DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment received on 08/18/2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 17-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 12/30/2022.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7, 10, 11 recite properties of the zinc oxide nanoparticle including x-ray diffraction peaks, solvent solubilities, and UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy peaks. Claims 13 and 14 recite properties of the electroluminescent device including external quantum efficiencies, luminance strength, and T90s of the device. MPEP section 2112.02.I states that “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” For the purposes of this examination, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties will be presumed to be inherent in the reference device absent any statement in the reference or showing the property not to be inherent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”) in view of WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”).
Regarding Claim 1. Wang discloses An electroluminescent device (Examples 5-8, pages 10-11, various quantum dot light emitting diode) comprising:
a first electrode (ITO anode) and a second electrode (aluminum cathode) spaced apart from each other (pages 10-11, the anode and cathode are spaced apart from each other by the other layers of the device in each example);
a light-emitting layer (CdSe, CdSeS, CdZnSe, or InP light quantum dot luminescent layer) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (pages 10-11, each light emitting layer in each example is between the respective anode and the cathode); and
an electron transport layer (zinc oxide based nano-particle electron transmitting layer) disposed between the light-emitting layer and the second electrode (pages 10-11, the ZnO electron transmitting layer is between the light emitting layer and the aluminum cathode in each example),
wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a semiconductor nanoparticle (CdSe, CdSeS, CdZnSe, or InP, each of which is a binary/ternary semiconductor material, quantum dot),
wherein the electron transport layer comprises a zinc oxide nanoparticle (zinc oxide based nano-particle electron transmitting layer from examples 1-4 are used throughout examples 5-8),
wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle further comprises magnesium and aluminum (Examples 1-4, each example includes magnesium and aluminum).
Wang does not disclose in the listed examples that the zinc oxide nanoparticle has a size of greater than or equal to 1 nanometer and less than or equal to 15 nanometers and in the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an amount of aluminum is greater than or equal to 1.3 mol% and less than or equal to 30 mol%, based on total moles of zinc, magnesium, and aluminum and a mole ratio of aluminum to magnesium (Al:Mg) is greater than or equal to 0.34:1 and less than or equal to 1.5:1. However, Wang does teach on page 5, paragraph 1 that “the Zn element, Mg element, Li element and Al element is 1: (0.05~0. 7):(0.05~0. 7): (0.001~0.1 ).” which encompasses Al mol% based on total moles of zinc, magnesium, and aluminum of 0.06% (Zn:Mg:Al = 1:0.7:0.001) to 8.7% (Zn:Mg:Al = 1:0.05:0.1) and mole ratios of aluminum to magnesium (Al:Mg) of 1:700 (0.001:0.7) to 2:1: (0.1:0.05) such that the ranges overlap (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Furthermore, Yang teaches a light emitting photoelectric device which includes a zinc oxide nanoparticle electron transport layer (see page 22 third paragraph) and further teaches that the zinc oxide nanoparticle may have a size of 2 to 10 nm (see page 20 third paragraph) and may include magnesium and aluminum (page 13 first paragraph) with aluminum mol% of 0.1% – 15% and aluminum to magnesium ratios of 1:350 – 150:1 such that the ranges overlap (MPEP 2144.05.I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider forming the ZnO nanoparticles to have a size of less than 15 nm in Wang, such as 2 to 10 nm as taught by Yang, since “metal oxide material with a small particle size is more conducive to depositing a thin film with a dense film layer and a uniform thickness, which improves the bonding with the adjacent functional layer. It can reduce the interface resistance, which is more conducive to improving the device performance” (see page 20 third paragraph of Yang).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider providing aluminum mol% and Al:Mg mole ratios within the claimed ranges, such as those within the overlapping ranges of both Wang and Yang as an optimization through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05.II) since it influences both the EQE and luminance of devices (see Tables 1-4 of Wang) while excessive doping may be detrimental to performance of the nanoparticles and an appropriate molar percentage of the dopants allows for conduction band adjustments to improve electron transfer efficiency (page 13 first paragraph of Yang).
Regarding Claim 2. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor nanoparticle does not comprise cadmium (Wang, Examples 5-8 each consider an InP quantum dot which does not include cadmium), and wherein the mole ratio of aluminum to magnesium (Al:Mg) is greater than or equal to 0.36:1 and less than or equal to 1.5:1 (Ranges from both Wang (1:700 to 2:1) and Yang (1:150 – 350:1) overlap with the claimed range, obviousness by routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II) for reasons provided in claim 1 is maintained).
Regarding Claim 3. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein in the zinc oxide nanoparticle, an amount of aluminum is greater than or equal to 2.7 mol% and less than or equal to 14 mol%, based on total moles of zinc, magnesium, and aluminum (Ranges from both Wang (0.06% to 8.7%) and Yang (0.1% to 15%) overlap with the claimed range, obviousness by routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II) for reasons provided in claim 1 is maintained).
Regarding Claim 4. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein in the zinc oxide nanoparticle,
a mole ratio of aluminum to zinc (Al:Zn) is greater than or equal to 0.01:1, and less than or equal to 0.5:1 (Ranges from both Wang (0.001:1 to 0.1:1) and Yang (0.1% to 15%) overlap with the claimed range, obviousness by routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II) for reasons provided in claim 1 is maintained); or
a mole ratio of magnesium to zinc (Mg:Zn) is greater than or equal to 0.1:1, and less than or equal to 0.7:1 (Ranges from both Wang (0.05:1 to 0.7:1) and Yang (0.1% to 35%) overlap with the claimed rang, obviousness by routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II) for reasons provided in claim 1 is maintained), or
a mole ratio of a sum of aluminum and magnesium to zinc is greater than or equal to 0.1:1 and less than 1.5:1 (Ranges from both Wang (0.051:1 to 0.8:1) and Yang (0.2% to 50%) overlap with the claimed range, obviousness by routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II) for reasons provided in claim 1 is maintained).
Regarding Claim 5. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein in the zinc oxide nanoparticle,
a mole ratio of aluminum to magnesium (Al:Mg) is greater than or equal to 0.4:1 and less than or equal to 1.2:1 (Ranges from both Wang (1:700 to 2:1) and Yang (1:150 – 350:1) overlap with the claimed range, obviousness by routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II) for reasons provided in claim 1 is maintained).
Regarding Claim 6. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the electron transport layer is disposed adjacent to the light-emitting layer (Wang, Examples 5-8, the zinc oxide electron transport layer is formed on the light emitting layer in each example and is therefore adjacent to it).
Regarding Claim 7. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein in an X-ray diffraction analysis of the zinc oxide nanoparticle, a peak percentage defined by the following equation is greater than or equal to 3%:
Peak percentage (%) = [B/A] x 100,
wherein A is a maximum intensity of a peak present in a 2 theta range of from 65 degrees to 75 degrees, and
wherein B is a maximum intensity of a peak present in a 2 theta range of from 25 degrees to 35 degrees (See claim interpretation explanation above for details of structures recited in the reference which are substantially identical to that of the claims, the zinc oxide nanoparticles in the instant application and the cited references (Wang and Yang) are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established; it is the examiner’s interpretation that the zinc oxide nanoparticles of the reference will necessarily match the x-ray diffraction analysis of the nanoparticles claimed in the instant application).
Regarding Claim 9. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle further comprises an additional metal, and the additional metal comprises an alkali metal, Ca, Zr, W, Ga, Ti, Y, or a combination thereof (Wang, Example 4, the zinc oxide nanoparticle may further comprise Ti; Yang, page 13 first paragraph, the zinc oxide nanoparticle may include Zr or Y).
Regarding Claim 10. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle is dispersible in a C1 to C10 alcohol solvent (Wang, pages 5-6, a polar alcohol solvent is used in the manufacturing process, including for example ethanol which is a C2 alcohol solvent; see claim interpretation explanation above, the zinc oxide nanoparticles in the instant application and the cited references (Wang and Yang) are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established; it is the examiner’s interpretation that the zinc oxide nanoparticles of the reference will necessarily match the solubilities of the nanoparticles of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 11. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1, wherein in a UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy analysis, the zinc oxide nanoparticle has a first absorption peak wavelength in a range of greater than or equal to 310 nm and less than or equal to 323 nm (see claim interpretation explanation above, the zinc oxide nanoparticles in the instant application and the cited references (Wang and Yang) are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established; it is the examiner’s interpretation that the zinc oxide nanoparticles of the reference will necessarily match UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy analysis of the nanoparticles of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 13. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1,
wherein the electroluminescent device emits blue light when a voltage is applied (Wang, Tables 1-4 all show that one of the LEDs may be a blue LED in examples 5-8; Yang, page 34 second paragraph, several of the example LEDs utilize blue emitting quantum dots);
wherein the electroluminescent device has a maximum external quantum efficiency of greater than or equal to 8 percent and less than or equal to 40 percent (Wang, Tables 1-4 all show that the blue QLEDs may have an EQE of 8% or greater), or
the electroluminescent device shows a maximum luminance of greater than or equal to 80,000 candelas per square meter and less than or equal to 500,000 candelas per square meter (see claim interpretation explanation above, the QLEDs in the instant application and the cited references (Wang and Yang) are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established; it is the examiner’s interpretation that the QLEDs of the reference will necessarily match the maximum luminance capabilities of the device of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 14. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1,
wherein the electroluminescent device exhibits a T90 of greater than or equal to 60 hours and less than or equal to 1000 hours, as measured at an initial luminance of 650 nit (see claim interpretation explanation above, the QLEDs in the instant application and the cited references (Wang and Yang) are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established; it is the examiner’s interpretation that the QLEDs of the reference will necessarily match T90 capabilities of the device of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 15. Wang in view of Yang discloses A display device comprising the electroluminescent device of claim 1 (Wang, see abstract and page 4, the QLEDs may be used in electroluminescent devices with different colors, i.e. a display; Yang, pages 2-3, the QLEDs considered are part of QLED display technology).
Regarding Claim 16. Wang in view of Yang discloses The display device of claim 15.
Wang in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose that the display device is a handheld terminal device, a monitor, a notebook computer, a television, an electronic display board, a camera, or an electronic component for an automatic vehicle.
Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE (see MPEP 2144.03) that using QLEDs in a display device such as a monitor or television is common knowledge in the art of displays and electroluminescent devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider utilizing the multi-color display capabilities of Wang in view of Wang in a monitor or a television as is commonly done in the art of displays and electroluminescent devices.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”) in view of WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20230320115 A1; Chung et al.; 10/2023; (“Chung”).
Regarding Claim 8. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1.
Wang in view of Yang do not disclose that the zinc oxide nanoparticle further comprises a halogen.
However, Chung teaches a quantum dot electroluminescent device (Figure 1A) including a zinc oxide nanoparticle electron transport layer (ETL (e.g. ZnO), Figure 1A) wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticle further comprises a halogen ([0050], ZnO nanoparticles (NP) were doped with fluorine using CF4 plasma doping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider including a halogen in the zinc oxide nanoparticles of Wang in view of Yang, such as the consideration of Fluorine by Chung, since with fluorine doping “a device efficiency enhancement by 15% and significant device stability improvement by 47 times longer lifetime was observed” (see [0050] of Chung).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”) in view of WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0103571 A1; Dong et al.; 04/2019; (“Dong”).
Regarding Claim 12. Wang in view of Yang discloses The electroluminescent device of claim 1.
Wang in view of Yang do not disclose that the zinc oxide nanoparticle further comprises an alkali metal; and wherein the alkali metal comprises potassium, rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof, and in the zinc oxide nanoparticle, a mole ratio of the alkali metal to the aluminum is greater than or equal to 0.1:1 and less than or equal to 1.5:1.
However, Dong teaches a QLED structure (Figure 1) including a zinc oxide nanoparticle electron injection layer (#115, ZnO nanoparticle electron injection and hole blocking layer) wherein the zinc oxide nanoparticles may be doped with aluminum (see claim 5) and are combined with an alkali metal and the alkali metal comprises potassium, rubidium, cesium, or a combination thereof ([0051] and [0056]-[0058], the zinc oxide nanoparticle is dissolved together with a cesium, Cs, precursor to form a compound solution of the nanoparticles with the alkali metal).
Wang in view of Yang and Dong do not explicitly disclose that a mole ratio of the alkali metal to the aluminum is greater than or equal to 0.1:1 and less than or equal to 1.5:1. However, Dong does teach that the mixing of the metal oxide nanoparticles with the alkali metal can be set at various ratios ([0054], “mixing of the metal oxide nanoparticles and the alkali metal compound in the electron injection and hole blocking layer 115 can be optimized at different ratios (e.g. 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, 2:1, 4:1 etc.) for ideal electron injection and hole blocking effects” and [0057], “ratio could range from 8:1 to 1:8 to provide a different performance for different materials and different applications”) which overlap with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider providing alkali metal Cesium to the zinc oxide nanoparticles of Wang in view of Yang, as was done in Dong since the alkali metal provides “simultaneous electron injection and hole blocking to achieve charging balance at high driving current conditions” (see abstract of Dong).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the alkali metal to have a mole ratio with aluminum in the claimed range as an optimization through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05.II) since it has been shown to influence the tunability of the QLED (see [0051] of Dong) for ideal electron injection and hole blocking effects (see [0054] of Dong) to provide different performance characteristics depending on the intended application (see [0057] of Dong).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 11-14 and corresponding remarks, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and corresponding arguments, see page 9 of the remarks, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered and found persuasive. The originally cited reference (CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”)) does not disclose all of the limitations of amended claim 1. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claim 1 and several of its dependent claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and corresponding arguments, see pages 9-13 of the remarks, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to the possibility of a 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection of claim 1 first discussed in the interview on 05/08/2026 (see PTOL-413 mailed on 08/07/2026) have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”) in view of WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not render obvious the amended limitations to claim 1 to require “an amount of aluminum is greater than or equal to 1.3 mol% and less than or equal to 30 mol%, based on total moles of zinc, magnesium, and aluminum and a mole ratio of aluminum to magnesium (Al:Mg) is greater than or equal to 0.34:1 and less than or equal to 1.5:1” because none of the provided explicit examples in Wang utilize values close to the claimed range (see page 10 of the remarks). Applicant further notes that while Wang does disclose a broader range for the claimed molar ratios and percentages, the cited examples of the reference do not teach values moving towards the claimed range as improving the device. Applicant shows this in the table on page 11 of the remarks showing two selected examples from Wang where values closer to the claimed range do not markedly improve the EQE and current efficiency. In contrast, applicant refers to values of the instant application in the table on pages 11-12 which show a notable increase in EQE and luminance.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, the examiner has identified a new reference (WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”)) which when combined with Wang is interpreted by the examiner as rendering claim 1 obvious. Examiner first notes that applicant’s identification of specific values from their application as overcoming an obviousness type rejection for optimization and/or overlapping ranges has not been found persuasive. Applicant’s identified values, when compared to that of the reference, are interpreted as a difference in degree (efficiency levels of the device) rather than a difference in kind. MPEP 2144.05.III provides that “It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree” and “A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind”. While applicant is correct that their claimed values do encompass values which provide a higher efficiency based on details provided in their specification, it is the examiner’s interpretation that Wang has shown that the aluminum mol% and ratios with other elements will alter the efficiency and luminance of the device (see Tables 1-4 of Wang). Wang also includes values for aluminum mol% and ratios with other elements which overlap with the claimed range (Wang, page 5, paragraph 1).
In view of the amendments, the examiner has further identified the Yang reference which also teaches values for aluminum mol% and ratios with other elements which overlap with the claimed range (Yang, page 13 first paragraph). The Yang reference provides further motivation for the need to optimize these ratios through routine experimentation on the nanoparticle since excessive doping may be detrimental to performance of the nanoparticles and an appropriate molar percentage of the dopants allows for conduction band adjustments to improve electron transfer efficiency (page 13 first paragraph of Yang).
Based on the teachings of Wang in view of Yang, it is the examiner’s interpretation that the claimed values for aluminum mol% and ratios with other elements are a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II). One of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to maximize EQE and luminance efficiency while balancing excessive doping and conduction band adjustments based on the cited teachings.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”) in view of WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”) in view of WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20230320115 A1; Chung et al.; 10/2023; (“Chung”).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109825285 A; Wang et al.; 05/2019; (“Wang”) in view of WO 2022143567 A1; Yang, Yixing; 07/2022; (“Yang”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0103571 A1; Dong et al.; 04/2019; (“Dong”).
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 TYLER JAMES WIEGAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/TYLER J WIEGAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights