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 .
This Office Action is the second Non-Final Rejection in response to Applicants’ REMARKS filed on July 8, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on March 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Regarding claim 11, it is not clear what a porosity of the first color conversion layer, the second color conversion layer and the transmitting layer refers to and/or how the porosity of these layers are determined and measured, because although “porosity” is a recognized material property, Applicants neither define the porosity being compared nor identify the measurement technique used to determine the claimed porosity. Without claiming how the claimed porosity is defined or how the claimed porosity is measured, it is still unclear whether the claimed porosity refers to total void volume fraction, pore number density, pore size distribution, open porosity, closed porosity, or another recognized porosity metric. Because different accepted porosity metrics, or different measurement techniques applied to the same material, it may produce different relative porosity relationships among the first color conversion layer, the second color conversion layer, and the transmitting layer, therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For example, a layer having a large number of small pores and a layer having a small number of large pores could have the same total volume, but significantly differ in pore count and size distribution. Therefore, without specifically claiming how the claimed porosity is measured, it remains unclear how the claimed porosity is to be interpreted or compared among the recited layers.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rho (US 2022/0173155, Foreign Priority: Nov. 30, 2020 (KR)) in view of Lee et al. (US 10,539,826, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Rho discloses for a display device, comprising that
a first pixel (first-color pixel PX or red pixel, [0065]), a second pixel (second-color pixel PX or green pixel, [0065]), and a third pixel (third-color pixel PX or blue pixel, [0065]) emitting light of different colors (red, green, blue, [0065]);
light-emitting diodes (light-emitting diode ED, Fig. 4) that correspond to the first pixel (red pixel having ED2, Fig. 4), the second pixel (green pixel having ED3, Fig. 4), and the third pixel (blue pixel having ED1, Fig. 4) and that emit light of a same color (L1, Fig. 4), because “emitted light L1 from the first LED “ED1” may be blue light” ([0123]) and all of the light-emitting diodes ED1, ED2 and ED3 emit the same light L1 (Fig. 4); and
a function layer (340/350/330, Fig. 4) disposed in a direction (vertical direction, Fig. 4) in which the light-emitting diodes (ED2/ED3/ED1, Fig. 4) emit light (L1, Fig. 4),
the function layer (340/350/330, Fig. 4) comprising:
a first color conversion layer (first wavelength conversion pattern 340, Fig. 4) corresponding to a first emission area (second light-transmitting area TA2, Fig. 4) of the first pixel (red pixel having ED2, Fig. 4);
a second color conversion layer (second wavelength conversion pattern 350, Fig. 4) corresponding to a second emission area (third light-transmitting area TA3, Fig. 4) of the second pixel (green pixel having ED3, Fig. 4); and
a transmitting layer (light-transmitting pattern 330, Fig. 4) corresponding to a third emission area (first light-transmitting area TA1, Fig. 4) of the third pixel (blue pixel having ED1, Fig. 4),
wherein the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4) comprises first quantum dots (first wavelength shifter 345, Fig. 4), the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4) comprises second quantum dots (second wavelength shifter 355, Fig. 4), and each of the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4), the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4), and the transmitting layer (330, Fig. 4) comprises a base resin (first/second/third base resin 331/341/351, Fig. 4).
Rho does not explicitly disclose that a plurality of pores are defined.
However, Lee discloses a liquid crystal display (LCD) device including a plurality of color conversion layers 200 (Fig. 8), each including a phosphor 210R, 210G and 210B, and a low-refractive index layer 240 disposed thereon (Fig. 8), therefore, the color conversion layer including 240/210R on the left corresponds to the claimed first color conversion layer, the color conversion layer having 240/210G on the middle corresponds to the claimed second color conversion layer, and the color conversion layer having 240/210B on the right corresponds to the claimed transmitting layer, respectively. Lee further teaches that “the phosphors 210R, 210G, and 210B of the color conversion layer 200 may include quantum dot particles” (Col. 5, lines 41-42) and “the low-refractive index layer 240 includes aerogel… and a drying process where liquid filling between the pores vaporizes into gas maintaining a nanoporous structure” (emphasis added, Col. 10, lines 15-29). Therefore, Lee expressly teaches that the color conversion layers include a nanoporous structure, which corresponds to the claimed plurality of pores.
Since both Rho and Lee teach a color conversion layer of the display device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the color conversion layers of Rho to incorporate the nanoporous color conversion layer structure disclosed by Lee, including quantum dots and a plurality of pores, in order to optimize dielectric and optical properties of the color conversion layer.
Regarding claim 3, Rho further discloses that each of the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4), the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4), and the transmitting layer (330, Fig. 4) comprises scattering particles (first/second/third scatter 333/343/353, Fig. 4).
Rho does not explicitly disclose that low-refractive objects having a refractive index greater than about 1.0 and less than or equal to about 1.3.
However, Lee further discloses that the color conversion layer 200 include the low-refractive index layer 240 (Fig. 8), which corresponds to the low-refractive objects in the claimed invention, and “the low-refractive index layer 240 includes aerogel. The aerogel has a refractive index in a range of 1.007 to 1.05” (Col. 10, lines 15-16), therefore, the range of the refractive index by Lee overlaps with the claimed range.
Since both Rho and Lee teach a color conversion layer of the display device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the color conversion layer of Rho can include a low refractive index layer, as taught by Lee, in order to optimize dielectric and optical properties of the color conversion layer.
Regarding claim 4, Rho further discloses that a color filter layer including: a first color filter (second color filter 233, Fig. 4) disposed corresponding to the first emission area (TA2, Fig. 4);
a second color filter (third color filter 235, Fig. 4) disposed corresponding to the second emission area (TA3, Fig. 4); and
a third color filter (first color filter 231, Fig. 4) disposed corresponding to the third emission area (TA1, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Rho further discloses for a display device, comprising that
an emission panel (display substrate 10, Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of light-emitting diodes (light-emitting diode ED1/ED2/ED3, Fig. 4);
a color panel (color conversion substrate 30, Fig. 4) disposed on the emission panel (10, Fig. 4) and comprising a first center area (TA2, Fig. 4), a second center area (TA3, Fig. 4), and a third center area (TA1, Fig. 4) respectively overlapping the plurality of light-emitting diodes (ED2/ED3/ED1, Fig. 4) and that emit light having different colors (red/green/blue, [0065]),
wherein the color panel (30, Fig. 4) comprises a function layer (340/350/330, Fig. 4) comprising:
a first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4) corresponding to the first center area (TA2, Fig. 4);
a second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4) corresponding to the second center area (TA3, Fig. 4); and
a transmitting layer (330, Fig. 4) corresponding to the third center area (TA1, Fig. 4), the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4) comprises first quantum dots (first wavelength shifter 345, Fig. 4), because “examples of the first wavelength shifter 345 include quantum dots, quantum rods, and a phosphor” (emphasis added, [0132]);
the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4) comprises second quantum dots (second wavelength shifter 355, Fig. 4), because “examples of the second wavelength shifter 355 include quantum dots, quantum rods, and a phosphor” (emphasis added, [0148]), and
each of the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4), the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4), and the transmitting layer (330, Fig. 4) comprises a base resin (first/second/third base resin 331/341/351, Fig. 4).
Rho does not explicitly disclose that a plurality of pores are defined.
However, Lee discloses a liquid crystal display (LCD) device including a plurality of color conversion layers 200 (Fig. 8), each including a phosphor 210R, 210G and 210B, and a low-refractive index layer 240 disposed thereon (Fig. 8), therefore, the color conversion layer including 240/210R on the left corresponds to the claimed first color conversion layer, the color conversion layer having 240/210G on the middle corresponds to the claimed second color conversion layer, and the color conversion layer having 240/210B on the right corresponds to the claimed transmitting layer, respectively. Lee further teaches that “the phosphors 210R, 210G, and 210B of the color conversion layer 200 may include quantum dot particles” (Col. 5, lines 41-42) and “the low-refractive index layer 240 includes aerogel… and a drying process where liquid filling between the pores vaporizes into gas maintaining a nanoporous structure” (emphasis added, Col. 10, lines 15-29). Therefore, Lee expressly teaches that the color conversion layers include a nanoporous structure, which corresponds to the claimed plurality of pores.
Since both Rho and Lee teach a color conversion layer of the display device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the color conversion layers of Rho to incorporate the nanoporous color conversion layer structure disclosed by Lee, including quantum dots and a plurality of pores, in order to optimize dielectric and optical properties of the color conversion layer.
Regarding claim 14, Rho further discloses that each of the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4), the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4), and the transmitting layer (330, Fig. 4) comprises scattering particles (first/second/third scatter 333/343/353, Fig. 4).
Rho does not explicitly disclose that low-refractive objects having a refractive index greater than about 1.0 and less than or equal to about 1.3.
However, Lee further discloses that the color conversion layer 200 include the low-refractive index layer 240 (Fig. 8), which corresponds to the low-refractive objects in the claimed invention, and “the low-refractive index layer 240 includes aerogel. The aerogel has a refractive index in a range of 1.007 to 1.05” (Col. 10, lines 15-16), therefore, the range of the refractive index by Lee overlaps with the claimed range.
Since both Rho and Lee teach a color conversion layer of the display device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the color conversion layer of Rho can include a low refractive index layer, as taught by Lee, in order to optimize dielectric and optical properties of the color conversion layer.
Claims 2, 5-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rho (US 2022/0173155, Foreign Priority: Nov. 30, 2020 (KR)) in view of Lee et al. (US 10,539,826, hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20190063618, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 2, Rho in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose that a size of each of the plurality of pores is greater than a size of each of the first quantum dots, and the size of each of the plurality of pores is greater than a size of each of the second quantum dots.
However, Kim discloses that “when the wavelength conversion layer (CCM) includes pores, the maximum size of the pores of the wavelength conversion layer (CCM) may be 100 nm or less” (emphasis added, [0094], page 8 of machine-translated copy), and it is well-known in the art that quantum dots used for wavelength conversion typically have sizes on the order of 1-30 nm, as evidenced by Won et al. (US 2019/0211260) such that the maximum size of red or green quantum dots is 30 nm or less ([0123] of Won et al.), since quantum dots are required to be sufficiently small to exhibit quantum confinement effects. It is also well understood in the art that particles significantly larger than this range (e.g., greater than about 100 nm) would not be considered quantum dots, but rather conventional nanoparticles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pore sizes disclosed by Kim (about 100 nm) are greater than the typical sizes of quantum dots present in the wavelength conversion layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pores in Kim’s wavelength conversion layers would be sized greater than the quantum dots disposed therein, as a matter of routine optimization and in view of the relative size scales well known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Rho in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose that a low-refractive layer disposed between the function layer and the color filter layer and having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the color filter layer.
However, Kim further discloses that the low refractive index layer (REF, Fig. 2) is disposed between the wavelength conversion layer CCM and the color filter layer CF (Fig. 2), and as shown in Fig. 3 by Kim (see attached Fig. 3 below), an angle of the incoming light from the low refractive layer REF with respect to normal to the interface between REF and the color filter layer CF (i.e., angle A) is greater than an angle to the normal of the reflected light inside the color filter layer CF (i.e., angle B), indicating that a refractive index of the low refractive index layer is REF less than that if the color filter layer CF, according to Snell’s law.
PNG
media_image1.png
954
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low refractive index layer can be disposed between the color conversion layer and the color filter layer, as disclosed by Kim, in order to optimize dielectric and optical properties of the display device, thereby improving reflection property of the display device.
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses that the low-refractive layer (REF, Fig. 2) has a refractive index less than a refractive index of the function layer (CCM, Fig. 2), because “the color refiner may further include a low refractive index layer (REF) having a refractive index lower than that of the wavelength converting layer (CCM)” ([0079], see page 7, lines 1-3 of attached machine-translated copy).
Regarding claim 7, Rho in view of Lee and further in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose that a difference between the refractive index of the low-refractive layer (REF, 1.05 or less, Figs. 2-3, [0094]) and the refractive index of the function layer (CCM, Figs. 2-3) is greater than or equal to about 0.1 and less than or equal to about 0.6.
However, Kim further discloses that “the low refractive index layer REF may be composed of a material having a refractive index of 1.05 or less as a low refractive index medium… for example, air, nitrogen, argon, aerogel, and the like. The refractive index of the aerogel may be, for example, 1.007 to 1.05” ([0080], page 7 of machine-translated copy) and “the color refiner may further include a low refractive index layer (REF) having a refractive index lower than that of the wavelength converting layer (CCM)” ([0079], see page 7, lines 1-3 of attached machine-translated copy), therefore, Kim recognizes that the refractive index of the low refractive index layer and wavelength conversion layer impacts the reflection of light of display device. The refraction index of these layers is therefore a result-effective variable to be optimized by repeated experiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the refractive index of the low refractive index layer and wavelength conversion layer as Kim has identified the refraction indexes as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at difference of the refractive index of these layers being greater than or equal to about 0.1 and less than or equal to about 0.6, in order to achieve the desired light reflection within layers, as taught by Kim. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference of the refractive index of two layers is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed difference of refractive index of two layers).
Regarding claim 8, Rho further discloses that each of the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4), the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4), and the transmitting layer (330, Fig. 4) further comprises scattering particles (first/second/third scatter 333/343/353, Fig. 4).
Rho does not explicitly disclose that low-refractive objects having a refractive index greater than about 1.0 and less than or equal to about 1.3.
However, Lee further discloses that the color conversion layer 200 include the low-refractive index layer 240 (Fig. 8), which corresponds to the low-refractive objects in the claimed invention, and “the low-refractive index layer 240 includes aerogel. The aerogel has a refractive index in a range of 1.007 to 1.05” (Col. 10, lines 15-16), therefore, the range of the refractive index by Lee overlaps with the claimed range.
Furthermore, Kim also discloses that the wavelength conversion layer may include the low refractive index materials RP (Fig. 4), which corresponds to the low-refractive objects in the claimed invention, and “the refractive index of the low refractive index materials (RP) may be 1.05 or less” ([0094]), therefore, for example, when the refractive index of the low refractive index material RP is 1.05, it is greater than about 1.0 and less than about 1.3, as claimed.
Further regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses that the low-refractive layer (REF, Fig. 2) and the low-refractive objects (RP, Fig. 4) include a same material, because “the low refractive index layer REF may be composed of a material having a refractive index of 1.05 or less as a low refractive index medium… for example, air, nitrogen, argon, aerogel, and the like. The refractive index of the aerogel may be, for example, 1.007 to 1.05” ([0080], page 7 of machine-translated copy) and “the refractive index of the low refractive index materials (RP) may be 1.05 or less. The low refractive index material (RP) may be a gaseous material, for example, air, nitrogen, or mixture thereof, or may be a particulated material such as an aerogel or the like” ([0094], page 8 of machine-translated copy), therefore, the low refractive index layer REF and the low refractive materials RP are formed of the same material, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the display device of Rho can include a low refractive index materials and a low refractive index layer which are formed of the same material having a refractive index of 1.05 or less, as disclosed by Kim, in order to optimize dielectric and optical properties of the display device.
Regarding claim 9, Rho further discloses that each of the first color conversion layer (340, Fig. 4), the second color conversion layer (350, Fig. 4), and the transmitting layer (330, Fig. 4) further comprises scattering particles (first/second/third scatter 333/343/353, Fig. 4).
Rho does not explicitly disclose low-refractive objects having a refractive index greater than about 1.0 and less than or equal to about 1.3.
However, Lee further discloses that the color conversion layer 200 include the low-refractive index layer 240 (Fig. 8), which corresponds to the low-refractive objects in the claimed invention, and “the low-refractive index layer 240 includes aerogel. The aerogel has a refractive index in a range of 1.007 to 1.05” (Col. 10, lines 15-16), therefore, the range of the refractive index by Lee overlaps with the claimed range.
Furthermore, Kim also discloses that the wavelength conversion layer may include the low refractive index materials RP (Fig. 4), which corresponds to the low-refractive objects in the claimed invention, and “the refractive index of the low refractive index materials (RP) may be 1.05 or less” ([0094]), therefore, for example, when the refractive index of the low refractive index material RP is 1.05, it is greater than about 1.0 and less than about 1.3, as claimed.
Further regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses that the low-refractive layer (REF, Fig. 2) and the low-refractive objects (RP, Fig. 4) include a different material, because “the low refractive index layer REF may be composed of a material having a refractive index of 1.05 or less as a low refractive index medium… for example, air, nitrogen, argon, aerogel, and the like. The refractive index of the aerogel may be, for example, 1.007 to 1.05” ([0080], page 7 of machine-translated copy) and “the refractive index of the low refractive index materials (RP) may be 1.05 or less. The low refractive index material (RP) may be a gaseous material, for example, air, nitrogen, or mixture thereof, or may be a particulated material such as an aerogel or the like” ([0094], page 8 of machine-translated copy), therefore, for example, the low refractive index layer REF can be formed of nitrogen, while the low refractive materials RP can be formed of aerogel, which are different materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the display device of Rho can include a low refractive index layer and low refractive index materials in the color conversion layer, as disclosed by Kim, in order to optimize dielectric and optical properties of the display device.
Regarding claim 10, Rho in view of Lee and further in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose that a refractive index of the function layer is greater than or equal to about 1.5 and less than or equal to about 1.7.
However, Kim further discloses that “the wavelength conversion layer (CCM) includes a low refractive index material (RP)” and “the refractive index of the low refractive index materials (RP) may be 1.05 or less”. Kim also recites “the wavelength conversion layer comprises low refractive index particles… the low refractive index particles have a refractive index lower than that of the wavelength conversion layer” (claim 3 of Kim), therefore, Kim recognizes that the refractive index of the wavelength conversion layer having low refractive index materials (RP), i.e., the claimed functional layer, impacts the reflection of light of display device. The refraction index of wavelength conversion layer is therefore a result-effective variable to be optimized by repeated experiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the refractive index of the wavelength conversion layer as Kim has identified the refraction index as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the refractive index of wavelength conversion layer being greater than or equal to about 1.5 and less than or equal to about 1.7, in order to achieve the desired light reflection within layers of display device, as taught by Kim. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed difference of the refractive index of wavelength conversion layer is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed refractive index of wavelength conversion layer).
Regarding claim 13, Rho in view of Lee and further in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose that a size of each of the plurality of pores is greater than a size of each of the first quantum dots and a size of each of the second quantum dots.
However, Applicants originally disclosed that “a size of each of the first quantum dots 1152 and the second quantum dots 1162 may be in a range from about 2 nm to about 10 nm.” (emphasis added, [00150] of the present application) and Kim discloses that “when the wavelength conversion layer (CCM) includes pores, the maximum size of the pores of the wavelength conversion layer (CCM) may be 100 nm or less” (emphasis added, [0094], page 8 of machine-translated copy), and it is well-known in the art that quantum dots used for wavelength conversion typically have sizes on the order of 1-30 nm, as evidenced by Won et al. (US 2019/0211260) such that the maximum size of red or green quantum dots is 30 nm or less ([0123] of Won et al.), since quantum dots are required to be sufficiently small to exhibit quantum confinement effects. It is further well understood in the art that particles significantly larger than this range (e.g., greater than about 100 nm) would not be considered quantum dots, but rather conventional nanoparticles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pore sizes disclosed by Kim (about 100 nm) are greater than the typical sizes of quantum dots present in the wavelength conversion layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pores in Kim’s wavelength conversion layers would be sized greater than the quantum dots disposed therein, as a matter of routine optimization and in view of the relative size scales well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the last line of page 9 in REMARKS, filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found secondary reference “Lee”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights