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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) cited within the IDS document(s) submitted on 10/27/2023 have been considered.
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: - -LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE WITH PLURALITY OF PATTERNS OVER THE LIGHT EMITTING DIODE- -.
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 5, 6, and 13-19 are 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.
Claim 5 recites that the lens is disposed “in” the light emitting diode. As seen in Applicant’s Fig. 3, the lens 270 is shown to be “on” the light emitting diode 200. It is unclear if Applicant is trying to claim an undrawn and undescribed embodiment in which a lens is in the light emitting diode OR if the recitation of “in” is a typo and the claim should recite “on.” For the purposes of examination, claim 5 will be examined as though it recited that the lens is disposed “on” the light emitting diode.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lens" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is a child claim of claims 1 and 3, which do not previously recite a lens. Claim 2 does recite a lens, but is not a parent claim of claim 6.
It is unclear if Applicant intended Claim 6 to be dependent on claim 2 or if Applicant intended claim 6 to recite “a lens” instead of “the lens.”
For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be examined as though it were dependent on claim 2.
Claim 13 recites “the third refractive index.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is a child claim of claims and 2, which do not previously recite a third refractive index. Claim 12 does recite a third refractive index, but is not a parent claim of claim 13.
It is unclear if Applicant intended Claim 13 to be dependent on claim 12 or if Applicant intended claim 13 to recite “the lens has a third refractive index” instead of “the third refractive index.”
Claim 14 recites that the plurality of patterns are arranged “in” the opening area of the bank. Applicant’s Fig. 3 depicts the plurality of patterns 250 “on” the opening area of the bank 170. It is unclear if Applicant is trying to claim an undrawn and undescribed embodiment in which the plurality of patterns are in the opening area of the bank OR if the recitation of “in” is a typo and the claim should recite “on.” For the purposes of examination, claim 14 will be examined as though it recited that the plurality of patterns are disposed “on” the opening area of the bank.
Claims 15-19 are dependent on claim 14 and contain the same deficiencies.
For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be examined as though it recited that the lens has a third refractive index.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US PGPub 2024/0292718 A1).
As to claim 1, Wang et al. discloses (Fig. 1) a light emitting diode display device (Paragraph 58) comprising: a light emitting diode 31 (Paragraphs 87 and 167) over a substrate 1; a plurality of patterns 71 provided over the light emitting diode 31 and having a first refractive index (Paragraph 157), each of the plurality of patterns 71 including an inclined surface; a first planarization layer 8 provided over the plurality of patterns 71 and having a second refractive index (Paragraph 160) different from the first refractive index (Paragraphs 163 and 164).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Wang et al. discloses a lens 91 provided over the first planarization layer 8.
As to claim 3, Wang et al. discloses that the first planarization layer 8 is disposed between adjacent two patterns 71 among the plurality of patterns 71 (disposed between patterns 71 associated with 31 and 32).
As to claim 6, Wang et al. discloses (Fig. 1) that the lens 91 overlaps with the plurality of patterns 71. Examiner’s Note: Claim 6 is being examined as though it were dependent on claim 2, as discussed in the 112 rejection of claim 6, above.
As to claim 13 Wang et al. discloses (Fig. 1) the lens has a third refractive index (Paragraph 157); and a second planarization layer 10 provided over the lens 91 and configured to have a fourth refractive index (Paragraph 160) smaller than the third refractive index. (Paragraph 164). Examiner’s Note: Claim 13 is being examined as though it recited the lens having a third refractive index, as discussed in the 112 rejection, above
As to claim 14, Wang et al. discloses (Fig. 1) a bank including an opening area corresponding to a light emitting area in which light emitted from the light emitting diode 31 is emitted outside the light emitting diode display device, wherein the plurality of patterns 71 are arranged on the opening area of the bank 5. Examiner’s Note: Claim 14 is being examined as though it recited that the plurality of patterns are on the opening area of the bank.
As to claim 15, Wang et al. discloses that the bank includes a light absorbing material. (Paragraphs 111, 145 black)
As to claim 16, Wang et al. discloses (Figs. 1 and 6) that the light emitting area includes an effective area having a circular shape (a circular shape chosen to coincide with the corners of the light emitting diode) with a first diameter (from corner to opposite corner) with respect to the light emitting diode 31, and wherein the plurality of patterns 71 are arranged in the effective area.
As to claim 17, Wang et al. discloses (Figs. 1 and 6) that the number of the plurality of patterns 71 arranged in the effective area is equal to or larger than three.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tak et al. (US PGPub 2022/0140289 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in further view of Miao (US PGPub 2021/0408217 A1).
As to claim 1, Tak et al. discloses (Figs. 4 and 6) a light emitting diode display device (Paragraph 66) comprising: a light emitting diode 131, 151, 160 (Paragraph 98, OLED) over a substrate 110; a plurality of patterns 230 provided over the light emitting diode 131, 151, 160 and having a first refractive index (Paragraph 120), each of the plurality of patterns 230 including an inclined surface 231s; a first planarization layer 220 (cover layer) provided over the plurality of patterns 230 and having a second refractive index different from the first refractive index (Paragraph 120).
PNG
media_image2.png
250
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tak et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tak et al.
Tak et al. does not explicitly state that the light emitting device 131, 151, 160 is a diode.
However, Tak et al. discloses that the light emitting device is an OLED with cathode, anode, light emitting, hole transport, hole injection, electron transport, and electron injection layers (Paragraphs 93, 97, 98) thereby implicitly disclosing to one having ordinary skill in the art that the OLED is a diode device, since the device is designed to be run in one direction and would resist being run in the opposite direction, therefore being a diode.
Alternatively, should it be found that Tak et al. does not sufficiently disclose that the OLED device is a diode, Miao teaches (Fig. 2, Paragraph 36) and OLED diode device with substantially the same component layers of cathode 1126, anode 1120, hole transport 1122, hole injection 1121, electron transport 1124, electron injection 1125.
PNG
media_image4.png
226
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Miao
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the OLED device of Tak et al. to be a diode since it is taught as suitable for the light emitting device with substantially the same layers and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 4, Tak et al. discloses that the second refractive index (of layer 220) is greater than the first refractive index (of layer 230, 231, Paragraph 120).
As to claim 9, Tak et al. discloses (Fig. 6) that a diameter of an upper surface 231b of the plurality of patterns 230 is smaller than a diameter of a lower surface of the plurality of patterns 231a.
As to claim 11, Tak et al. discloses that each of the plurality of patterns has one of a conical shape, a polygonal pyramid shape, a truncated cone shape (Figs. 4 and 8), and a polygonal pyramid shape.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak et al., or alternatively in further view of Miao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (US PGPub 2024/0027657 A1).
As to claim 10, Tak et al., or alternatively in further view of Miao teaches the plurality of patterns including inclined angles, but is silent as to each of the plurality of patterns has a groove on the upper surface thereof.
Yin et al. teaches (Figs. 6-9 and corresponding parts of Fig. 2) each of the plurality of patterns 20 has a groove 20a on the upper surface thereof in order to finely control and optimize viewing angle (Figs. 4, 5, Paragraph 53, 58, 64).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a groove on the top of each of the plurality of patterns in order to finely control and optimize viewing angle, as taught by Yin et al.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kwon et al. (US PGPub 2021/0066665 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miao.
As to claim 1, Kwon et al. discloses (Figs. 13 and corresponding parts of Figs. 5-7) a light emitting diode display device (Paragraph 54) comprising: a light emitting diode OEL-1 (Paragraph 82-87) over a substrate BL; a plurality of patterns HT provided over the light emitting diode OEL-1 and having a first refractive index (Paragraph 103), each of the plurality of patterns BL including an inclined surface SS1-a; a first planarization layer LT (Paragraph 105) provided over the plurality of patterns HT and having a second refractive index different from the first refractive index (Paragraph 103).
PNG
media_image5.png
298
236
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kwon et al.
PNG
media_image6.png
430
590
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kwon et al.
PNG
media_image7.png
282
318
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kwon et al.
PNG
media_image8.png
386
544
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kwon et al.
Kwon et al. does not explicitly state that the light emitting device OEL-1 is a diode.
However, Kwon et al. discloses that the light emitting device is an Organic electroluminescent device with cathode EL2, anode EL1, light emitting LL, hole transport HTR, hole injection HIL, electron transport ETR, and electron injection layers EIL (Paragraphs 82, 84 90) thereby implicitly disclosing to one having ordinary skill in the art that the organic electroluminescent device is a diode device, since the device is designed to be run in one direction and would resist being run in the opposite direction, therefore being a diode.
Alternatively, should it be found that Kwon et al. does not sufficiently disclose that the OLED device is a diode, Miao teaches (Paragraph 36) and OLED diode device with substantially the same component layers of cathode 1126, anode 1120, hole transport 1122, hole injection 1121, electron transport 1124, electron injection 1125.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the organic electroluminescent device of Kwon et al. to be a diode since it is taught as suitable for the light emitting device with substantially the same layers and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 8, Kwon et al. discloses that the inclined surface of the plurality of patterns has a tapered angle of 5º to 40º (Paragraph 114, 116).
As seen in Kwon et al. Fig. 13, Paragraph 114, the inclination angle is disclosed to be 70 to 90 degrees (Paragraph 116, Table 1, Embodiment 3 at 80 degrees) for the angle formed between DR1/WS-a and SS1-a. This is the complementary angle of Applicant’s claimed tapered angle and therefore the equivalent angle in Kwon et al. is 0 to 20 degrees, with an Embodiment 3 at 10 degrees.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al., or alternatively in further view of Miao as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hirao (US PGPub 2026/0006949 A1, citations to the description portion herein refer in “A / B” format to the US PGPub and its foreign priority JP 2022-118567, respectively).
As to claim 2, Kwon et al., or alternatively in further view of Miao discloses (Figs. 13 and corresponding parts of Figs. 5-7) including a plurality of patterns HT, but is silent as to Applicant’s claimed lens.
Hirao teaches (Fig. 7) including a lens 100 (Paragraph 49 / Paragraph 16) over a plurality of similarly shaped patterns in order to increase light extraction efficiency and/or narrow the pitch of the light emitting units (Paragraph 125 / 92).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a lens provided over the plurality of patterns in order to increase light extraction efficiency and/or narrow the pitch of the light emitting units, as taught by Hirao. Since the lens is placed over the device as taught by Hirao and the device of Kwon et al., or alternatively in further view of Miao includes the first planarization layer (Kwon et al. #LT), the lens will be placed over the first planarization layer in the modified device.
As to claim 5, Kwon et al. in view of Hirao, or alternatively in further view of Miao teaches (Hirao Fig. 7) that the lens 100 (Hirao Paragraph 49 / Paragraph 16, one optical member) is disposed in the light emitting diode 14 in a one-to-one correspondence.
As to claim 14, Kwon et al. discloses a PDL including an opening area (located at OEL-1) corresponding to a light emitting area in which light emitted from the light emitting diode OEL-1 is emitted outside the light emitting diode display device, wherein the plurality of patterns are arranged on the opening area of the bank PDL. Examiner’s Note: Claim 14 is being examined as though it recited that the plurality of patterns are on the opening area of the bank.
As to claim 16, Kwon et al. discloses that the light emitting area includes an effective area having a circular shape (a circular shape chosen to coincide with the corners of the light emitting diode) with a first diameter (from corner to opposite corner) with respect to the light emitting diode OEL-1, and wherein the plurality of patterns are arranged in the effective area.
As to claim 19, Kwon et al. in view of Hirao, or alternatively in further view of Miao discloses that the lens has a second diameter greater than the first diameter (Hirao Fig. 7, lens 101 is greater than a diameter of the light emitting diode 14).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US PGPub 2022/0013586 A1), or alternatively in further view of Miao.
As to claim 1, Bae et al. discloses (Fig. 5A and corresponding parts of Fig. 4) a light emitting diode display device (Paragraph 93) comprising: a light emitting diode (Paragraphs 61 and 90, corresponds to DP-LED of Fig. 4, Paragraph 94) over a substrate BL; a plurality of patterns DFP2 provided over the light emitting diode DP-LED and having a first refractive index (Paragraph 117), each of the plurality of patterns DFP2 including an inclined surface (Paragraph 117); a first planarization layer OCL (Paragraph 106) provided over the plurality of patterns DFP2 and having a second refractive index different from the first refractive index (Paragraph 117).
PNG
media_image9.png
428
652
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Bae et al.
PNG
media_image10.png
442
436
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Bae et al.
Bae et al. does not explicitly state that the light emitting device OEL-1 is a diode.
However, Bae et al. discloses that the light emitting device is an organic light emitting element with electrode AE, second electrode CE, light emitting EML, hole transport HCL, hole injection HCL, electron transport ECL, and electron injection layers ECL (Paragraphs 89-92) thereby implicitly disclosing to one having ordinary skill in the art that the organic light emitting element is a diode device, since the device is designed to be run in one direction and would resist being run in the opposite direction, therefore being a diode.
Alternatively, should it be found that Bae et al. does not sufficiently disclose that the organic light emitting element device is a diode, Miao teaches (Paragraph 36) an organic light emitting diode device with substantially the same component layers of cathode 1126, anode 1120, hole transport 1122, hole injection 1121, electron transport 1124, electron injection 1125.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the organic electroluminescent device of Bae et al. to be a diode since it is taught as suitable for the light emitting device with substantially the same layers and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al., or alternatively in further view of Miao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US PGPub 2022/0223770 A1).
As to claim 7, Bae et al. discloses the plurality of patterns DFP2 to be inverted trapezoids (upside down from depicted in Fig. 5A) Bae et al. with the refractive index of the patterns DFP1 being lower than the refractive index of the planarizing layer OCL, but Bae et al., or alternatively in further view of Miao is silent as to the viewing angle of maximum luminance and the patterns totally reflecting light of the first viewing angle.
Jung et al. teaches (Figs. 2, 5A) a plurality of patterns 124 with inverted trapezoid shape having refractive index lower than the adjacent material 126 (Paragraph 22, nF > nB), the viewing angle of maximum luminance (ɵV = 0 degrees, Fig. 12) is totally reflected by the plurality of patterns (Fig. 10 light with ɵ > ɵC totally reflects, Paragraph 96, ɵV = 0 would correspond to ɵ > ɵC) in order to improve viewing angle (Paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the maximum luminance at ɵV = 0 and totally reflect off the plurality of patterns in order to improve viewing angle, as taught by Jung et al.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US PGPub 2022/0223754 A1).
As to claim 20, Wang et al. discloses that the light emitting device can be a Micro-LED (Paragraph 87), but does not explicitly recite the details of such a device.
Ahn et al. teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) a micro-LED diode ML (Paragraph 78 and 102), as the light emitting device wherein the micro light emitting diode ML includes: a first semiconductor layer 102 (Paragraph 71); an active layer 103 (Paragraph 71) over one side of the first semiconductor layer 102; a second semiconductor layer 104 (Paragraph 71) over the active layer 103; a first electrode 107 (Paragraph 71) over the second semiconductor layer 104; and a second electrode 106 over the other side of the first semiconductor layer 102.
In the absence of an explicit teaching by Wang et al. as to the particular details of the Micro-LED device, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to look to the prior art for suitable Micro-LED devices and therefore to use the type of Micro-LED device taught by Ahn et al. since it is taught as suitable by Ahn et al. and the selection from among known suitable devices for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 21, Wang et al. discloses driving the display panel (Paragraph 173), but does not explicitly recite the particulars of a driving setup.
Ahn et al. teaches (Fig. 2) driving of the light emitting device further comprises a driving thin film transistor 310, 320, 330 (Paragraph 86); a first connection electrode 510 (Paragraph 96) electrically connecting the driving thin film transistor 310, 320, 330 and the first electrode 106 of the light emitting diode ML (Paragraphs 96 and 102); and a second connection electrode 530 electrically connected to the second electrode 106 of the light emitting diode ML (Paragraph 102).
In the absence of an explicit teaching by Wang et al. as to the particular details of the driving setup of the device, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to look to the prior art for suitable driving setups for Micro-LED devices and therefore to use type of driving transistors type of Micro-LED taught by Ahn et al. since it is taught as suitable by Ahn et al. and the selection from among known suitable devices for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art. The modified device will have the pattern is provided over the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode since the first and second connection electrodes will be located at 31 of Wang et al.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugitani et al. (US PGPub 2020/0028120 A1) discloses (Fig. 8) a display device with a plurality of patterns DFP and a lens CTL, wherein the refractive index of the lens is 1.7 to 1.9 (Paragraph 102) and the refractive index of the patterns is 1.4 to 1.6 (Paragraph 108).
Thompson (US PGPub 2012/0099323 A1) discloses (Figs. 6 and 7b) a diode display device (Paragraphs 1, 30, 109) that has elongated light emitting areas 612.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 112 rejections were overcome and 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:
As to claim 12, Wang et al. discloses a lens 91 provided over the first planarization layer 8.
Hirao teaches (Fig. 7) the lens refractive index nx to be less than the plurality of pattern refractive index n1, but is silent as to the opposite.
Sugitani et al. teaches a lens with a higher refractive index than the refractive index of the plurality of patterns (Paragraphs 102, 108), but the lens CTL is not provided over the plurality of patterns.
Therefore, while the prior art teaches all the limitations of claim 12 per se, it does not teach the combination of limitations including the lens being provided over the first planarization layer and the lens has a third refractive index greater than the first refractive index.
As to claim 18, Thompson discloses a light emitting diode display device with a short axis of the light emitting diode, but the prior art does not teach the specific claimed dimensions of the light emitting area includes an effective area having a circular shape with a first diameter with respect to the light emitting diode, and wherein the plurality of patterns are arranged in the effective area, wherein the first diameter of the effective area is twice a length of a short axis of the light emitting diode. The first diameter and the short axis of the light emitting diode are depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875