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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Title
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. (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested:
“Display Panel and Display Apparatus Having a Light Processing Layer with Different Refraction Layer Area Ratios in Different Display Areas”
Because the claimed invention is directed to a display panel including a light processing layer having first and second refraction layers, wherein the area ratio of the first refraction layer to the second refraction layer differs between different display areas. The recited display apparatus merely includes the display panel and does not constitute a separate inventive aspect. Accordingly, applicant is required to amend the title to more particularly identify the invention.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in legal terminology which is too similar to claim language. In particular, legal phraseology such as the term “comprising”, “said” and “wherein” which are commonly used to define the limitations and scope pf patent claims, should generally be avoided in U.S. patent abstracts because the purpose of the abstract is not to define the patent claims, but to provide the reader with a clear and concise summary. The abstract should use plain language to describe the invention's technical problem, solution, and principal use. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” etc. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
Paragraph [0057] recites "the first sub-pixel 3 of the first light-emitting unit." Since reference numeral 3 denotes the third sub-pixel throughout the application, the terminology is inconsistent and should be corrected for consistency.
Paragraph [0065] recites "input outlet 34." It is unclear what "input outlet" denotes because reference numeral 34 is identified throughout the specification as a light inlet, whereas reference numeral 33 is identified as a light outlet. Applicant should revise the specification to provide consistent terminology.
Claim Objections
Claim 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, it recites "the first refractive portion" whereas parent claim 3 recites "the first refraction portion." It is unclear whether these terms refer to the same element. Applicant should amend the claims to use consistent terminology throughout.
Regarding claim 6, it recites "the first refractive portion" whereas parent claim 3 recites "the first refraction portion." It is unclear whether these terms refer to the same element. Applicant should amend the claims to use consistent terminology throughout.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "a light transmittance of the second area being greater than that of the first area." It is unclear what the term "that" refers to because the claim does not expressly identify the referenced subject matter. Accordingly, the scope of the comparative limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, rendering the claim indefinite.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites "a ratio of an orthographic projection area of the first refraction layer to that of the second refraction layer." It is unclear what the term "that" refers to because the phrase contains multiple preceding noun phrases. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed ratio cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, rendering the claim indefinite.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites "a plurality of light-emitting units" and later recites "the light-emitting unit." It is unclear which one of the previously recited plurality of light-emitting units is being referenced by the singular term "the light-emitting unit." Accordingly, "the light-emitting unit" lacks proper antecedent basis, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites the refractive index of the second refraction layer" without previously introducing a refractive index. Accordingly, "the refractive index" lacks proper antecedent basis
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites "a thickness direction of the substrate" and later recites "in the direction of the thickness." It is unclear whether "the direction of the thickness" refers to the previously recited "thickness direction of the substrate" or a different direction. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites "the light-emitting unit." Parent claim 1 recites "a plurality of light-emitting units" but does not identify a particular light-emitting unit corresponding to the subsequently recited singular element. Accordingly, it is unclear which one of the plurality of light-emitting units is being referenced.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites "the light-emitting unit." Parent claim 1 recites "a plurality of light-emitting units" but does not identify a particular light-emitting unit corresponding to the subsequently recited singular element. Accordingly, "the light-emitting unit" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 4, the claim recites both "a plurality of sub-pixels" and "at least two adjacent sub-pixels," and subsequently recites "the sub-pixel." It is unclear which previously recited sub-pixel is being referenced. Accordingly, "the sub-pixel" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 4, the claim recites "the adjacent sub-pixels." However, the claim previously recites "at least two adjacent sub-pixels." It is unclear whether "the adjacent sub-pixels" refers to the previously recited "at least two adjacent sub-pixels" or a different set of adjacent sub-pixels.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites "the first light-emitting unit" without previously introducing a first light-emitting unit. Accordingly, "the first light-emitting unit" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 5, the claim recites "an adjacent second light-emitting unit" and later recites "the second light-emitting unit." It is unclear whether "the second light-emitting unit" refers to the previously recited "adjacent second light-emitting unit" or to a different second light-emitting unit.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the first refraction portion surrounds the first, second, and third sub-pixels "at the same time." The phrase "at the same time" is a temporal expression that renders the recited structural relationship unclear in the context of the claimed apparatus. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites "a corresponding sub-pixel." However, it is unclear what element or structure the recited sub-pixel is corresponding to. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Further regarding claim 8, the claim previously recites both "a plurality of sub-pixels" and "a corresponding sub-pixel," and subsequently recites "the sub-pixel." It is unclear which previously recited sub-pixel is being referenced.
Further regarding claim 8, the claim initially recites "the first refraction portion" and subsequently recites "the first refraction portions." No proper antecedent basis exists for the plural term "the first refraction portions." Accordingly, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites "the orthographic projection of the light outlet." Parent claim 8 recites "the light outlet," but does not previously introduce an orthographic projection of the light outlet. Accordingly, "the orthographic projection of the light outlet" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 9, the claim recites "the corresponding sub-pixel." It is unclear what element or structure the recited sub-pixel is corresponding to. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites "an orthographic projection of the light outlet." Assuming claim 9 is amended to properly introduce "an orthographic projection of the light outlet," claim 10 should refer back to the previously introduced element as "the orthographic projection of the light outlet." As drafted, the claim reintroduces the element using the indefinite article, creating ambiguity as to whether the same orthographic projection or a different orthographic projection is intended.
Further regarding claim 10, the claim recites "the distance." However, no antecedent basis exists for "the distance." The claim does not previously introduce a distance prior to referring to "the distance."
Further regarding claim 10, the claim recites "the distance between the light outlet and the sub-pixel is 0-2 μm." However, the claim does not specify how the recited distance is measured. It is therefore unclear whether the recited distance is an edge-to-edge distance, a center-to-center distance, a shortest distance, a projected distance, or another distance measurement. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Further regarding claim 10, the claim recites "the sub-pixel." The parent claims recite multiple sub-pixels, including "a plurality of sub-pixels," "a corresponding sub-pixel," and "the adjacent sub-pixels." It is therefore unclear which previously recited sub-pixel is being referenced, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites that the first refraction portion is arranged around "at least two adjacent sub-pixels at the same time." The phrase "at the same time" is a temporal expression that renders the recited structural relationship unclear in the context of the claimed apparatus. It is therefore unclear whether the phrase defines a structural arrangement or an operational or temporal characteristic. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claims 2-16, because of their dependency on claim 1, these claims are also objected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Further regarding claims 2-14, the claims 2–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claims 2–14 recite a "light inlet" and a "light outlet" associated with the first refraction layer. However, neither the claims nor the specification clearly define what physical structures constitute the recited light inlet and light outlet, or how those structures are structurally and/or functionally distinct from one another.
For purposes of examination only, the Examiner interprets the recited light inlet and light outlet as referring to different portions of the opening(s) defined by the first refraction portion(s), wherein a portion vertically overlapping a corresponding light-emitting unit is treated as the light outlet, and a portion vertically overlapping a corresponding pixel limiting portion is treated as the light inlet, based on the disclosure of paragraphs [0039]-[0047].
However, even under this interpretation, the claims remain indefinite. The claims do not positively recite any structural or functional characteristics that distinguish the light inlet from the light outlet. Rather, the only apparent distinction is their positional relationship relative to underlying structures (i.e., the pixel opening and the pixel limiting portion). The claims do not specify whether the recited light inlet and light outlet are separate openings, separate structural elements, distinct regions of a common opening, optical interfaces, surfaces, or other identifiable physical structures.
Moreover, the specification does not provide objective boundaries by which a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine where the light inlet ends and the light outlet begins. As a result, the recited light inlet and light outlet are distinguished only by their positional relationship, rather than by any objectively identifiable structural characteristics.
Accordingly, because the claims fail to define the structural identity and boundaries of the recited light inlet and light outlet with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined. Therefore, claims 2–14 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-9, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi (US 20240268196).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 3 of Shi discloses A display panel comprising a first area (‘First Display Area’ with A1 and s1(s) area) and a second area (‘Second Display Area’ with A2 and s2(s) area), a light transmittance of the second area being greater than that of the first area ([0081]: because the light emitting area A2 is greater than the light emitting area A1),
wherein the display panel [0035] comprising:
a substrate 211;
a light-emitting layer 214 arranged on the substrate,
wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a plurality of light-emitting units arranged at intervals (Fig 3; via 213);
a light processing layer (including layers 22 and 23) arranged on a side of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate,
the light processing layer comprising a first refraction layer (the layer formed by a plurality of first refraction portions 22) and a second refraction layer 23 that covers the first refraction layer (Fig 3, [0022]),
wherein the first refraction layer is provided with a light outlet (the opening between 22) overlapped with the light-emitting unit in a thickness direction of the substrate (Fig 3), and
the refractive index of the second refraction layer is greater than that of the first refraction layer [0055],
wherein in the direction of the thickness, a ratio of an orthographic projection area of the first refraction layer to an orthographic projection area of the second refraction layer on the second area is less than a ratio of an orthographic projection area of the first refraction layer to an orthographic projection area of the second refraction layer on the first area (as explained in paragraph [0081], the first display area has a smaller light-emitting area (A1) than the second display area (A2). Consequently, the orthographic projection area occupied by the first refraction layer (22) is proportionally greater in the first display area than in the second display area, while the second refraction layer (23) extends across both display areas. Therefore, the ratio of the orthographic projection area of the first refraction layer to that of the second refraction layer is greater in the first display area than in the second display area, thereby teaching that the ratio on the second area is less than the ratio on the first area, as claimed).
Regarding claim 2. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a pixel limiting portion 213 (Fig 3, [0131]), the pixel limiting portion encloses a pixel opening (defined by 213), the light-emitting unit is arranged in the pixel opening (Fig 3), and wherein in the second area, the first refraction layer is provided with a light inlet, and a part of the second refraction layer is filled in the light inlet and the light outlet, an orthographic projection of the light inlet in the thickness direction is located on the pixel limiting portion, and the light outlet is arranged in the thickness direction corresponding to the pixel opening (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 3. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 2, wherein the first refraction layer comprises a first refraction portion, and in the second area,
an orthographic projection of the first refraction portion in the thickness direction is located on the pixel limiting portion, the first refraction portion encloses the light outlet and the light inlet which are arranged alternately (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 4. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 3, wherein the light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of sub-pixels arranged at intervals (Fig 3, [0131]), the orthographic projection of the first refraction portion in the thickness direction continuously surrounds at least two adjacent sub-pixels, the sub-pixel is arranged corresponding to the light outlet in the thickness direction, the pixel limiting portion between the adjacent sub-pixels is arranged corresponding to the light inlet in the thickness direction, and at least a part of the light outlet and the light inlet are arranged at an interval (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 5. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 4, wherein the light-emitting unit comprises a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel and a third sub-pixel arranged at intervals (Fig 3, [0131]), the orthographic projection of the first refractive portion in the thickness direction continuously surrounds the first sub-pixel and the second sub-pixel of the first light-emitting unit, the third sub-pixel of the first light-emitting unit and the first sub-pixel of an adjacent second light-emitting unit, and the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel of the second light-emitting unit (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 4, wherein the light-emitting unit comprises a first sub-pixel, a second sub-pixel and a third sub-pixel arranged at intervals (Fig 3, [0131]), the orthographic projection of the first refractive portion in the thickness direction surrounds the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel at the same time (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 4, wherein the orthographic projection of the first refraction portion in the thickness direction is arranged around an edge of the second area, and the light outlet and the light inlet enclosed by the first refraction portion are all continuous with each other (As shown in Fig. 3, the leftmost and rightmost first refraction portions (22) of the first display area are positioned at the boundary between the first display area and the second display area and, therefore, are arranged around the edge of the second display area. Furthermore, for purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the recited light outlet and light inlet under the broadest reasonable interpretation as corresponding to different portions of the same opening enclosed by the first refraction portion. Under this interpretation, Shi discloses that the opening enclosed by each first refraction portion extends continuously without any intervening structural separation. Accordingly, the portions of the opening corresponding to the recited light outlet and light inlet are likewise continuous with each other, thereby teaching "the light outlet and the light inlet enclosed by the first refraction portion are all continuous with each other," as recited).
Regarding claim 8. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 3, wherein the light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (R,G,B) arranged at intervals (Fig 3, [0131]), the orthographic projection of the first refraction portion in the thickness direction surrounds a corresponding sub-pixel, the sub-pixel is arranged corresponding to the light outlet in the thickness direction, and the first refraction portions corresponding to the adjacent sub-pixels are arranged at an interval to form the light inlet, the light outlet is spaced from the light inlet (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 8, wherein the orthographic projection of the light outlet in the thickness direction at least covers the corresponding sub-pixel (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 13. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 3, wherein the first refraction portion comprises a light contact surface located on a side of the first refraction portion close to the light inlet, and the light contact surface is arranged as an inclined plane (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 14. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 3, wherein a thickness of the first refraction portion is 1-2 μm [0014] (Since the first refraction layer is formed by first refraction portions 22, the disclosed thickness of the first refraction layer likewise defines the thickness of the fir diffraction portions).
Regarding claim 16. Shi discloses A display apparatus comprising the display panel of claim 1 [0004].
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 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shi (US 20240268196).
Regarding claim 10. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 9. Shi discloses that the orthographic projection of the light outlet is larger than the pixel opening. But Shi does not expressly disclose wherein a size of an orthographic projection of the light outlet in the thickness direction is larger than a size of the pixel opening and the distance between the light outlet and the sub-pixel is 0-2 μm.
For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the recited distance between the light outlet and the sub-pixel under the broadest reasonable interpretation as the vertical spacing, in the thickness direction, between the opening corresponding to the light outlet and the corresponding sub-pixel.
Shi discloses a display panel including a light-emitting layer, optical processing layers disposed above the light-emitting layer, and intervening layers that define the vertical spacing between the light-emitting layer and the optical processing structure. Shi further discloses that the thicknesses of the optical layers are selected to provide the desired optical performance of the display panel (e.g., [0014]). Accordingly, the spacing between the light outlet and the corresponding sub-pixel would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as a result-effective variable, the value of which could be optimized through routine experimentation to achieve the desired optical performance.
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not identify the claimed range of 0–2 μm as critical, nor does it demonstrate that selecting a distance within the claimed range yields unexpected results or achieves a technical advantage over adjacent values. Rather, the claimed range merely represents the optimization of a known design parameter.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable value of a result-effective variable ordinarily involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05 (Optimization of Result-Effective Variables). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to optimize the spacing between the light outlet and the corresponding sub-pixel to a value within the claimed range of 0–2 μm through routine experimentation. Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Shi.
Regarding claim 15. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 1, wherein the display panel comprises an encapsulation layer 215, the encapsulation layer is arranged on a side of the light-emitting layer away from the substrate (Fig 3).
But Fig 3 of Shi does not disclose touch layer.
However, the embodiment Fig 17 of Shi discloses a display panel including a touch layer (217) disposed on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the light-emitting layer (Fig. 17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel of Fig. 3 with the touch layer disclosed in Fig. 17 because both embodiments are directed to display panels of the same type, and the touch layer is a conventional component used to provide touch input functionality. Incorporating the touch layer into the display panel of Fig. 3 would have predictably resulted in a display panel including an encapsulation layer, a touch layer disposed on a side of the encapsulation layer away from the light-emitting layer, and the light processing layer disposed between the encapsulation layer and the touch layer, as recited.
Furthermore, the proposed modification merely incorporates a known feature from one embodiment of Shi into another compatible embodiment of the same reference without changing the principle of operation of the display panel. Such a modification represents the predictable use of a known element according to its established function and would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shi (US 20240268196) in view of Huang et al. (US 20220320146).
Regarding claim 11. Shi discloses The display panel of claim 3, wherein the light-emitting unit comprises a plurality of sub-pixels (R,G,B) arranged at intervals (Fig 3).
But Shi does not expressly disclose the second area comprises a first part and a second part, a resolution of the first part is greater than a resolution of the second part, the orthographic projection of the first refraction portion in the first part in the thickness direction is arranged around at least two adjacent sub-pixels at the same time, the orthographic projection of the first refraction portion in the second part in the thickness direction surrounds a corresponding sub-pixel.
However, Huang teaches dividing a display region into multiple sub-regions having different resolutions. Specifically, Huang discloses that the second region includes a first display region 122 and a second display region 121, wherein the resolution of the first display region is higher than the resolution of the second display region (Abstract; [0007]; [0038]; Fig. 1). Huang further explains that the lower-resolution second display region accommodates driving circuitry while the higher-resolution first display region provides a conventional display function.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi by providing the second area with first and second parts having different resolutions, as taught by Huang, in order to accommodate display circuitry while maintaining desirable display quality and optical performance in different portions of the display panel. Such a modification merely applies Huang's known variable-resolution display architecture to Shi's display panel and would have yielded predictable results.
The remaining limitations of claim 11 relating to the first refraction portion surrounding at least two adjacent sub-pixels in one part of the second area and surrounding a corresponding sub-pixel in another part of the second area are taught by Shi, as discussed above with respect to claims 4 and 8.
Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Shi in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 12. Shi in view of Huang discloses The display panel of claim 11, wherein a number of sub-pixels surrounded by the first refraction portion is decreased in a direction from the first part to the second part.
As discussed above with respect to claim 11, Shi teaches first refraction portions that may continuously surround a plurality of adjacent sub-pixels (claim 4) or surround an individual corresponding sub-pixel (claim 8), while Huang teaches dividing the second area into a first display region and a second display region having different resolutions, wherein the resolution of the first display region is greater than the resolution of the second display region (Abstract; [0007], [0038]; Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first refraction portions in the higher-resolution first display region to surround a greater number of adjacent sub-pixels than those in the lower-resolution second display region, thereby adapting Shi's optical structures to Huang's variable-resolution display architecture. Such a modification would have predictably resulted in the number of sub-pixels surrounded by the first refraction portion decreasing in a direction from the first part toward the second part, as recited.
The motivation for the modification is to appropriately adapt the optical structure to the differing pixel densities of the respective display regions while maintaining the desired optical performance of the display panel. The modification merely applies Shi's known optical arrangements to Huang's known variable-resolution display regions and would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights