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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 08/14/2026, in which claim 1 was amended, claim 2 was cancelled, claims 12-18 were withdrawn, has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 (e). Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order:
(1) A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
(2) A phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises," and
(3) Those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “the organic film layer comprises a via hole, the via hole comprises a first opening, a second opening, and an inner wall located between the first opening and the second opening, the inner wall comprises a first inner wall slope gradient zone, a second inner wall slope gradient zone, and an inner wall slope stability zone between the first inner wall slope gradient zone and the second inner wall slope gradient zone, wherein an inclination angle of the inner wall slop stability zone relative to the plane where the substrate is located is less than or equal to 20o” of claim 11 in combination with every claimed features of claim 1 on which claim 11 depends must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. Correction of the following is required: claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the organic film layer comprises a via hole.” However, the specification does not provide description of a complete specific embodiment comprising all features as claimed. Particularly, the specification does not provide description of location of via hole with respect to other claimed features. The specification does not describe whether via hole is formed in pixel area or in spacing area or in any specific area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation “the average thickness of the first organic film portion is greater than or equal to 15000Å” which covers an infinity thickness. However, the specification does not provide any specific example of a first organic film portion having an infinity thickness. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 4 was not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the organic film layer comprises a via hole.” However, the specification does not provide description of a complete specific embodiment comprising all features as claimed. Particularly, the specification does not provide description of location of via hole with respect to other claimed features. The specification does not describe whether via hole is formed in pixel area or in spacing area or in any specific area.
The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. §112(a) is to determine if “the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP § 2163.02. In addition, the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.§112(a) applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. As stated by the Federal Circuit, “[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349; "[e]ven if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343–46 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed [see Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)].” See also MPEP §2163.03.
The instant specification lacks any description of an actual reduction to practice which would be evidenced by specific examples, drawings and an accompanied description of structural features and/or an accompanied description of processing steps, etc. that are sufficiently detailed to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. Thus, there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
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, claim 11 recites “wherein the organic film layer comprises a via hole.” However, the specification does not provide description of a complete specific embodiment comprising a via hole in combination with all other claimed features. It is unclear where in the organic film layer the via hole is formed. It is unclear whether via hole is formed in pixel area or in spacing area or in a specific area.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US Pub. 20220229338).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5-Fig. 6, paragraph [0058]-[0079] a display panel, comprising:
a substrate [100] and a signal line [31] arranged on the substrate [100], the substrate [100] comprising at least one display area [B], each display area [B] comprising a plurality of pixel areas and a spacing area [A] located between any two adjacent pixel areas [B] of the plurality of pixel areas, the signal line [31] being located within the spacing area [A],
wherein the display panel further comprises an organic film layer [600], the organic film layer [600] is arranged on a side of the signal line [31] away from the substrate [100], and an orthographic projection of the organic film layer [600] on the substrate [100] covers an orthographic projection of the signal line [31] on the substrate [100];
wherein the organic film layer [600] comprises a top area and a side surface, the top area is located on a side of the organic film layer [600] away from the signal line [31], and the side surface is located between the top area and the signal line [31], wherein an inclination angle of the side surface relative to a plane where the substrate [100] is located is greater than or equal to 15° [an inclination angle of the side surface in Fig. 2 is greater than 15o].
PNG
media_image1.png
397
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3-5, Zhu et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0076]
wherein the organic film layer [600] extends from the spacing area [A] to the pixel area [B], wherein the organic film layer [600] comprises a first organic film portion and a second organic film portion, the first organic film portion is located in the spacing area [A], and the second organic film portion is located in the pixel area [B], wherein an average thickness [h1] of the first organic film portion is greater than an average thickness [h2] of the second organic film portion;
wherein the average thickness [h1] of the first organic film portion is greater than or equal to 15000Å [2 μm-3 μm];
wherein the average thickness [h2] of the second organic film portion is less than or equal to 8000Å [about 8000Å].
Regarding claim 6, Zhu et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 6, paragraph [0078]
a common electrode layer [Ec and s1], the common electrode layer [Ec and s1] comprising a plurality of parallel and spaced strip- shaped common electrodes, wherein some of the plurality of strip-shaped common electrodes [s1] are arranged in the spacing area [A], and the organic film layer [600] is located between the strip-shaped common electrodes [s1] that are arranged in the spacing area [A] and the signal line [31].
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, 3-6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu et al. (US Pub. 20220229338) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. 20230305653).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5-Fig. 6, paragraph [0058]-[0079] a display panel, comprising:
a substrate [100] and a signal line [31] arranged on the substrate [100], the substrate [100] comprising at least one display area [B], each display area [B] comprising a plurality of pixel areas and a spacing area [A] located between any two adjacent pixel areas [B] of the plurality of pixel areas, the signal line [31] being located within the spacing area [A],
wherein the display panel further comprises an organic film layer [600], the organic film layer [600] is arranged on a side of the signal line [31] away from the substrate [100], and an orthographic projection of the organic film layer [600] on the substrate [100] covers an orthographic projection of the signal line [31] on the substrate [100];
wherein the organic film layer [600] comprises a top area and a side surface, the top area is located on a side of the organic film layer [600] away from the signal line [31], and the side surface is located between the top area and the signal line [31].
Zhu et al. does not explicitly state that
wherein an inclination angle of the side surface relative to a plane where the substrate is located is greater than or equal to 15°.
However, Fig. 2 of Zhu et al. reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inclination angle of the inclined surface with respect to the plane where the substrate is located is greater than 15o. See annotated drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For further providing support for an inclination angle of the inclined surface of an organic film layer of greater than or equal to 15°, Li et al. is cited.
Li et al. discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 10, paragraphs [0010]-[0012], [0074], [0122]
wherein an inclination angle of the side surface relative to a plane where the substrate is located is greater than or equal to 15°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Li et al. into the method of Zhu et al. to include wherein an inclination angle of the side surface relative to a plane where the substrate is located is greater than or equal to 15°. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable angle range of inclination angle of the side surface of the organic film layer thereby facilitating the reliable formation of adjacent layer [paragraph [0121]-[0122] of Li et al.].
Regarding claims 3-5, Zhu et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0076]
wherein the organic film layer [600] extends from the spacing area [A] to the pixel area [B], wherein the organic film layer [600] comprises a first organic film portion and a second organic film portion, the first organic film portion is located in the spacing area [A], and the second organic film portion is located in the pixel area [B], wherein an average thickness [h1] of the first organic film portion is greater than an average thickness [h2] of the second organic film portion;
wherein the average thickness [h1] of the first organic film portion is greater than or equal to 15000Å [2 μm-3 μm];
wherein the average thickness [h2] of the second organic film portion is less than or equal to 8000Å [about 8000Å].
Regarding claim 6, Zhu et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 6, paragraph [0078]
a common electrode layer [Ec and s1], the common electrode layer [Ec and s1] comprising a plurality of parallel and spaced strip- shaped common electrodes, wherein some of the plurality of strip-shaped common electrodes [s1] are arranged in the spacing area [A], and the organic film layer [600] is located between the strip-shaped common electrodes [s1] that are arranged in the spacing area [A] and the signal line [31].
Regarding claim 11, Zhu et al. discloses in paragraph [0077]
wherein the organic film layer [600] comprises a via hole [“When the organic film layer is exposed, effective via holes are formed to prepare conditions for etching the passivation layer 500”].
Zhu et al. fails to disclose
the via hole comprises a first opening, a second opening, and an inner wall located between the first opening and the second opening, the inner wall comprises a first inner wall slope gradient zone, a second inner wall slope gradient zone, and an inner wall slope stability zone between the first inner wall slope gradient zone and the second inner wall slope gradient zone, wherein an inclination angle of the inner wall slope stability zone relative to the plane where the substrate is located is less than or equal to 20o.
Li et al. discloses in Fig. 10, paragraphs [0010]-[0012], [0037], [0121]-[0122]
the via hole comprises a first opening, a second opening, and an inner wall located between the first opening and the second opening, the inner wall comprises a first inner wall slope gradient zone [bottom portion of inner wall], a second inner wall slope gradient zone [top portion of inner wall], and an inner wall slope stability zone [middle portion of inner wall] between the first inner wall slope gradient zone and the second inner wall slope gradient zone, wherein an inclination angle of the inner wall slope stability zone relative to the plane where the substrate is located is less than or equal to 20o.
PNG
media_image2.png
263
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Li et al. into the method of Zhu et al. to include the via hole comprises a first opening, a second opening, and an inner wall located between the first opening and the second opening, the inner wall comprises a first inner wall slope gradient zone, a second inner wall slope gradient zone, and an inner wall slope stability zone between the first inner wall slope gradient zone and the second inner wall slope gradient zone, wherein an inclination angle of the inner wall slope stability zone relative to the plane where the substrate is located is less than or equal to 20o. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of a via hole.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US Pub. 20220229338) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. 20230305653) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20180114822).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu et al. fails to disclose
wherein the at least one display area comprises a plurality of display areas, the substrate further comprises a plurality of non- display areas, each of the plurality of non-display areas surrounds a corresponding display area of the plurality of display areas, the substrate further comprises a cutting area located between any two adjacent non-display areas of the plurality of non-display areas, wherein the organic film layer extends from the display area to the non-display area and the cutting area.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 9, paragraph [0007]-[0008], [0076]
wherein the at least one display area comprises a plurality of display areas, the substrate further comprises a plurality of non- display areas, each of the plurality of non-display areas surrounds a corresponding display area [AA] of the plurality of display areas, the substrate further comprises a cutting area [CL] located between any two adjacent non-display areas [NA] of the plurality of non-display areas, wherein the organic film layer [BN] extends from the display area [AA] to the non-display area [NA] and the cutting area [CL].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the method of Zhu et al. to include wherein the at least one display area comprises a plurality of display areas, the substrate further comprises a plurality of non- display areas, each of the plurality of non-display areas surrounds a corresponding display area of the plurality of display areas, the substrate further comprises a cutting area located between any two adjacent non-display areas of the plurality of non-display areas, wherein the organic film layer extends from the display area to the non-display area and the cutting area. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a mother substrate to simultaneously manufacture a plurality of display panels for convenience of process and preventing a crack from being generated in the inorganic layers in a cutting process and ensure reliability and stability of the product [paragraph [0008], [0078] of Kim et al.].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US Pub. 20220229338) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. 20230305653) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhu et al. (US Pub. 20170045776), hereafter Zhu776.
Regarding claim 10, Zhu et al. fails to disclose
a photo space, wherein the photo space is located on a side of the organic film layer away from the substrate.
Zhu776 discloses in Fig. 6, paragraph [0030]
a photo space [204], wherein the photo space [204] is located on a side of a film layer [305] away from the substrate [102].
Incorporating the teaching of Zhu776 into the device of Zhu et al. would result to “the photo space is located on a side of the organic film layer away from the substrate.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhu776 into the method of Zhu et al. to include a photo space, wherein the photo space is located on a side of the organic film layer away from the substrate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zhu et al. in the above manner for the purpose of shielding an electric field between adjacent pixel units and preventing the occurrence of crosscolor [paragraph [0030] of Zhu776].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable 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: Prior art of record does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device as a whole. Specifically, the closest prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination) the limitations of “wherein the organic film layer comprises a first organic film portion, a second organic film portion, a third organic film portion and a fourth organic film portion, the first organic film portion is located in the spacing area, the second organic film portion is located in the pixel area, the third organic film portion is located in the cutting area, the fourth organic film portion is located in the non-display area, wherein an average thickness of the third organic film portion is greater than or equal to an average thickness of the first organic film portion, and the average thickness of the third organic film portion is greater than an average thickness of at least one of the second organic film portion and the fourth organic film portion” of claim 8 in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant. Thus, the Applicant’s claims are determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Claim 9 is allowable based on their dependence on claim 8, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to claim objection, Examiner respectfully disagrees because amended claim 1 still fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.75 (e). Therefore, the objection of claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees because "[e]ven if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343–46 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In this case, as stated in the rejection, claim 4 recites the limitation “the average thickness of the first organic film portion is greater than or equal to 15000Å” which covers an infinity thickness. However, the specification does not provide any description of a specific example of a first organic film portion having an infinity thickness.
The specification does not provide sufficient detail description of location of via hole with respect to other claimed features. The specification does not describe whether via hole is formed in pixel area or in spacing area or in any specific area. Therefore, the specification fails to contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
Consequently, Applicant’s arguments with respect to 112 rejections of claims 4 and 11 are not persuasive. The 112 rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Zhu et al. does not disclose or teach that the inclination angle of the inclined surface is greater than or equal to 15o. In fact, Zhu et al. does not mention the inclination angle of the inclined surface with respect to the plane where the substrate is located.” Examiner respectfully disagrees because Fig. 2 of Zhu reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inclination angle of the inclined surface with respect to the plane where the substrate is located is greater than 15o. See annotated drawing below.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
