layer and a cut-off layer stacked in a direction away from the driving backplane, the filling layer has a thickness smaller than the first electrode layer and is located outside the first electrodes”.
Naka ‘857 teaches a filling layer (Fig. 7, (300); [0144]) and a cut-off layer (400; [0144]) stacked in a direction away from the driving backplane, the filling layer (300) has a thickness smaller than the first electrode layer (210; [0144]) and is located outside the first electrodes (210) (see Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ye ‘761 by having a filling layer and a cut-off layer stacked in a direction away from the driving backplane, the filling layer has a thickness smaller than the first electrode layer and is located outside the first electrodes for the purpose of providing an organic EL device with low driving voltage and high light emitting efficiency (see para. [0010]) as suggested by Naka ‘857.
Ye ‘761 and Naka ‘857 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a plurality of first electrodes distributed at intervals”.
Lee ‘620 teaches a plurality of first electrodes (Fig. 4, (200); [0043]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ye ‘761 and Naka ‘857 by having a plurality of first electrodes distributed at intervals in order to protect the anode from oxidation/corrsion (see para. [0099]) as suggested by Lee ‘620.
Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857 and Lee ‘620 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a light-emitting layer covering the separation slot between adjacent first cut-off slots”.
Xu ‘484 teaches a light-emitting layer (not shown, see para. [0051]), covering the separation slot (402; [0081]) between adjacent first cut-off slots (Fig. 4, (401); [0080] and [0082]). Examiner consider the second opening (402) is the separation slot.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857 and Lee ‘620 by having a light-emitting layer covering the separation slot between adjacent first cut-off slots in order to improve the lateral leakage current and color shift (see para. [0083]) as suggested by Xu ‘484.
Regarding Claim 23, Ye ‘761 teaches a display device (see para. [0009]), comprising a display panel, wherein the display panel comprises:
a driving backplane (Fig. 2, (201); [0041]);
a first electrode layer (2021; [0043]), disposed on one side of the driving backplane;
a pixel definition layer (2019; [0042]), arranged on the side, same as the first electrode layer, of the driving backplane and exposing each of the first electrodes, wherein the pixel definition layer comprises a cut-off layer (2019), the cut-off layer is provided with a separation slot (50; [0055]) located outside the first electrodes (2021), and a first cut-off slot is provided on a sidewall of the separation slot (50); a light-emitting layer (2022; [0044]), covering the cut-off layer (2019) and the first electrode layer (2021); and a second electrode (2023; [0044]), covering the light-emitting layer (2022).
Ye ‘761 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a filling layer and a cut-off layer stacked in a direction away from the driving backplane, the filling layer has a thickness smaller than the first electrode layer and is located outside the first electrodes”.
Naka ‘857 teaches a filling layer (Fig. 7, (300); [0144]) and a cut-off layer (400; [0144]) stacked in a direction away from the driving backplane, the filling layer (300) has a thickness smaller than the first electrode layer (210; [0144]) and is located outside the first electrodes (210) (see Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ye ‘761 by having a filling layer and a cut-off layer stacked in a direction away from the driving backplane, the filling layer has a thickness smaller than the first electrode layer and is located outside the first electrodes for the purpose of providing an organic EL device with low driving voltage and high light emitting efficiency (see para. [0010]) as suggested by Naka ‘857.
Ye ‘761 and Naka ‘857 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a plurality of first electrodes distributed at intervals”.
Lee ‘620 teaches a plurality of first electrodes (Fig. 4, (200); [0043]) distributed at intervals (see Fig. 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ye ‘761 and Naka ‘857 by having a plurality of first electrodes distributed at intervals in order to protect the anode from oxidation/corrsion (see para. [0099]) as suggested by Lee ‘620.
Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857 and Lee ‘620 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a light-emitting layer covering the separation slot between adjacent first cut-off slots”.
Xu ‘484 teaches a light-emitting layer (not shown, see para. [0051]), covering the separation slot (402; [0081]) between adjacent first cut-off slots (Fig. 4, (401); [0080] and [0082]). Examiner consider the second opening (402) is the separation slot.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857 and Lee ‘620 by having a light-emitting layer covering the separation slot between adjacent first cut-off slots in order to improve the lateral leakage current and color shift (see para. [0083]) as suggested by Xu ‘484.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Ye ‘761)
PNG
media_image2.png
396
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 (Naka ‘857)
PNG
media_image3.png
392
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 (Xu ‘484)
PNG
media_image4.png
400
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 (Lee ‘620)
Regarding Claim 15, Ye ‘761 teaches a planarization portion (203; [0039]) is formed in a region of the second electrode (2023) corresponding to the first electrodes (2021), and a groove portion is formed in a region of the second electrode corresponding to the separation slot (50), and a smooth transition is present between the planarization portion and the groove portion (see Fig. 2).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a groove portion is formed in a region of the second electrode corresponding to the separation slot, and a smooth transition is present between the planarization portion and the groove portion on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a groove portion is formed in a region of the second electrode corresponding to the separation slot, and a smooth transition is present between the planarization portion and the groove portion when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 16, Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620 and Xu ‘484 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a depth of the groove portion is less than a depth of the separation slot; or wherein the depth of the groove portion is greater than the thickness of the filling layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a depth of the groove portion is less than a depth of the separation slot; or wherein the depth of the groove portion is greater than the thickness of the filling layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a depth of the groove portion is less than a depth of the separation slot; or wherein the depth of the groove portion is greater than the thickness of the filling layer when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 20, Naka ‘857 teaches the filling layer (300; [0185]) is in contact with a sidewall of the first electrodes (210; [0157]).
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620 and Xu ‘484 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US 2019/0181199, hereinafter as Choi ‘199).
Regarding Claim 2, Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620 and Xu ‘484 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the cut-off layer comprises a plurality of insulating layers stacked in the direction away from the driving backplane, the separation slot exposes the filling layer, the first cut-off slot is provided in an insulating layer of the insulating layers, and the insulating layer where the first cut-off slot is located is any insulating layer other than an insulating layer farthest from the driving backplane”.
Choi ‘199 teaches the separation slot exposes the filling layer (Fig. 9, (119); [0097]), the first cut-off slot is provided in an insulating layer (120; [0098]) of the insulating layers, and the insulating layer where the first cut-off slot is located is any insulating layer other than an insulating layer farthest from the driving backplane (see Fig. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620 and Xu ‘484 by having the separation slot exposes the filling layer, the first cut-off slot is provided in an insulating layer of the insulating layers, and the insulating layer where the first cut-off slot is located is any insulating layer other than an insulating layer farthest from the driving backplane in order to improve display quality by minimizing leakage current (see para. [0008] as suggested by Choi ‘199.
Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620, Xu ‘484 and Choi ‘199 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the cut-off layer comprises a plurality of insulating layers stacked in the direction away from the driving backplane”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a plurality of insulating layers stacked in the direction away from the driving backplane on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a plurality of insulating layers stacked in the direction away from the driving backplane when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 3, Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620, Xu ‘484 and Choi ‘199 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the insulating layers of the cut-off layer comprise a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer and a third insulating layer stacked in sequence along the direction away from the driving backplane, and the first cut- off slot is provided in the second insulating layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the insulating layers of the cut-off layer comprise a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer and a third insulating layer stacked in sequence along the direction away from the driving backplane, and the first cut- off slot is provided in the second insulating layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the insulating layers of the cut-off layer comprise a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer and a third insulating layer stacked in sequence along the direction away from the driving backplane, and the first cut- off slot is provided in the second insulating layer when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 4, Ye ‘761 teaches the sidewall of the separation slot (50) is a slope surface expanding in the direction away from the driving backplane (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Ye ‘761 teaches a bottom surface of the first cut-off slot (50) is a slope surface with decreasing depths in the direction away from the driving backplane (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620, Xu ‘484 and Choi ‘199 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot is larger than a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the first insulating layer, and larger than a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the third insulating layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot is larger than a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the first insulating layer, and larger than a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the third insulating layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot is larger than a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the first insulating layer, and larger than a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the third insulating layer when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 7, Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620, Xu ‘484 and Choi ‘199 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a sum of a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot and a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the first insulating layer is not greater than 900; or wherein a sum of a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot and a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the third insulating layer is not greater than 900”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a sum of a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot and a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the first insulating layer is not greater than 900; or wherein a sum of a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot and a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the third insulating layer is not greater than 900 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a sum of a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot and a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the first insulating layer is not greater than 900; or wherein a sum of a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot and a slope angle of the sidewall of the separation slot located on the third insulating layer is not greater than 900 when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 9, Ye ‘761 teaches an included angle between extending surfaces of two sidewalls of the separation slot is an acute angle (see Fig. 2).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an included angle between extending surfaces of two sidewalls of the separation slot is an acute angle on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an included angle between extending surfaces of two sidewalls of the separation slot is an acute angle when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 10, Ye ‘761 teaches the cut-off layer (2019) comprises a cut-off portion (50) and an extension portion, the cut-off portion is located outside the first electrodes (2021), the extension portion is located on a surface of the first electrodes (2021) away from the driving backplane and has a pixel opening exposing the first electrodes (2021), and a sidewall of the pixel opening is a slope surface expanding in the direction away from the driving backplane (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620 and Choi ‘199 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a sum of a slope angle of the sidewall of the pixel opening and a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot is not greater than 900”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a sum of a slope angle of the sidewall of the pixel opening and a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot is not greater than 900 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a sum of a slope angle of the sidewall of the pixel opening and a slope angle of the bottom surface of the first cut-off slot is not greater than 900 when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 12, Ye ‘761 teaches the sidewall of at least a part of the pixel opening is provided with a second cut-off slot (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Ye ‘761 teaches a maximum depth of the first cut-off slot is greater than a maximum depth of the second cut-off slot (see Fig. 8).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a maximum depth of the first cut-off slot is greater than a maximum depth of the second cut-off slot on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a maximum depth of the first cut-off slot is greater than a maximum depth of the second cut-off slot when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 14, Ye ‘761, Naka ‘857, Lee ‘620 and Choi ‘199 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a part of the third insulating layer used for forming a sidewall of the first cut-off slot is inclined to the driving backplane at a first inclination angle; a part of the third insulating layer used for forming a sidewall of the second cut-off slot is inclined to the driving backplane at a second inclination angle; and the first inclination angle is greater than the second inclination angle”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a part of the third insulating layer used for forming a sidewall of the first cut-off slot is inclined to the driving backplane at a first inclination angle; a part of the third insulating layer used for forming a sidewall of the second cut-off slot is inclined to the driving backplane at a second inclination angle; and the first inclination angle is greater than the second inclination angle on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a part of the third insulating layer used for forming a sidewall of the first cut-off slot is inclined to the driving backplane at a first inclination angle; a part of the third insulating layer used for forming a sidewall of the second cut-off slot is inclined to the driving backplane at a second inclination angle; and the first inclination angle is greater than the second inclination angle when this improves the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 19, Choi ‘199 teaches a plurality of light-emitting sub-layers (Fig. 6, (OL); [0035]) connected in series, at least one of the light-emitting sub-layers is connected in series with an adjacent one of the light-emitting sub-layers through a charge generation layer (Fig. 2, (CGL); [0038]),
Lee ‘620 teaches a part of the charge generation layer corresponding to the first electrodes is discontinuous with a part of the charge generation layer corresponding to the separation slot (see Fig. 4).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have teaches a part of the charge generation layer corresponding to the first electrodes is discontinuous with a part of the charge generation layer corresponding to the separation slot on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have teaches a part of the charge generation layer corresponding to the first electrodes is discontinuous with a part of the charge generation layer corresponding to the separation slot when this improves the performance of the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 21 includes allowable subject matter since the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicants’ disclosure, taken individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having: “an adapter ring, an orthographic projection of the adapter ring on the driving backplane is located in the peripheral area and surrounds the pixel area, the adapter ring is connected with the peripheral circuit, the second electrode is connected with the adapter ring, and the adapter ring is provided with a notch; the filling conductive layer comprises a main body and a connecting portion, the main body is located within the adapter ring and is spaced apart from the adapter ring; the connecting portion is connected with the main body, passes out of the adapter ring through the notch, is spaced apart from the adapter ring, and is used for receiving an aging voltage signal”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-16, 19-21 and 23, filed on March 02nd, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893