The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/4/26 has been entered. Claims 1 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1 – 18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 5/7/26 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously raised claim rejections under 35 USC 103 based on the Chui – Fujita – Heber combination have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. The new limitations in independent claims 1 and 18 recite that the absolute values of blaze angles in two groups of outcoupling elements are different. As correctly noted by Applicant (1st complete para. on p. 11 of the Remarks), outcoupling elements of Chui (Figs. 5 and 6) and Fujita (Fig. 73) are rotated/mirrored relative to one another and, as such, have the same absolute values of blaze angles. Accordingly, the Examiner has applied a reference by Matsumoto et al (US 2012/0188792 A1) that has been yielded by an updated prior art search and discloses a light guide comprising a plurality of three-dimensionally shaped light outcoupling elements on at least one of main faces and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces and lateral faces, wherein the outcoupling elements include at least two groups that have different absolute values of blaze angles and, in that sense, are complementary to each other (according to Applicant’s interpretation of the adjective “complementary” provided at 2nd complete para. on p. 12). In combination with other prior art of record, Matsumoto teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the limitations recited by the amended claims, as detailed below.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the 820contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 11, and 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (US 2012/0188792 A1) in view of Heber et al (US 2019/0353838 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Matsumoto discloses (Figs. 1 – 5, 14, and 17; para. 0043 – 0068) a light guide 200 (as identified in Figs. 1A and 1B) comprising (see annotated Fig. 1B below):
main faces 210,220 (top and bottom faces, as identified in Figs. 1A and 1B; para. 0043), each main face having at least one edge (as seen in Fig. 2A) surrounding it, the main faces 210,220 being connected by lateral faces (vertical faces comprising 230, as identified in Figs. 1A and 1B; para. 0043) at the edges;
a plurality of three-dimensionally shaped light outcoupling elements 240/320 (as identified in Figs. 1A, 1B, and 5A; para. 0043) on at least one of the main faces 210,220 (as bumps 320 in Fig. 5A; para. 0057) and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces 210,220 and the lateral faces (as grooves as in Figs. 1A and 1B; para. 0043), the light outcoupling elements being distributed according to a predetermined distribution pattern (as illustrated in Figs. 1B and 14);
wherein:
the distribution pattern is predetermined to result, for light 112 coupled into the light guide (from a light source 110; para. 0045) on at least one of the lateral faces 230 (as shown in Fig. 1A) and propagating within the light guide (Fig. 1A) prior to entering or impinging on an outcoupling element 240/320, in preferring one (main face 210 in Fig. 1A) of the two main faces 210,220 to couple out a higher quantity of light over the other (main surface 220 in Fig. 1A) of the two main faces 210,220;
the outcoupling elements 240/320 are provided with a longitudinal section in a plane (the plane of Fig. 1A) perpendicular to at least one of the main faces 210,220, the longitudinal section being formed approximately like a polygon (e.g., a trapezoid, as in Figs. 1A, 5A, and 5B) with at least three corners and at least three connecting lines connecting the corners (to form a trapezoid cross-section in Figs. 1A, 5A, and 5B), with one of the at least three connecting lines being a selected line 243 (in Fig. 1A, 1B, and 5B; para. 0044), which comprises at least a straight segment (“in the embodiment, the cross-section line of the curved inclined reflective surface 243 formed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface 210 is a straight line” at para. 0050);
an orientation of the straight segment relative to the plane of the at least one main face defines a blaze angle (q, as denoted in Fig. 5B; para. 0063 – 0065) and thereby a characteristic outcoupling property, in a way that light propagation along the light guide is disturbed by refraction and/or reflection and a first outcoupling angular range is defined (as illustrated in Fig. 1A; “In the light guide plate 200 and the light source module 100 of the embodiment, the curved inclined reflective surface 243 on the second surface 220 could reflect the light beam 112 in a predetermined direction” at para. 0046);
whereas for a majority of the outcoupling elements 240/320 any outcoupling element is separated from any other (by a spacing Q1,Q2, as denoted in Figs. 1A and 17) at least one micrometer (the ratio of the spacing Q1 to an average width (P1 + P2)/2 of the outcoupling elements 240/320 is within a range from 0.1 to 0.5; Fig. 4 shows that the average width (P1 + P2)/2 can be ~ 10 mm and the spacing of at least 1 mm);
whereas the straight segments 243 of the selected lines of the outcoupling elements 240 are oriented towards the same lateral face 230 of the light guide 200 (as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B), this lateral face 230 being configured for coupling light 112 into the light guide 200 (para. 0045);
the plurality of outcoupling elements 240 is divided into at least two groups (242a1 and 242b1, as shown in Fig. 5B; para. 0063) of outcoupling elements 240, each group 242a1/242b1 being complementary (i.e., having a particular common blaze angle, i.e., angle q11 for the group 242a1; para. 0063) to each of the other groups and members of each group having a common characteristic blaze angle (angles q11 and q21 for groups 242a1 and 242b1, respectively; para. 0063) and therefore a common characteristic outcoupling property (the angle of outcoupled light), with an absolute value (angle q11) of the characteristic blaze angle and the common characteristic property (of group 242a1) differing from absolute values of the characteristic blaze angles (q21 and q31 for groups 242b1 and 242c1, respectively, as denoted in Fig. 5B) and outcoupling properties of members of the other groups (242b1 and 242c1; “the average slope angles q11, q21, and q31 of the curved inclined reflective surfaces 2431 of the curved grooves 242a1, 242b1, and 242c1 are not equal to each other” at para. 0063, emphasis added), thereby resulting in light being outcoupled with different angular distributions for different groups of outcoupling elements (due to different angles of reflection off different blaze angles).
PNG
media_image1.png
920
1481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1B of Matsumoto.
Further for claim 1, Figures 1A, 1B, and 5B of Matsumoto show that at least one outcoupling element of a first group (e.g., the leftmost group 242a1) of outcoupling elements 240 is positioned spatially between at least two outcoupling elements of a second group 242b1 (or 242c1) of outcoupling elements 240 (because the outcoupling elements 240 are disposed in a spatially translated arrangement, as shown in annotated Fig. 1B above).
Further for claim 18, Figures 1B and 14 of Matsumoto shows that at least the blaze angle of one outcoupling element of a first group (e.g., the leftmost group 242a1) of outcoupling elements 240 and at least the blaze angle of one outcoupling element of a second group (242b1 or 242c1) of outcoupling elements 240 are arranged along a same (longitudinal) optical path for at least one light ray coupled into the light guide 200 through a (front) lateral face (see annotated Fig. 1B above).
Matsumoto (i) does not explicitly illustrate that light 112 coupled into the light guide 200 can be confined in it by total internal reflection and (ii) does not expressly quantify a transparency of the light guide. However, Heber provides features (i) and (ii) respectively, as detailed below.
As for feature (i), Matsumoto states a fact of common knowledge that “when the light beam emitted by the light emitting device enters the light guide plate through the side of the light guide plate, it will continuously be totally reflected by the top surface and the bottom surface of the light guide plate, and is limited in the light guide plate. However, microstructures disposed in the surface of the light guide plate could disrupt the total reflection, causing the light beam to hit the top surface at an angle smaller than the critical angle, and thus passing through the top surface” (para. 0005, emphasis added). While Matsumoto does not explicitly illustrate that light propagating along the light is guided by total internal reflection (before reaching the outcoupling elements 240 and/or between their groupings), Heber discloses (Fig. 1 and 2; Abstract; para. 0019 – 0021, 0033 – 0039, and 0070 – 0072) a light guide 3 having general features similar to those in Matsumoto and comprising:
main (top and bottom) faces, each main face having at least one edge surrounding it, the main faces being connected by lateral faces at the edges (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2); and
a plurality of light outcoupling elements 6 on at least one of the main faces and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces and the lateral faces, the light outcoupling elements being distributed according to a predetermined distribution pattern,
wherein the distribution pattern is predetermined to result, for light coupled into the light guide on at least one of the lateral faces and propagating (along a zig-zag path) so as to be totally internally reflected within the light guide prior to entering or impinging on an outcoupling element, in preferring one of the two main faces to couple out a higher quantity of light over the other of the two main faces (“Due to total reflection, rays of the coupled-in light (represented by bold rays) are reflected by the outer wall and thrown back into the light guide 3 until they finally (probably after repeated hits) hit an outcoupling element 6 to undergo the desired outcoupling” at para 0070, emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light guide 200 of Matsumoto confines and guides the light 112 coupled into it (from the entrance lateral face to the light outcoupling elements) via total internal reflection, as generally rendered obvious by Matsumoto and explicitly illustrated by Heber.
As for feature (ii), Matsumoto intends to reduce optical loss in the light guide by using transparent materials (para. 0050 and 0051) and properly configured light outcoupling elements (para. 0013, 0046, and 0085), but does not quantify a suitable/workable transparency level of the light guide. However, Heber states that the light guide 3 can be formed of low-loss material (para. 0030 and 0039) and be configured to have a transparency of at least 70% for light passing through the lightguide by the two main faces (Abstract; para. 0019 and 0031). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light guide of Matsumoto can be configured to achieve a transparency of at least 70% which would further the goal of Matsumoto to minimize optical loss.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Matsumoto – Heber combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto considers (e.g., Figs. 1A, 1B, and 5B) the outcoupling angular distribution consists of the first angular range defined by a projection onto the plane of the longitudinal section (due to the curvature of light outcoupling elements 240; para. 0049) the and a second angular range defined by a projection onto the main face (determined by the angles q11, q21, and q31).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto renders obvious (e.g., Figs. 1A, 1B, 5A, and 5B; para. 0053 and 0067) that the longitudinal section is formed like a polygon (a trapezoid or a triangle) with three corners which are connected by three connecting lines (if bumps 320 in Fig. 5A are reshaped as triangles), a first connecting line being a base line (horizontal segment) with a straight segment lying in a plane parallel to one of the main faces, a second connecting line 245 arranged in an angle f between 85o and 90 o (e.g., “f11 is, for example, 86.93 degrees” at para. 0066) to the first connecting line 249, and a third connecting line 243 connecting distant ends of the first and second connecting line, with the third connecting line 243 being the selected line and defining a characteristic outcoupling property by enclosing a blaze angle q with the first connecting line (as seen/denoted in Fig. 5B).
It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (a particular wavelength(s) of operation, materials, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and that (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers the angle as a result-effective parameter that affects the outcoupling efficiency of the light guide.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 15, and 16, Matsumoto teaches (Figs. 1B, 1C, 3 and 14) that the three-dimensional shape of each of the outcoupling elements 240 is defined by a partial rotation of the longitudinal section (trapezoid) in a plane (parallel to the main surfaces) perpendicular to the longitudinal section around a (vertical) center axis (passing through center C in Fig. 1C; para. 0052) parallel to but outside of the longitudinal section, with an angle of partial rotation different from 0o, wherein for at least one group of outcoupling elements 240 the blaze angle q varies continuously or discretely between two end positions of the partial rotation at least for the outcoupling elements of one of the groups of outcoupling elements (as seen in Figs. 1B, 1C, 3, and 14). Selection of a particular range of the angle of rotation, e.g., between 5o and 25o, would be well within ordinary skill in the art (which is noted as being high). It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (a particular wavelength(s) of operation, materials, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the Matsumoto – Heber combination considers (Fig. 4 of Matsumoto) ranges of a maximum size of the outcoupling elements that at least overlap with the recited ranges and, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It is also noted that (i) the range limits depend on a particular application (a particular wavelength(s) of operation, materials, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233); and that (iv) it has been held that "A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." In re Applied Materials', Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Chui – Fujita – Heber combination considers a maximum size of the outcoupling elements as a result-effective parameter that affects the outcoupling efficiency of the light guide.
Regarding claim 8, the Matsumoto – Heber combination considers that the distribution pattern of the outcoupling elements on the at least one main face and/or within the volume of the light guide, the number of outcoupling elements, and their size can be predetermined/configured to yield an average haze of 30% or less on at least 50% on one of the main faces, the haze being measured according to ASTM D1003-13 (para. 0020 and 0074 of Heber; claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the Matsumoto – Heber combination considers (Figs. 5A and 6A of Matsumoto) that the outcoupling elements of at least one group of outcoupling elements can be configured to protrude out of or extend into at least one of the main faces and/or are shaped as microprisms.
Regarding claim 10, the Matsumoto – Heber combination considers (Figs. 1A and 5B) of Matsumoto) that the outcoupling elements 240 of at least one group of outcoupling elements can be configured as cavities 242 inside the light guide 200, the cavities being either evacuated or filled with a material (e.g., air) which has a refractive index and/or a haze value different from the refractive index or haze value, respectively, of a material of the light guide (transparent resin material; para. 0035 of Heber).
Regarding claim 11, the Matsumoto – Heber combination considers (e.g., Figs. 15A and 15B; para. 0081 – 0083 of Matsumoto) a display screen, comprising (e.g., Fig. 4 of Heber):
the contemplated light guide 200;
one or more light sources 110 emitting light to be coupled into the light guide 200 at least at one of the lateral faces 230, and
a transmissive display panel 50 located in front of the light guide 200 as seen from an observer (“FIG. 16 is a schematic cross-sectional view of a light source module 100j and a liquid crystal display panel 50 disposed on the light source module 100j” at para. 0083 of Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 14, the Matsumoto – Heber combination considers (e.g., Figs. 15A and 15B; para. 0081 – 0083 of Matsumoto) that the transmissive display panel 50 and the light guide 200 can be being separated only by an air layer or optically bonded
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Heber, and further in view of Park et al (US 2015/0168630 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the Matsumoto – Heber combination considers that the distribution pattern of the outcoupling elements on the at least one main face and /or within the volume of the light guide is predetermined to couple out light by the outcoupling elements with luminance uniformity (“the density distribution of the groove sets 240 on the second surface 220 could be designed so that the light beam 112 exiting from the first surface 210 is uniformly distributed” at para. 0055 of Matsumoto). While the Matsumoto – Heber combination neither quantifies uniformity and nor mentions a particular technique for measuring it, Park discloses (Figs. 9, 21, 41, and 42; para. 0225 – 0232) a light guide having general features similar to those in Chui and comprising:
main faces (identified as 110 and 120 in Fig. 1; para. 0094), each main face 110,120 having at least one edge (comprising 110a,110b) surrounding it, the main faces 110,120 being connected by lateral faces (comprising 130,140; para. 0094) at the edges (as seen in Fig. 1);
a plurality of three-dimensionally shaped light outcoupling elements 307,308 on at least one of the main faces (as in Figs. 2, 9, and 21) and/or within a volume enclosed by the main faces and the lateral faces (as in Fig. 17), the light outcoupling elements 307,308 being distributed according to a predetermined distribution pattern (comprising at least two regions 127,128, as illustrated in Fig. 41; para. 0225);
wherein:
the distribution pattern 307,308 is predetermined to result, for light coupled into the light guide on at least one of the lateral faces (130 in Fig. 9) and propagating so as to be totally internally reflected (at angle q1) within the light guide (para. 0120) prior to entering or impinging on an outcoupling element (300 in Fig. 9 which corresponds to one of the light outcoupling elements 307,308 in Fig. 41) on, in preferring one (e.g., main face 1201 in Fig. 9) of the two main faces 110,1201 to couple out a higher quantity of light over the other (main surface 110 in Fig. 9) of the two main faces 110,1201;
the outcoupling elements 307,308 are provided with a longitudinal section in a plane (the plane of Figs. 9 and 21) perpendicular to at least one of the main faces 110,1201, the longitudinal section being formed approximately like a polygon (e.g., a triangle) with at least three corners and at least three connecting lines connecting the corners (to form the triangular cross-sections in Figs. 9 and 21), with one of the at least three connecting lines being a selected line (310 in Fig. 9; 313 in Fig. 21), which comprises at least a straight segment;
an orientation of the straight segment relative to the plane of the at least one main face defines a blaze angle (as shown in Figs. 9 and 21) and thereby a characteristic outcoupling property, in a way that total internal reflection is disturbed by refraction and/or reflection and a first outcoupling angular range q2 is defined (as illustrated in Figs. 9 and 21; para. 0120 and 0121); and
the plurality of outcoupling elements 307,308 is divided into groups (307 and 308) of outcoupling elements (in the regions 127 and 128 respectively) , each group being complementary (e.g., mirrored) to each of the other groups and members of each group having a common characteristic blaze angle and therefore a common characteristic outcoupling property, with the common characteristic blaze angle and the common characteristic property differing from the characteristic blaze angles and outcoupling properties of members of the other groups, thereby resulting in light being outcoupled with different angular distributions for different groups of outcoupling elements (“A plurality of diffusion patterns 307 may be disposed in the first region 127, and a plurality of diffusion patterns 308 may be disposed in the second region 128. The diffusion patterns 307 and the diffusion patterns 308 may be aligned in opposite directions. That is, the first region 127 including the diffusion patterns 307 may be a mirror image of the second region 128 including the diffusion patterns 308” at para. 0227).
Park quantifies that a target for uniformity may be set at at least 60% or higher (“a luminance uniformity of 80% or higher can be achieved. Therefore, a display device with improved display performance can be provided” at para. 0337 of Park). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light guide of the Matsumoto can be optimized for luminance uniformity of at least 60%, as generally desired by Matsumoto and exemplified by Park. The Matsumoto – Heber – Park combination considers that the luminance uniformity is measured by a two-dimensional intensity distribution (Fig. 64 of Park) that comprises at least 9 points. Selection of any other suitable measurement technique would be well within ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Heber, and further in view of Fattal et al (US 2020/0116918 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the Matsumoto – Heber – Heber combination does not detail a pixel/sub-pixel structure of a display device comprising the contemplated light guide. However, Fattal discloses (Figs. 2A – 2C and 3; Abstract; para. 0043 – 0066) a multiview display device comprising a transmissive display panel 108 with pixels 106, and the light guide 110 with outcoupling elements 120, wherein a spatial extension of the outcoupling elements (s) is smaller than a spatial extension (D) of a pixel for each of the dimensions in a Cartesian space (defined by the plane of 108). The transmissive display panel 108 comprises pixels 106 which consist of subpixels 106’, and the light guide 110 comprising outcoupling elements 120, wherein the spatial extension (s) of the outcoupling elements 120 is smaller than a spatial extension (S) of a subpixel for each of the dimensions in a Cartesian space (para. 0054 and 0055; Eq. (1) of Fattal).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the display device of the Matsumoto – Heber combination can be configured in accordance with the teachings of Fattal in order to enable multiview display device (Abstract of Fattal).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights