CTNF 18/749,511 CTNF 75558 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. 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 AIA Claim s 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, due to the claimed subject matter: “ a nth (n is a natural number) scan line .” Zero is a natural number. Therefore, it’s unclear whether a scan line is required by the claimed invention. It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what the metes, bounds, scope, and meaning of the above limitation are intended to be. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, due to the claimed subject matter: “ a kth (k is a natural number) unit pixel driving circuit .” Zero is a natural number. Therefore, it’s unclear whether a kth unit pixel driving circuit is required by the claimed invention. It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what the metes, bounds, scope, and meaning of the above limitation are intended to be. 07-34-03 The term “ adjacent ” in claims 1, 3, 7, 14-16, 18 and 19 is a relative term which renders each claim indefinite. The term “ adjacent ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The commonly accepted definition of “ adjacent ” is “ lying near, close ” ( e.g., see Random House dictionary, Dictionary.com ). It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art precisely how “ near ” or “ close ” the corresponding elements must be before they would be considered “ adjacent ,” as instantly claimed. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, due to the claimed subject matter: “ a nth (n is a natural number) scan line ” (claim 1), “ an nth scan stage ” (claim 14), and “ nth scan branch circuits ” (claim 14). Zero is a natural number. Therefore, it’s unclear whether these elements are required by the claimed invention. It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what the metes, bounds, scope, and meaning of the above limitation are intended to be. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, due to the claimed subject matter: “ a nth (n is a natural number) scan line ” (claim 1), “ an nth reference stage ” (claim 18) and “ nth reference branch circuits ” (claim 18). Zero is a natural number. Therefore, it’s unclear whether these elements are required by the claimed invention. It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what the metes, bounds, scope, and meaning of the above limitation are intended to be. Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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. 07-07-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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kwak et al (US 2005/0104875 A1) ; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kwak et al (US 2005/0104875 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 2022/0157230 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Kwak discloses a light emitting display apparatus [ e.g., Fig. 5A ] comprising: a viewing angle control line unit [ e.g., Fig. 7A: 591r between Fig. 5A: P11’ and P12’ ] including at least one viewing angle control line [ e.g., Fig. 7A: 591r between Fig. 5A: P11’ and P12’ ] between a first unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P11’ ] and a second unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P12’ ] provided along a nth (n is a natural number) scan line; and a gate control line unit [ e.g., Fig. 7A: 591g, 591b between Fig. 5A: P12’ and P13’; or Fig. 7A: 591g, 591b between Fig. 5A: P13’ and P14’ ] including gate control lines [ e.g., Fig. 7A: 591g, 591b between Fig. 5A: P12’ and P13’; Fig. 7A: 591g, 591b between Fig. 5A: P13’ and P14’ ] provided between a kth (k is a natural number) unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P12’; or Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P13’ ] and a k+1th unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P14’ ] provided along the nth scan line, wherein at least one unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P12’ ] is between the viewing angle control line unit and the gate control line unit that are adjacent to each other, the at least one viewing angle control line is connected to the first unit pixel driving circuit and the second unit pixel driving circuit ( e.g., see Fig. 5A ), and the gate control lines are connected to a gate driver [ e.g., Fig. 8A: 521+M51 of Fig. 5A: P12’ ] provided between the viewing angle control line unit and the gate control line unit ( e.g., see Paragraphs 66-122 ). Should it be shown Kwak discloses at least one viewing angle control line, gate control lines, and/or a gate driver , as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity: Suzuki discloses a light emitting display apparatus comprising: a viewing angle control line unit [ e.g., Fig. 2: EmiG11 ] including at least one viewing angle control line [ e.g., Fig. 2: EmiG11 ] between a first unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 2: 15R11 ] and a second unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 2: 15B11 ] provided along a nth (n is a natural number) scan line [ e.g., Fig. 2: Gate1 ]; and a gate control line unit [ e.g., Fig. 2: EmiG12, EmiB12 ] including gate control lines [ e.g., Fig. 2: EmiG12, EmiB12 ] provided between a kth (k is a natural number) unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 2: 15R12 ] and a k+1th unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 2: 15R13 ] provided along the nth scan line, wherein at least one unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 2: 15B11 ] is between the viewing angle control line unit and the gate control line unit that are adjacent to each other, the at least one viewing angle control line is connected to the first unit pixel driving circuit and the second unit pixel driving circuit ( e.g., see Fig. 2 ), and the gate control lines are connected to a gate driver [ e.g., Fig. 2: 12, Tg of 15B11 ] provided between the viewing angle control line unit and the gate control line unit ( e.g., see Paragraphs 20-82 ). Kwak and Suzuki are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of light emitting displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Suzuki’s at least one viewing angle control line, gate control lines, and/or a gate driver with Kwak’s display apparatus, so as to enable high tone, high definition color display and reduce the likelihood of deteriorating image quality such as uneven luminance. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Suzuki’s at least one viewing angle control line, gate control lines, and/or a gate driver with Kwak’s display apparatus as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007). Regarding claim 2, Kwak discloses the gate control lines are connected to a control driver [ e.g., Fig. 5A: 50’ ] that generates a gate control signal [ e.g., Fig. 5A: EC_G, B1 ] supplied to the gate control lines, and the at least one viewing angle control line is connected to the control driver ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-72 ). Regarding claim 3, Kwak discloses while one unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P12’ ] is between the viewing angle control line unit and the gate control line unit [ e.g., Fig. 7A: 591g, 591b between Fig. 5A: P12’ and P13’ ] which are adjacent to each other, the kth unit pixel driving circuit is the second unit pixel driving circuit and the k+1th unit pixel driving circuit is a third unit pixel driving circuit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P14’ ] ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 4, Kwak discloses each of the first unit pixel driving circuit and the second unit pixel driving circuit includes at least three subpixel driving circuits [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M55_R, M55_G, M55_B ], each of the at least three subpixel driving circuits including: a first viewing angle control transistor [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M55_R ] connected to a first viewing angle control line [ e.g., Fig. 8A: 591r ] provided in the viewing angle control line unit; and a second viewing angle control transistor [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M55_G ] connected to a second viewing angle control line [ e.g., Fig. 8A: 591g; Fig. 5A: 592 ] provided in the viewing angle control line unit ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 5, Kwak discloses a first viewing angle of light output from a first light emitting unit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: EL1_R’ ] that is driven by the first viewing angle control transistor is different from a second viewing angle of light [ e.g., see Paragraph 5: wherein organic electroluminescent devices/diodes inherently emit light in a viewing cone that includes multiple different viewing angles; if the LEDs of the display weren’t all emitting light at different angles, then a viewer would only be able to see the light of one single display diode at a time ] output from a second light emitting unit [ e.g., Fig. 8A: EL1_G’ ] that is driven by the second viewing angle control transistor ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 6, Kwak discloses the first viewing angle control transistor is connected between the first light emitting unit and a driving transistor [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 ] that controls a level of a current supplied to the first light emitting unit or the second light emitting unit, and the second viewing angle control transistor is connected between the driving transistor and the second light emitting unit ( e.g., see Paragraphs 82-107 ). Regarding claim 7, Kwak discloses the at least one viewing angle control line is connected to unit pixel driving circuits [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M52 and/or M55 of Fig. 5A: P11’ and P12’ ] that are adjacent along the at least one viewing angle control line ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 8, Kwak discloses the viewing angle control line unit further includes at least one auxiliary gate control line [ e.g., Fig. 7A: 591g between Fig. 5A: P11’ and P12’ ] connected to the gate driver ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 9, Kwak discloses the viewing angle control line unit further includes branch circuits [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M55_R, EL1_R’ ] connected to the gate control lines ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 10, Kwak discloses the gate control line unit further includes branch circuits [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M55_G, EL1_G’, M55_B, EL1_B’ ] connected to the gate control lines ( e.g., see Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 11, Kwak discloses each of the first unit pixel driving circuit and the second unit pixel driving circuit includes at least three subpixel driving circuits [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M55_R, M55_G, M55_B ], and the viewing angle control line unit overlaps any one of subpixel driving circuits included in the first unit pixel driving circuit and the second unit pixel driving circuit ( e.g., see Fig 8A; Paragraphs 68-101 ). Regarding claim 13, Kwak discloses each of the kth unit pixel driving circuit and the k+1th unit pixel driving circuit includes at least three subpixel driving circuits [ e.g., Fig. 8A: M55_R, M55_G, M55_B ], and the gate control line unit [ e.g., the previously identified unit also includes Paragraph 6: cathode or anode of Fig. 8A: EL1_G’ and/or VSS and/or VDD1 ] overlaps a light emitting device [ e.g., Paragraph 6: green organic emitting layer of Fig. 8A: EL1_G’ ] connected to any one of subpixel driving circuits provided in the kth unit pixel driving circuit and the k+1th unit pixel driving circuit ( e.g., see Fig 7A; Paragraphs 68-101 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al (US 2005/0104875 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 2022/0157230 A1) . Regarding claim 12, Kwak doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a metal blocking layer , as instantly claimed. However, Suzuki discloses the viewing angle control line unit further includes a metal blocking layer [ e.g., Paragraph 35: positive electrode pad and the negative electrode pad may be metal layers ] between the at least one viewing angle control line and a light emitting device [ e.g., Paragraph 31: LED emissive layer; Fig. 2: 14 ]. Kwak and Suzuki are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of light emitting displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Suzuki’s at least one viewing angle control line, gate control lines, and/or a gate driver with Kwak’s display apparatus, so as to enable high tone, high definition color display and reduce the likelihood of deteriorating image quality such as uneven luminance. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Suzuki’s at least one viewing angle control line, gate control lines, and/or a gate driver with Kwak’s display apparatus as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al (US 2005/0104875 A1) in view of Chang et al (US 2022/0262302 A1) ; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kwak et al (US 2005/0104875 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 2022/0157230 A1) and Chang et al (US 2022/0262302 A1) . Regarding claim 14, Kwak and Suzuki don’t appear to expressly disclose a scan driver , as instantly claimed. However, Chang discloses the gate driver includes a scan driver [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112; Fig. 3ABC: 312 ] connected to switching transistors [ e.g., Paragraphs 23, 45: Each display pixel in the pixels 116 may include one or more circuit switching thin-film transistor (TFT), a storage capacitor, an LED which may consist of multiple sub-pixel elements, and a driving TFT ] provided in unit pixel driving circuits transistors [ e.g., Fig. 1: 116; Figs. 3ABC: 316 ], wherein the scan driver includes scan stages [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112a, 112b, 112c; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ], and among the scan stages, an nth scan stage [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112a; Fig. 3ABC: 312a ] connected to the nth scan line [ e.g., Fig. 1: 114a; Fig. 3ABC: 314a ] includes nth scan branch circuits [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112a; Fig. 3ABC: 312a; Paragraph 35: The GIP circuits 112 may include one or more thin-film transistors (TFT) ], wherein each of the nth scan branch circuits includes at least one transistor [ e.g., Paragraph 35: The GIP circuits 112 may include one or more thin-film transistors (TFT) ], and each of the nth scan branch circuits is in one of viewing angle control line units [ e.g., Fig. 1: 1 st column of 112a, 112b, 112c; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ] and gate control line units [ e.g., Fig. 1: 2 nd column of 112a, 112b, 112c; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ] adjacent along the nth scan line ( e.g., see Paragraphs 34-79 ). Kwak , Suzuki and Chang are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of light emitting displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Chang’s scan driver with Kwak’s (or Kwak’s and Suzuki’s ) display apparatus, so as to increase the aesthetic appeal of the display. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Chang’s scan driver with Kwak’s (or Kwak’s and Suzuki’s ) display apparatus as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007). Regarding claim 15, Chang discloses the nth scan line and at least two scan lines [ e.g., Fig. 1: 114bc; Fig. 3ABC: 314bc ] adjacent to the nth scan line overlap each of the nth scan branch circuits configuring the nth scan stage ( e.g., see Paragraphs 34-79 ). Regarding claim 16, Chang discloses among the scan stages, a n+1th scan stage [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112d; Fig. 3ABC: 312d ] connected to a n+1th scan line [ e.g., Fig. 1: 114d; Fig. 3ABC: 314d ] includes n+1th scan branch circuits [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112d; Fig. 3ABC: 312d; Paragraph 35: The GIP circuits 112 may include one or more thin-film transistors (TFT) ], wherein each of the n+1th scan branch circuits includes at least one transistor [ e.g., Paragraph 35: The GIP circuits 112 may include one or more thin-film transistors (TFT) ] and each of the n+1th scan branch circuits is in one of viewing angle control line units [ e.g., Fig. 1: 1 st column of 112abcd; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ] and gate control line units [ e.g., Fig. 1: 2 nd column of 112abcd; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ] adjacent along the n+1th scan line, and at least one of at least three scan lines [ e.g., Fig. 1: 114abc; Fig. 3ABC: 314abc ] overlapping the nth scan branch circuits is non-overlapping with the n+1th scan branch circuits ( e.g., see Paragraphs 34-79 ). Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses another scan stage configuring the scan driver is on a left side [ e.g., Fig. 1: left column of 112abc; Fig. 3ABC: left column of 312a-i ] or a right side [ e.g., Fig. 1: right column of 112abc; Fig. 3ABC: right column of 312a-i ] of the nth scan stage along a first direction [ e.g., Fig. 1, 3ABC: horizontal or vertical ] parallel to the nth scan line, and another scan stage configuring the scan driver is on an upper end [ e.g., Fig. 1: top 112a; Fig. 3ABC: top 312a ] or a lower end [ e.g., Fig. 1: bottom 112c; Fig. 3ABC: bottom 312i ] of the nth scan stage along a second direction [ e.g., Fig. 1, 3ABC: vertical or horizontal ] that is different from the first direction ( e.g., see Paragraphs 34-79 ). Regarding claim 18, Chang discloses the gate driver includes a reference driver [ e.g., Paragraph 35: The GIP circuits 112 may include one or more thin-film transistors (TFT) ] connected to reference transistors [ e.g., Paragraphs 23, 45: Each display pixel in the pixels 116 may include one or more circuit switching thin-film transistor (TFT), a storage capacitor, an LED which may consist of multiple sub-pixel elements, and a driving TFT ] in the unit pixel driving circuits, the reference driver including reference stages [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112a, 112b, 112c; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ] and among the reference stages, an nth reference stage [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112a; Fig. 3ABC: 312a ] connected to subpixels [ e.g., Fig. 1: 116; Figs. 3ABC: 316 ] connected to the nth scan line includes nth reference branch circuits [ e.g., Fig. 1: 112a; Fig. 3ABC: 312a; Paragraph 35: The GIP circuits 112 may include one or more thin-film transistors (TFT) ], wherein each of the nth reference branch circuits includes at least one transistor [ e.g., Paragraph 35: The GIP circuits 112 may include one or more thin-film transistors (TFT) ], and each of the nth reference branch circuits is in one of viewing angle control line units [ e.g., Fig. 1: 1 st column of 112a, 112b, 112c; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ] and gate control line units [ e.g., Fig. 1: 2 nd column of 112a, 112b, 112c; Fig. 3ABC: 312a-i ] adjacent along the nth scan line ( e.g., see Paragraphs 34-79 ). Regarding claim 19, Chang discloses the nth scan line and at least two scan lines [ e.g., Fig. 1: 114bc; Fig. 3ABC: 314bc ] adjacent to the nth scan line overlap each of the nth reference branch circuits configuring the nth reference stage ( e.g., see Paragraphs 34-79 ). Regarding claim 20, Chang discloses the reference driver is on a left side [ e.g., Fig. 1: left column of 112abc; Fig. 3ABC: left column of 312a-i ] or a right side [ e.g., Fig. 1: right column of 112abc; Fig. 3ABC: right column of 312a-i ] of the scan driver along a first direction [ e.g., Fig. 1, 3ABC: horizontal or vertical ] parallel to the nth scan line ( e.g., see Paragraphs 34-79 ) . Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 in the reply filed on 21 May 2026 is acknowledged. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached 'Notice of References Cited ' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to light emitting display apparatuses . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Jeff Piziali/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628 12 June 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 2 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 3 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 5 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 6 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 7 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 8 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 9 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 10 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 11 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 12 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 13 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 14 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 15 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 16 Art Unit: 2628 Application/Control Number: 18/749,511 Page 17 Art Unit: 2628
Prosecution Insights