DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to an Office action mailed on 01/28/2026 (“01/28/2026 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 20 in a reply filed on 04/28/2026. Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 have substantively changed the scope of claims 1 and 20 as well as their respective dependent claims.
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1-16 and 18-20 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 14 have overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 2 in the 01/28/2026 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 3-4 in the 01/28/2026 OA.
The specification objection as set forth under line item number 1 in the 01/28/2026 OA is not addressed. The examiner maintains the objection to the title of the invention as set forth under line item number 1 in the 01/28/2026 OA.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Display Panel and Display Device With Reduced Reflectivity
(Clean Version) Display Panel and Display Device With Reduced Reflectivity
I. Prior-art rejections based on An Interpretation of Kim
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)(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 1-2, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0282796 A1 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
815
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
573
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim in Figs. 3 and 7-11 teaches a display panel (Fig. 3 & ¶ 74-¶ 75, display device; Figs. 7-11, ¶ 37-¶ 39 & ¶ 226, structures of Figs. 7-11 are portions of Fig. 3), comprising:
a driving substrate PCL (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 103-¶ 104, ¶ 125, pixel circuit layer PCL includes pixel circuits PXC comprising driving transistors i.e., the layer PCL is a driving substrate);
a light-shielding layer BNK1, ALE1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 238, ¶ 322, first bank BNK1 including light blocking material, and first alignment electrode ALE1 formed of opaque metal), located on a side (Figs. 9-11, upper side) of the driving substrate PCL, wherein the light-shielding layer BNK1, ALE1 comprises a first shielding structure BNK1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 238) and a second shielding structure ALE1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 322), the first shielding structure BNK1 comprises a first opening OP1 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 239, opening OP1 that accommodates emission area EMA1, EMA2, EMA3), the second shielding structure ALE1 is located in the first opening OP1 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 241), and a thickness of the second shielding structure ALE1 is less than a thickness of the first shielding structure BNK1 in a first direction (Figs. 9-11), wherein the first direction is vertical to a plane where the driving substrate PCL is located and points to a light-emergent surface of the display panel (Figs. 9-11); and
a plurality of pixel units PXL (Fig. 3, ¶ 77, pixels PXL), wherein a pixel unit PXL of the plurality of pixel units PXL comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 261, first light emitting element LD1, second light emitting element LD2, third light emitting element LD3), wherein a light-emitting element LD1, LD3 (Figs. 9-11) of the plurality of light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 is located in the first opening OP1 (Figs. 7-11), and the driving substrate PCL provides driving signals for the plurality of light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 (¶ 78, ¶ 103-¶ 104, ¶ 125), and
wherein the second shielding structure ALE1 is at least partially disposed between the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 and the driving substrate PCL in the first direction (Figs. 9-11), and the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 at least partially overlaps the second shielding structure ALE1 in the first direction (Figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in Figs. 1-2, 4, 9-11 and Annotated Fig. 9 further teaches the light-emitting element LD1, LD2, LD3 comprises a light-emitting body 12 (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 50, active layer 12) and a connection terminal 13/EP1 (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 51, second semiconductor layer 13 at the first end EP1 of the light emitting element LD), the second shielding structure ALE1 comprises a second opening (Figs. 9-11, opening of the structure ALE1 overlapping the element LD1, LD3), the connection terminal 13/EP1 is at least partially disposed in the second opening (Figs. 9-11) and is electrically connected to the driving substrate PCL (Figs. 4, 9-11, ¶ 97, ¶ 125, ¶ 263, pixel circuit PXC of the layer PCL electrically connects to the first pixel electrode PE1, and the first pixel electrode PE1 electrically connects to the first end EP1 of the light emitting element LD. That is, the connection terminal 13/EP1 electrically connects to the substrate PCL), and the second shielding structure ALE1 is at least partially disposed between the light-emitting body 12 and the driving substrate PCL (Figs. 1-2, 9-11, Annotated Fig. 9, the structure ALE1 is at least partially disposed between the body 12 and the substrate PCL in a diagonal direction DL).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in Figs. 7-11 further teaches at least two light-emitting elements LD1, LD3 are disposed in the first opening OP1.
Regarding claim 14, Kim in Figs. 7-11 further teaches the light-emitting elements LD1, LD3 disposed in the first opening OP1 have a same light-emitting color (¶ 261, ¶ 365-¶ 368 disclose light emitting elements LD, including the light emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3, emit a first color, which is a blue-based light).
Regarding independent claim 20, Kim in Figs. 3 and 7-11 teaches a display device (Fig. 3 & ¶ 74-¶ 75, display device; Figs. 7-11, ¶ 37-¶ 39 & ¶ 226, structures of Figs. 7-11 are portions of Fig. 3), comprising a display panel (Fig. 3),
wherein the display panel comprises:
a driving substrate PCL (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 103-¶ 104, ¶ 125, pixel circuit layer PCL includes pixel circuits PXC comprising driving transistors i.e., the layer PCL is a driving substrate);
a light-shielding layer BNK1, ALE1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 238, ¶ 322, first bank BNK1 including light blocking material, and first alignment electrode ALE1 formed of opaque metal), located on a side Figs. 9-11, upper side) of the driving substrate PCL, wherein the light-shielding layer BNK1, ALE1 comprises a first shielding structure BNK1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 238) and a second shielding structure ALE1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 322), the first shielding structure BNK1 comprises a first opening OP1 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 239, opening OP1 that accommodates emission area EMA1, EMA2, EMA3), the second shielding structure ALE1 is located in the first opening OP1 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 241), and a thickness of the second shielding structure ALE1 is less than a thickness of the first shielding structure BNK1 in a first direction (Figs. 9-11), wherein the first direction is vertical to a plane where the driving substrate PCL is located and points to a light-emergent surface of the display panel (Figs. 9-11); and
a plurality of pixel units PXL (Fig. 3, ¶ 77, pixels PXL), wherein the pixel unit PXL comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 261, first light emitting element LD1, second light emitting element LD2, third light emitting element LD3), the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 (Figs. 9-11) is located in the first opening OP1 (Figs. 7-11), and the driving substrate PCL provides driving signals for the light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 (¶ 78, ¶ 103-¶ 104, ¶ 125), and
wherein the second shielding structure ALE1 is at least partially disposed between the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 and the driving substrate PCL in the first direction (Figs. 9-11), and the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 at least partially overlaps the second shielding structure ALE1 in the first direction (Figs. 9-11).
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.
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 6-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Kim does not explicitly disclose an aperture diameter of the second opening is equal to an outer diameter of the connection terminal.
However, it would have been obvious to form the aperture diameter of the second opening and the outer diameter of the connection terminal within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in Figs. 1-2 and 9-11 teaches a gap is formed between an outer peripheral surface of the connection terminal 13/EP1 and a wall surface enclosing the second opening (Figs. 1-2, 9-11, the space between the outer peripheral surface of the terminal 13/EP1 and the wall surface of the structure ALE1 enclosing the second opening, and the second opening is the opening of the structure ALE1 overlapping the element LD1, LD3).
Kim does not explicitly disclose an aperture diameter of the second opening is greater than an outer diameter of the connection terminal,
However, it would have been obvious to form the aperture diameter of the second opening and the outer diameter of the connection terminal within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in Figs. 7-11 teaches the pixel unit PXL comprises a first-color light-emitting element LD1 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 261, first light emitting element LD1) and a second-color light-emitting element LD3 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 261, third light emitting element LD3), a first gap is formed between the first-color light-emitting element LD1 and a wall surface of the seconding opening where the first-color light-emitting element LD1 is located (Figs. 9-11, space between the element LD1 and layer ALE1), a second gap is formed between the second-color light-emitting element LE3 and a wall surface of the seconding opening where the second-color light-emitting element LD3 is located (Figs. 9-11, space between the element LD3 and layer ALE1).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the first gap is greater than the second gap.
However, it would have been obvious to form the first gap and the second gap within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a thickness of the connection terminal to the thickness of the second shielding structure in the first direction is greater than 1.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the connection terminal and the thickness of the second shielding structure within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in Figs. 9-11 does not explicitly disclose a barrier layer, disposed on a side of the light-shielding layer facing away from the driving substrate and protruding from the light-emitting element in the first direction, wherein adjacent pixel units are separated by the barrier layer.
Kim recognizes a need for defining a position to which a color conversion layer is to be supplied to define the emission areas (¶ 362). Kim satisfies the need by providing a barrier layer BNK2 (Figs. 14-15, ¶ 361, ¶ 363, second bank BNK2 including a light blocking material that blocks the passage of light and maintain separation between emission areas i.e., barrier layer), disposed on a side of the light-shielding layer BNK1, ALE1 facing away from the driving substrate PCL and protruding from the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 in the first direction (Figs. 14-15), wherein adjacent pixel units PXL are separated by the barrier layer BNK2 (Figs. 7-8, 14-15, ¶ 37-¶ 38, ¶ 42).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light-shielding layer taught by Figs. 9-11 of Kim with the barrier layer taught by Figs. 14-15 of Kim, so as to define a position to which a color conversion layer is to be supplied to define the emission areas (Kim: ¶ 362).
Regarding claim 16, Kim in Figs. 14-15 further teaches an orthographic projection of the barrier layer BNK2 on the driving substrate PCL is located at least partly within an orthographic projection of the first shielding structure BNK1 in the first direction (Figs. 14-15).
II. Prior-art rejections based on the Other Interpretation of Kim
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)(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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim in Figs. 3, 7-11 teaches a display panel (Fig. 3 & ¶ 74-¶ 75, display device; Figs. 7-11, ¶ 37-¶ 39 & ¶ 226, structures of Figs. 7-11 are portions of Fig. 3), comprising:
a driving substrate PCL (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 103-¶ 104, ¶ 125, pixel circuit layer PCL includes pixel circuits PXC comprising driving transistors i.e., the layer PCL is a driving substrate);
a light-shielding layer BNP, ALE1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 317, ¶ 322, bank pattern BNP is a reflective member that guides the light emitted from the light emitting element LD rather than letting the emitted light pass through the pattern BNP i.e., light shielding pattern, and first alignment electrode ALE1 formed of opaque metal), located on a side (Figs. 9-11, upper side) of the driving substrate PCL, wherein the light-shielding layer BNP, ALE1 comprises a first shielding structure BNP (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 317) and a second shielding structure ALE1 (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 322), the first shielding structure BNP comprises a first opening (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 314, opening of the bank pattern BNP corresponding to LD1, LD3), the second shielding structure ALE1 is located in the first opening (Figs. 9-11, ¶ 314), and a thickness of the second shielding structure ALE1 is less than a thickness of the first shielding structure BNP in a first direction (Figs. 9-11), wherein the first direction is vertical to a plane where the driving substrate PCL is located and points to a light-emergent surface of the display panel (Figs. 3, 9-11); and
a plurality of pixel units PXL (Fig. 3, ¶ 77, pixels PXL), wherein a pixel unit PXL of the plurality of pixel units PXL comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 261, first light emitting element LD1, second light emitting element LD2, third light emitting element LD3), wherein a light-emitting element LD1, LD3 (Figs. 9-11) of the plurality of light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 is located in the first opening (Figs. 9-11, opening of the bank pattern BNP), and the driving substrate PCL provides driving signals for the plurality of light-emitting elements LD1, LD2, LD3 (¶ 78, ¶ 103-¶ 104, ¶ 125), and
wherein the second shielding structure ALE1 is at least partially disposed between the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 and the driving substrate PCL in the first direction (Figs. 9-11), and the light-emitting element LD1, LD3 at least partially overlaps the second shielding structure ALE1 in the first direction (Figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in Figs. 9-11 further teaches a single light-emitting element LD1 or LD3 is disposed in the first opening (Figs. 9-11, one single light emitting element LD1 or LD3 is disposed in the opening of the bank pattern BNP).
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in Figs. 3 and 7-11 teaches the display panel has a first region (Figs. 7-8, upper region in area EMA1) and a second region (Figs. 7-8, lower region in area EMA2), and the pixel unit comprises a first-color light-emitting element LD1 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 261, first light emitting element LD1) and a second-color light-emitting element LD3 (Figs. 7-11, ¶ 261, third light emitting element LD3);
in the first region, the first shielding structure BNP between at least one first-color light-emitting element LD1 and an adjacent second-color light-emitting element LD3 has a third height in the first direction (Figs. 7-11);
in the second region, the first shielding structure BNP between at least one first-color light-emitting element LD1 and an adjacent second-color light-emitting element LD3 has a fourth height in the first direction (Figs. 7-11).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the third height is greater than the fourth height.
However, it would have been obvious to form the third height and the fourth height within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3-5 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 3 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 3, the first end surface is connected to the driving substrate, the second end surface is connected to the light-emitting body, and an area of a cross section of the connection terminal increases in the first direction.
Claim 4 would be allowable, because claim 4 depends from the allowable claim 3.
Claim 5 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 5, the first end surface is connected to the driving substrate, the second end surface is connected to the light-emitting body.
Claim 11 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 11, a portion of the first shielding structure located between the second-color light-emitting element and the third-color light-emitting element has a second height, wherein the first height is greater than the second height.
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 MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights