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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/17/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US Patent Pub 20170278899 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang teaches a display device comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 16F, SUB) including a light-emitting region and a non-light-emitting region (Fig. 16F, Light emitting region PXA and a non-light emitting region NPXA) ;
a light-emitting element disposed on the base substrate (Fig. 16F, light emitting element OLED);
an organic layer disposed on a light-emitting layer of the light-emitting element (Fig. 16F TFE contains an organic encapsulation layer OL1 and is diagrammed in Figs. 9A to 9C);
at least one insulation layer disposed on the organic layer (Fig. 16F, insulation layer TS-IL1);
a first light-blocking pattern disposed on the at least one insulation layer, and overlapping the non-light-emitting region (Fig. 16F, first light-blocking pattern BM-P2);
a cover layer disposed on the at least one insulation layer, and covering the first light- blocking pattern (Fig. 16F, cover layer AM2 disposed on insulation layer TS-IL1 and covering BM-P2);
and a second light-blocking pattern disposed on the cover layer and overlapping the first light-blocking pattern, wherein a thickness of the cover layer is greater than a thickness of the organic layer (Fig. 16F teaches a second light-blocking pattern WBM, which overlaps the first light-blocking pattern. Fig. 16F also teaches the cover layer AM2 has a thickness greater than the organic encapsulation layer located in TFE)
Regarding Claim 14, Yang teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the thickness of the cover layer is equal to or greater than about 10 µm and equal to or less than about 20 µm (Paragraph 0075 teaches cover layer AM2 has a thickness between 10 µm and 80 µm, which falls withing the claimed thickness range).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Pub 20170278899 A1) in view of Moon et al (US Patent Pub 20220260873 A1) and Inoue et al. (US Patent Pub 20110050666 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches a display device comprising:
a base substrate (Fig. 16F, SUB) including a first region and a second region adjacent to the first region, the first region having a first light-emitting region and a first non-light-emitting region, the first light-emitting elements being disposed in the first light-emitting region, the second region having a second light-emitting region and a second non-light-emitting region, the second light-emitting elements being disposed in the second light-emitting region (Fig. 7. The first region is the top row having a first non-light emitting region (area in top row labeled as NPXA) and containing first light-emitting elements (PXA-R, PXA-G, and PXA-B in the top row) in the first light emitting region, and the second region is the bottom row having a second non-light emitting region (area in bottom row labeled NPXA) and containing the second light-emitting elements (PXA-R, PXA-G, and PXA-B in the bottom row) in the second light emitting region);
an organic encapsulation layer disposed on the base substrate and covering the first light-emitting elements and the second light-emitting elements (Fig. 16F TFE contains an organic encapsulation layer OL1 and is diagrammed in Figs. 9A to 9C);
at least one insulation layer disposed on the organic encapsulation layer (Fig. 16F, insulation layer TS-IL1 disposed on organic layer (located in TFE));
a first light-blocking pattern disposed on the at least one insulation layer, and not overlapping the first region and overlapping the second non-light-emitting region (Fig. 16F can be interpreted as displaying the second region, therefore first light-blocking pattern BM-P2 is not overlapping the first region and overlapping the second non-light-emitting region);
a cover layer disposed on the at least one insulation layer and covering the first light- blocking pattern (Fig. 16F, cover layer AM2 disposed on insulation layer TS-IL1 and covering BM-P2);
and a second light-blocking pattern disposed on the cover layer and overlapping the first light-blocking pattern, wherein a thickness of the cover layer is greater than a thickness of the organic encapsulation layer (Fig. 16F teaches a second light-blocking pattern WBM, which overlaps the first light-blocking pattern. Fig. 16F also teaches the cover layer AM2 has a thickness greater than the organic encapsulation layer located in TFE).
Yang fails to specifically teach the display device operating in first and second operation modes.
However, Moon teaches a display device that is operated such that the first light-emitting elements are activated in a first operation mode and activated in a second operation mode (Moon, paragraph 0170);
And second light-emitting elements are activated in the first operation mode and activated in the second operation mode (Moon, paragraph 0189).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of moon into the method of Yang by operating the display device wherein the first light-emitting elements which are activated in a first operation mode and deactivated in a second operation mode, and the second light-emitting elements which are activated in the first operation mode and activated in the second operation mode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of changing the widths of the light blocking patterns, resulting in improved privacy protection function (Moon, paragraphs 0189 and 0004).
While Yang in view of Moon teaches all of the limitations described for claim 1 above, they fail to specifically teach the first light emitting elements being deactivated in a second operation mode.
However, Inoue teaches a display device with pixels, each of which have a luminescence element that when a current is applied, becomes individually activated or deactivated dependent on the current amount (Inoue, paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Inoue into the method of Yang in view of Moon by formatting the first operation mode such that the current is adjusted such that the first light emitting elements are activated in a first operation mode and deactivated in a second operation mode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of controlling the luminous time of each pixel within one frame period and preventing current overflow into the luminescent element (Inoue, paragraph 0007 and 0042).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the cover layer is equal to or greater than about 10 µm and equal to or less than about 20 µm (Yang, paragraph 0075 teaches cover layer AM2 has a thickness between 10 µm and 80 µm, which falls withing the claimed thickness range).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teaches the display device of claim 1, but fails to teach comprising a sensing electrode disposed on the at least one insulation layer, and overlapping the first non-light- emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region, wherein the sensing electrode is disposed on a same layer as the first light-blocking pattern.
However, Moon teaches a display device, further comprising a sensing electrode disposed on the insulation layer, and overlapping the first non-light-emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region, wherein the sensing electrode is disposed on a same layer as the first light-blocking pattern (Moon, Fig. 5B, sensing electrode BP1 disposed on insulating layer TIL1 (Moon, paragraph 0144) and overlapping the first non-light-emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region (sensing electrode BP1 overlapping first and second regions containing first and second non-light-emitting regions (see annotated figure below), sensing electrode BP1 is on a same layer ISP as first light blocking pattern BM (Fig 6A shows TIL1, where BP1 is disposed on, are both in the ISP layer))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the structure of Moon into the method of Yang in view of Moon and Inoue by forming sensing electrode disposed on the at least one insulation layer, and overlapping the first non-light- emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region, wherein the sensing electrode is disposed on a same layer as the first light-blocking pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon and Inoue in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing a uniform external input sensing environment for the entire active area regardless of shape (Moon, paragraph 0137).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the first light-blocking pattern covers a portion of the sensing electrode overlapping the second region (Yang, Fig. 16F, first light blocking pattern BM-P2 (located in second region) covers portion of sensing electrode TS-CL2, which is located on TS-IL1 (see fig. 10A)).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teaches the display device of claim 4, further comprising a protective layer disposed on the at least one insulation layer and the sensing electrode, and including an inorganic material, wherein a portion of the protective layer is disposed between the sensing electrode and the first light-blocking pattern (Yang, Fig. 16F, protective layer TS-IL2 disposed on the insulation layer TS-IL1 and sensing electrode TS-CL2 (See fig. 10A). Paragraph 0122 teaches TS-IL2 includes an inorganic material. TS-IL2 is between sensing electrode TS-CL2 and the first light blocking pattern BM-P2).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teaches the display device of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach the cover layer comprises an organic material.
However, Moon teaches a display device having a cover layer comprising an organic material (Moon, paragraph 0072 teaches the cover layer TIL3 may be an organic material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the structure of Moon into the method of Yang in view of Moon and Inoue by forming the cover layer comprising an organic material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon and Inoue in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing a uniform sensing environment that reduces interference between the sensing panel and light generated by the display panel (Moon, paragraph 0137 and 0150).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Moon and Inoue as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 above, and further in view of Shu et al. (US Patent Pub 20190123118 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teach a display device with all of the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Yang in view of Moon and Inoue fails to teach the thickness of the organic encapsulation layer is equal to or greater than about 6 µm and equal to or less than about 12 µm.
However, Shu teaches a display device wherein the thickness of the organic layer has a thickness of about 6 µm to 10 µm, which is within the claimed thickness range (Shu, paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Shu into the method of Yang in view of Moon and Inoue by forming the organic layer to a thickness equal to or greater than about 6 µm to equal to or less than about 12 µm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon and Inoue in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the thin film encapsulation structure, preventing cracks (Shu, paragraph 0033).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Moon and Inoue as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US Patent Pub 20220028922 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the second light-emitting region comprises a first element region in which a (2-1)-th light-emitting element configured to provide a first-color light is disposed, a second element region in which a (2-2)-th light-emitting element configured to provide a second-color light is disposed, and a third element region in which a (2-3)-th light-emitting element configured to provide a third-color light is disposed (Yang, Fig. 7 teaches the second light emitting region (bottom row containing PXA-R, PXA-G, and PXA-B) comprises a first element region PXA-R in which a (2-1)-th light-emitting element (EML in the PXA-R element region) configured to provide a first color light (paragraph 0174 teaches the light emitting elements emit red, blue, or green light), a second element region PXA-G in which a (2-2)-th light-emitting element (EML in the PXA-G element region) configured to provide a second color light, and a third element region PXA-B in which a (2-3)-th light-emitting element (EML in the PXA-B element region) configured to provide a third-color light).
Yang in view of Moon and Inoue fail to teach each of the (2-1)-th to (2-3)-th light-emitting elements includes a plurality of sub-light- emitting elements.
However, Park teaches the (2-1)-th to (2-3)-th light-emitting elements including a plurality of sub-light-emitting elements (Park, paragraph 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Park into the method of Yang in view of Moon and Inoue by forming the (2-1)-th to (2-3)-th light-emitting elements having a plurality of sub-light-emitting elements. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon and Inoue in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of achieving a high-resolution display device (Park, paragraph 0101).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang in view of Moon, Inoue, and Park teaches the display device of claim 7, further comprising a first pixel-defining layer which is disposed on the base substrate, and in which openings are defined, wherein each of the (2-1)-th to (2-3)-th light-emitting elements includes a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light-emitting layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and the openings of the first pixel-defining layer expose at least a portion of the first electrodes of each of the (2-1)-th to (2-3)-th light-emitting elements (Yang, Fig. 16F, first pixel defining layer PXL. Each of the (2-1)-th to (2-3)-th light-emitting elements includes a first electrode CE, a second electrode AE, and a light-emitting layer EML disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode. The openings of PXL expose a portion of CE of each of the (2-1)-th to (2-3)-th light-emitting elements).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang in view of Moon, Inoue and Park teaches the display device of claim 8, further comprising a second pixel- defining layer which is disposed on the first electrodes exposed by the openings, and which overlaps the second non-light-emitting region (Yang, Fig. 16F, second pixel-defining layer RPL).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Moon and Inoue as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (US Patent Pub 20220209176).
Regarding Claim 11, over Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teaches the display device of claim 1, but fails to teach a first line width of the first light-blocking pattern is greater than a second line width of the second light-blocking pattern.
However, Cha teaches a display device having a first and second light-blocking pattern wherein a first line width of the first light-blocking pattern is greater than a second line width of the second light-blocking pattern (Cha, Fig. 3, first line width of first light-blocking pattern 130 is greater than a second line width of the second light-blocking pattern BM).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Cha into the method of Yang in view of Moon and Inoue by forming the display device wherein a first line width of the first light-blocking pattern is greater than a second line width of the second light-blocking pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon and Inoue in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of preventing confusion between adjacent pixels (Cha, paragraph 0063).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang in view of Moon and Inoue teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising an anti-reflection layer (Yang, Fig. 16F, anti-reflection layer CF. Yang, paragraph 0148 teaches CF is anti-reflective).
Yang in view of Moon and Inoue fail to teach the anti-reflection layer is disposed on the second light-blocking pattern.
However, Cha teaches an anti-reflection layer disposed on the second light-blocking pattern (Cha, fig. 3 teaches an anti-reflective layer 170 (Cha, paragraph 0027) above second light-blocking pattern BM in figure 3. Moon, paragraph 0178 teaches a color filter can be anti-reflective).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Cha into the method of Yang in view of Moon and Inoue by forming the display device further comprising an anti-reflection layer disposed on the second light-blocking pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon and Inoue in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose transmitting light of different colors as well as securing moisture proof reliability and (Cha, paragraph 0081 and 0097).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claims 13-14 above, and further in view of Shu et al. (US Patent Pub 20190123118 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang teaches the display device with all of the limitations of Claim 1 3 above.
Yang fails to teach the thickness of the organic layer is equal to or greater than about 6 µm and equal to or less than about 12 µm.
However, Shu teaches a display device wherein the thickness of the organic layer has a thickness of about 6 µm to 10 µm, which is within the claimed thickness range (Shu, paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Shu into the method of Yang by forming the organic layer to a thickness equal to or greater than about 6 µm to equal to or less than about 12 µm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the thin film encapsulation structure, preventing cracks (Shu, paragraph 0033).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claims 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Moon (US Patent Pub 20220260873 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Yang teaches the display device of claim 13, but fails to teach comprising a sensing electrode disposed on the at least one insulation layer, and overlapping the first non-light- emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region, wherein the sensing electrode is disposed on a same layer as the first light-blocking pattern.
However, Moon teaches a display device having a light blocking pattern as well as further comprising a sensing electrode disposed on the insulation layer, and overlapping the first non-light-emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region, wherein the sensing electrode is disposed on a same layer as the first light-blocking pattern (Moon, Fig. 5B, sensing electrode BP1 disposed on insulating layer TIL1 (Moon, paragraph 0144) and overlapping the first non-light-emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region (sensing electrode BP1 overlapping first and second regions containing first and second non-light-emitting regions (see annotated figure below), sensing electrode BP1 is on a same layer ISP as first light blocking pattern BM (Fig 6A shows TIL1, where BP1 is disposed on, are both in the ISP layer))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the structure of Moon into the method of Yang by forming sensing electrode disposed on the at least one insulation layer, and overlapping the first non-light- emitting region of the first region and the second non-light-emitting region of the second region, wherein the sensing electrode is disposed on a same layer as the first light-blocking pattern. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing a uniform external input sensing environment for the entire active area regardless of shape (Moon, paragraph 0137).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang in view of Moon teaches the display device of claim 16, further comprising a protective layer disposed on the at least one insulation layer and the sensing electrode, and including an inorganic material, wherein a portion of the protective layer is disposed between the sensing electrode and the first light-blocking pattern (Yang, Fig. 16F, protective layer TS-IL2 disposed on the insulation layer TS-IL1 and sensing electrode TS-CL2 (See fig. 10A). Paragraph 0122 teaches TS-IL2 includes an inorganic material. TS-IL2 is between sensing electrode TS-CL2 and the first light blocking pattern BM-P2).
Regarding Claim 19, Yang in view of Moon teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein the first light-blocking pattern is in contact with the sensing electrode (Moon, Fig. 6A shows first light-blocking pattern BM in electrical contact with sensing electrode BP1 (Moon, paragraph 0144 teaches BP1 is disposed on TIL1).
Regarding Claim 20, Yang teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the organic layer comprises an organic material (Yang, paragraph 0115 teaches organic layer OL1 is formed of organic monomers).
Yang fails to teach the cover layer comprises an organic material.
However, Moon teaches a display device having a cover layer comprising an organic material (Moon, paragraph 0072 teaches the cover layer TIL3 may be an organic material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the structure of Moon into the method of Yang by forming the cover layer comprising an organic material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing a uniform sensing environment that reduces interference between the sensing panel and light generated by the display panel (Moon, paragraph 0137 and 0150).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Moon as applied to claims 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US Patent Pub 20220028922 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Yang in view of Moon teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein the light-emitting region comprises a first element region in which a first light-emitting element configured to provide a first-color light is disposed, a second element region in which a second light-emitting element configured to provide a second-color light is disposed, and a third element region in which a third light-emitting element configured to provide a third-color light is disposed. (Yang, Fig. 7 teaches the light emitting region (bottom row containing PXA-R, PXA-G, and PXA-B) comprises a first element region PXA-R in which a first light-emitting element (EML in the PXA-R element region) configured to provide a first color light (paragraph 0174 teaches the light emitting elements emit red, blue, or green light), a second element region PXA-G in which a second light-emitting element (EML in the PXA-G element region) configured to provide a second color light, and a third element region PXA-B in which a third light-emitting element (EML in the PXA-B element region) configured to provide a third-color light).
Yang in view of Moon fails to teach each of the first to third light-emitting elements includes a plurality of sub-light-emitting elements
However, Park teaches the first to third light-emitting elements including a plurality of sub-light-emitting elements (Park, paragraph 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Park into the method of Yang in view of Moon by forming the first to third light-emitting elements having a plurality of sub-light-emitting elements. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang in view of Moon in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of achieving a high-resolution display device (Park, paragraph 0101).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection as applied above.
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 VICENTE R GONZALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/V.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights