CTNF 18/693,530 CTNF 100612 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of the Application Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/18/2024, 6/4/2025, and 10/21/2025 are being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 in line 9 on page 6 (printed on page) states, “…comprising a display substrate…” after the display substrate was introduced in claim 1. For compact prosecution, the examiner interprets, “…comprising a display substrate…” to read, “…comprising the display substrate…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 18 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. Claim 18 recites the limitation "…a pixel definition layer is disposed within the first openings…" in line 4 of page 6 (printed on page). FIG. 6 in the enclosed application shows pixel definition layer 304 under the first opening 330. For compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “…a pixel definition layer is disposed within the first openings…” in claim 18 to read, “…a pixel definition layer is disposed under the first openings…” based on FIG. 6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 7-9, 12-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 111584591 A) . Re Claim 1 Chen teaches a display substrate (FIG. 2 and 3), comprising: a base substrate (100, page 8 par 4), comprising a first display region (A1) and a second display (A2) region located on at least one side of the first display region (A1); a plurality of first pixel units (PX1, page 8 par 2) located in the first display region (A1), wherein a first pixel unit comprises a plurality of first light emitting elements (130, page 8 par 6), a first light emitting element comprises a first anode (131, page 13 par 3), a first organic light emitting structure (132), and a first cathode (133) disposed sequentially along a direction away from the base substrate (100); the first cathode has a plurality of first openings (W12, page 14 par 4), and orthographic projections of the first openings (W12) on the base substrate (100) are not overlapped with an orthographic projection of a light emitting region (132) of the first light emitting element (130) on the base substrate (100); and a plurality of second pixel units (PX2, page 16 par 1) located in the second display region (A2), wherein a second pixel unit comprises a plurality of second light emitting elements (120, page 13 par 3), a second light emitting element comprises a second anode (121), a second organic light emitting structure (122), and a second cathode (123) disposed sequentially along the direction away from the base substrate (100); a sum of areas of light emitting regions (132) of first light emitting elements (130) of the first display region (A1) is less than a sum of areas of light emitting regions (122) of second light emitting elements (120) of the second display region (A2, FIG. 2 and 3). Re Claim 4 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein at least one first pixel unit (PX1) comprises only a plurality of first light emitting elements emitting light of different colors (page 3 par 6). Re Claim 7 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, wherein the first openings (W12) are located between adjacent first pixel units (PX1, FIG. 2). Re Claim 8 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, wherein the second cathode (123) and the first cathode (133) are of an integral structure (FIG. 3A). Re Claim 9 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, wherein a pixel center of at least one first pixel unit (PX1) is different from a pixel center of the second pixel unit (PX2, FIG. 2). Re Claim 12 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, wherein a quantity (3) of first light emitting elements (010, 020, 030, page 17 page 4) comprised in the first pixel unit (PX1) is different from a quantity (4) of second light emitting elements (040, 050-1, 050-2, 060, page 6 par 1) comprised in the second pixel unit (PX2, FIG. 4 and 5b). Re Claim 13 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 12, wherein the quantity (3) of first light emitting elements (010, 020, 030) comprised in the first pixel unit (PX1) is less than the quantity (4) of second light emitting elements (040, 050-1, 050-2, 060) comprised in the second pixel unit (PX2, FIG. 4 and 5b). Re Claim 17 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, wherein the first openings (W12) are provided with a cathode patterning layer (140, page 18 par 3). The limitation, “…and the cathode patterning layer is configured to prevent generation of the first cathode.” is merely functional/intended use limitation that do structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. Re Claim 19 Chen teaches a display apparatus (FIG. 2 and 3a), comprising the display substrate (100, page 19 par 1) according to claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111584591 A) . Re Claim 2 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a spacing between at least one first light emitting element and an adjacent first light emitting element within at least one of the plurality of first pixel units is less than a spacing between the first light emitting element and an adjacent first light emitting element within at least one adjacent first pixel unit. FIG. 2 shows spacing between at least one first light emitting element (page 9 par 3, use 030 in top adjacent pixel shown below) and an adjacent first light emitting element (use 020 in top adjacent pixel shown below) within at least one of the plurality of first pixel units (PX1) is less than a spacing between the first light emitting element (use 020 in bottom adjacent pixel shown below) and an adjacent first light emitting element (010 in bottom adjacent pixel shown below) within at least one adjacent first pixel unit (PX1, FIG. 2). Modified FIG. 2 shown below PNG media_image1.png 690 895 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Chen into the structure of Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of optimally spacing the light emitting elements in the pixel units to improve the device performance and also allow for improvement in the screen ratio of the display. Page 2 par 3 states, “With the rapid development of the display technology, the screen ratio of the display product is gradually improved.” Re Claim 10 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, but does not teach a spacing between at least one first light emitting element and an adjacent first light emitting element within at least one first pixel unit is less than a spacing between at least one second light emitting element and an adjacent second light emitting element within the second pixel unit; the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element emit light of a same color. FIG. 2 shows a spacing between at least one first light emitting element (010) and an adjacent first light emitting element (020) within at least one first pixel unit (PX1) is less than a spacing (see circled gaps below in PX1 and PX2) between at least one second light emitting element (040) and an adjacent second light emitting element (050-2) within the second pixel unit (PX2); the first light emitting element (010, page 17 par 4 “…first color sub-pixel 010…” and page 9 par 5 “…the first color is red…”) and the second light emitting element (040, page 16 par 2 “…the fourth color sub-pixel 040…the fourth color is red…”) emit light of a same color. Modified FIG. 2 shown below PNG media_image2.png 655 875 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Chen into the structure of Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chen in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of optimally spacing the light emitting elements in the pixel units to improve the device performance and also allow for improvement in the screen ratio of the display. Page 2 par 3 states, “With the rapid development of the display technology, the screen ratio of the display product is gradually improved.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111584591 A) in view of Hyun et al (KR 20220094991 A) . Re Claim 3 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, but does not teach at least one first pixel unit shares at least one first light emitting element with an adjacent first pixel unit. Hyun teaches at least one first pixel unit (PX, page 3 par 3) shares at least one first light emitting element (160, page 9 par 3) with an adjacent first pixel unit (PX, page 24 par 10 states, “A plurality of pixels in the second light emitting pixel area share one of the second fluorescent layer.”) It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hyun into the structure of Chen since Hyun teaches a light emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hyun in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of having pixels share a light emitter to optimize the device functionality. Page 2 par 3 states, “It is still necessary to optimize the characteristics of the transportation means and the characteristics of the semiconductor light emitting device from the viewpoint of operation and cost, and research on this is continued.” Re Claim 20 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 2, but does not teach at least one first pixel unit shares at least one first light emitting element with an adjacent first pixel unit. Hyun teaches at least one first pixel unit (PX, page 3 par 3) shares at least one first light emitting element (160, page 9 par 3) with an adjacent first pixel unit (PX, page 24 par 10 states, “A plurality of pixels in the second light emitting pixel area share one of the second fluorescent layer.”) It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hyun into the structure of Chen since Hyun teaches a light emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hyun in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of having pixels share a light emitter to optimize the device functionality. Page 2 par 3 states, “It is still necessary to optimize the characteristics of the transportation means and the characteristics of the semiconductor light emitting device from the viewpoint of operation and cost, and research on this is continued.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111584591 A) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220095839 A) . Re Claim 5 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, but does not teach a first organic light emitting structure of at least one first light emitting element comprises at least a plurality of emitting layers stacked, wherein a connection unit is disposed between adjacent emitting layers. Lee teaches a first organic light emitting structure (FIG. 3) of at least one first light emitting element (162) comprises at least a plurality of emitting layers stacked, wherein a connection unit is disposed between adjacent emitting layers (Page 14 par 1 states, “…the organic light emitting layer 162 may have a stack structure in which a plurality of light emitting layers are stacked with a charge generation layer therebetween.”) It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Lee into the structure of Chen since Lee teaches a light emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of optimally integrating multiple light emitting layers to an organic light emitting structure to allow one to build a display device having a reduced volume and weight while having a large display area is in progress. Page 2 par 4 states, “Display devices are being applied to personal portable devices as well as computer monitors and TVs, and research on a display device having a reduced volume and weight while having a large display area is in progress.” 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111584591 A) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220095839 A) as applied to claim s 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220069039 A1) . Re Claim 6 Chen in view of Lee teaches the display substrate according to claim 5, but does not teach a post spacer is disposed around the first light emitting element. Kim teaches a post spacer (140 [0038], 140 surrounds the light emitting elements 130 in FIG. 2 similar to how 41 surrounds Q1-4 in FIG. 15 of the enclosed application ) is disposed around the first light emitting element (130, FIG. 2). Kim teaches a post spacer (140) [0038] is disposed around the first light emitting element (130, FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kim into the structure of Chen in view of Lee since Kim teaches a light emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in combination with Chen in view of Lee in the above manner for the motivation of integrating spacers around the light emitting elements protect the hardware. [0041] states, “…the plurality of spacers 140 may mitigate external impacts applied to the plurality of light emitting elements 130.” Chen in view of Lee and Kim does not explicitly teach the connection unit is disconnected at a position of the post spacer. Lee does teach the connection unit (between light emitting elements, Page 14 par 1 states, “…the organic light emitting layer 162 may have a stack structure in which a plurality of light emitting layers are stacked with a charge generation layer therebetween.”) will be disconnected at a position of the post spacer (Kim, 140 surrounds outer edges of light emitting elements). Therefore, the connection unit (Lee, charge generation layer between light emitting layers in 162) is disconnected at a position of the post spacer (Kim, 140). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Lee into the structure of Chen in view of Lee and Kim. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in combination with Chen in view of Lee in the above manner for the motivation of optimally integrating the spacers around the connection unit of the light emitting elements to allow one to build a display device having a reduced volume and weight while having a large display area is in progress. Page 2 par 4 states, “Display devices are being applied to personal portable devices as well as computer monitors and TVs, and research on a display device having a reduced volume and weight while having a large display area is in progress.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111584591 A) in view of Hong et al. (KR 20220085101 A) . Re Claim 11 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 10, wherein the first pixel unit (Chen, PX1) comprises one first light emitting element (010, page 9 par 3 “…first display area A1 in the first color sub-pixel 010, the second color sub-pixel 020 and the third color sub-pixel 030…”) emitting light of a first color, one first light emitting element (020) emitting light of a second color, the second pixel (PX2) unit comprises one second light emitting element (040, page 16 par 2 “…fourth color sub-pixel 040 is configured to emit light of a fourth color, and a fifth color sub-pixel (e.g., 050-1, 050-2)…”) emitting light of the first color, one second light emitting element emitting light of the second color, and two second light emitting elements emitting light of the third color (page 9 par 5 “…the first color is red, the second color is green, and the third color is blue.…” and page 16 par 2 “…the fourth color, the fifth color and the sixth color can be selected from red, green and blue.”); a spacing between the first light emitting element (020) emitting the light of the second color and an adjacent first light emitting element emitting light (010) of the first color within the first pixel unit (PX1) is less than a distance between the second light emitting element (050-2) emitting the light of the second color and an adjacent second light emitting element (040) emitting light of the first color within the second pixel unit (PX2, see modified FIG. 2 circled areas below claim 10). Chen does not teach two first light emitting elements emitting light of a third color, and the four first light emitting elements comprised in the first pixel unit are arranged in a shape of a diamond; the four second light emitting elements comprised in the second pixel unit are arranged in a shape of a diamond. Hong teaches two first light emitting elements (302, page 3 par 6) emitting light of a third color (green), and the four first light emitting elements (301, 302, 302, 303) comprised in the first pixel unit (300 in 1A of FIG. 2) are arranged in a shape of a diamond (page 4 par 3 “…300 and 310 may have a rhombus shape.”); the four second light emitting elements (310a, 310b, 310b, 310c, page 6 par 3) comprised in the second pixel unit (310 in 2A of FIG. 2) are arranged in a shape of a diamond (page 4 par 3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hong into the structure of Chen since Hong teaches a light emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hong in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of optimally shaping the pixel structures to optimally guide the screen’s light emitted to help protect user information. Page 3 par 1 states, “…blocking the light traveling to the side and passing only the light traveling in the front using the private film, only the user except the people around can recognize the image.” Re Claim 14 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 13, wherein the first pixel unit (PX1) comprises one first light emitting element (010, page 9 par 3) emitting light of a first color (red, page 9 par 5), one first light emitting element emitting (020) light of a second color (blue “third color”), and one first light emitting element (030) emitting light of a third color (green “second color”); the second pixel unit (PX2) comprises one second light emitting element (040, page 16 par 2) emitting light of the first color (red “fourth color” on page 16 par 2), one second light emitting element (060) emitting light of the second color (blue, “sixth color”), and two second light emitting elements (050-1 and 050-2) emitting light of the third color (green, “fifth color”). Chen does not teach the four second light emitting elements comprised in the second pixel unit are arranged in a shape of a diamond. Hong teaches the four second light emitting elements (310a, 310b, 310b, 310c, page 6 par 3) comprised in the second pixel unit (310 in 2A of FIG. 2) are arranged in a shape of a diamond (page 4 par 3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hong into the structure of Chen since Hong teaches a light emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hong in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of optimally shaping the pixel structures to optimally guide the screen’s light emitted to help protect user information. Page 3 par 1 states, “…blocking the light traveling to the side and passing only the light traveling in the front using the private film, only the user except the people around can recognize the image.” Re Claim 15 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim l, but does not teach an area of a light emitting region of the first light emitting element is less than an area of a light emitting region of a second light emitting element emitting light of a same color. Hong teaches an area of a light emitting region (303, page 13) of the first light emitting element (303) is less than an area of a light emitting region (312c, page 14) of a second light emitting element (312c) emitting light of a same color (blue, FIG. 6). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hong into the structure of Chen since Hong teaches a light emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hong in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of optimally sizing the light emitters to optimally guide the screen’s light emitted to help protect user information. Page 3 par 1 states, “…blocking the light traveling to the side and passing only the light traveling in the front using the private film, only the user except the people around can recognize the image.” Re Claim 16 Chen in view of Hong teaches the display substrate according to claim 15, but does not explicitly teach a ratio of the area of the light emitting region of the first light emitting element to the area of the light emitting region of the second light emitting element emitting the light of the same color is 10% to 50%. Hong does teach a ratio of the area of the light emitting region of the first light emitting element (303) to the area of the light emitting region of the second light emitting element (312c) emitting the light of the same color is somewhere between 10% to 50% (FIG. 6). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Hong into the structure of Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hong in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of optimally sizing the light emitters to optimally guide the screen’s light emitted to help protect user information. Page 3 par 1 states, “…blocking the light traveling to the side and passing only the light traveling in the front using the private film, only the user except the people around can recognize the image.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal light emitting region size . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111584591 A) in view of Kang et al. (WO 2022149663 A1) . Re Claim 18 Chen teaches the display substrate according to claim 17, wherein a pixel definition layer (101, page 13 par 3) is disposed within the first openings (W12, FIG. 3a), the cathode patterning layer (140) is disposed sequentially on a side of the pixel definition layer (101) away from the base substrate (100, FIG. 3a). Chen does not teach a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer are disposed sequentially on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the base substrate. Kang teaches a hole injection layer (page 18 par 5 “…the hole injection layer is formed between the first stack ST1, the first anode electrode AE1…”), a hole transport layer (HTL1, page 18 par 3), an electron transport layer (ETL1, page 18 par 4), and an electron injection layer (page 18 par 1 “…the electron injection layer is formed between the third electron transport layer ETL3 and the cathode electrode CE…”) are disposed sequentially on a side of the pixel definition layer (150, page 11 par 2) away from the base substrate (110, page 9 last par, FIG. 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kang into the structure of Chen since Kang teaches a light emitting display device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kang in combination with Chen in the above manner for the motivation of integrating layers in the LED to smoothly inject holes into the first emission layers. Page 18 par 5 states, “The hole injection layer may serve to more smoothly inject holes into the first emission layer EML1 , the second emission layer EML2 , and the third emission layer EML3 .” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MARK SIPLING whose telephone number is (571)272-3269. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM EST. 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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. /KENNETH MARK SIPLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818 /DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 6/15/26 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 6 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 7 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 8 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 9 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 10 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 11 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 12 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 13 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 14 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 15 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 16 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 17 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/693,530 Page 18 Art Unit: 2818
Prosecution Insights