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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 4-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 regarding Claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20. Applicant states that Kim (US 2020/0168844) fails to teach the subject matter added to previously rejected Claims 1 and 20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s statement. An annotated version of Figure 1 from Kim is provided below which is used in conjunction with the text of Claim 1 below to explain how Kim teaches the amended limitations of Claim 1 and for the same reasons the amended limitations of Claim 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
840
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 13, 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kang (KR 2017/0063303). All reference is to Kim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Kim teaches a display panel comprising:
a substrate [fig. 2 @101];
a display element layer [fig. 2 @110] located on the substrate and comprising
a first organic light-emitting diode [fig. 1 @R-SP] having a first emission area,
a second organic light-emitting diode [fig. 1 @G-SP] having a second emission area, and
a third organic light-emitting diode [fig. 1 @B-SP] having a third emission area [¶0029, “Each of the sub-pixels R-SP, G-SP and B-SP includes an emission area EA”],
the first emission area [fig. 1 @R-SP] having a first side [fig. 1 @top side] extending in a first direction [fig. 1 @horizontal] and a second side [fig. 1 @left side] extending in a second direction [line positioned 45 degree from vertical extending from upper left to lower right] crossing the first direction [fig. 1 illustrates top and left sides extending to intersect];
an encapsulation layer [fig. 2 @104, ¶0072, “a protective film 102 having a thin film shape is positioned over the driving thin film transistor DTr and the light-emitting diode E, and a face seal 104, which is formed of an organic or inorganic material having transparent and adhesive properties, is interposed between the protective film 102 and the substrate 101, thereby attaching the protective film 102 and the substrate 101 and encapsulating the OLED display device 100”] on the display element layer,
the encapsulation layer [fig. 2 @104] comprising a first inorganic encapsulation layer [¶0072] covering the display element layer; and
a plurality of first light-blocking lines [figs. 1 and 2 @230] located on the encapsulation layer [fig. 2 @104] and extending in the first direction [fig. 1 @horizontal],
the plurality of first light-blocking lines [fig. 1 @230] overlapping the first emission area [fig. 1 @R-SP], the second emission area [fig. 1 @G-SP], and the third emission area [fig. 1 @B-SP],
wherein the first organic light-emitting diode, the second organic light-emitting diode, and the third organic light-emitting diode are configured to emit different colored light from each other [¶0024, “The three sub-pixels R-SP, G-SP and B-SP include a red sub-pixel R-SP, a green sub-pixel G-SP and a blue sub-pixel B-SP”], and wherein,
in a plan view [fig. 1], at least one of the plurality of first light-blocking lines [fig. 1 annotated @230-1] overlaps with a first edge [bottom edge R-SP] of at least one of the first emission area [fig. 1 @R-SP], the second emission area [alternate limitation not addressed], or the third emission area [alternate limitation not addressed] along a profile of the first edge [fig. 1 illustrates overlap of 230-1 and bottom edge of R-SP],
and at least another one of the plurality of first light-blocking lines [fig. 1 annotated 230-2] overlaps with a second edge [top edge R-SP] of the at least one of the first emission area [fig. 1 annotated R-SP], the second emission area [alternate limitation not addressed], or the third emission area [alternate limitation not addressed] along a profile of the second edge [top edge], the first edge [bottom edge] being opposite to the second edge in the second direction [annotated figure 1 above illustrated top edge is spaced opposite to bottom edge in the second direction]
Kim does not teach the encapsulation layer comprises a first organic encapsulation layer, an organic encapsulation layer on the first inorganic encapsulation layer, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer on the organic encapsulation layer
Kang teaches an encapsulation layer comprises a first organic encapsulation layer, an organic encapsulation layer on the first inorganic encapsulation layer, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer on the organic encapsulation layer [¶0060, “The encapsulation layer 142 may be a face seal using a sealing material or may have a 44 structure in which several layers of an inorganic film / an organic film / an inorganic film are 45 laminated”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an encapsulation layer comprising an organic layer sandwiched by inorganic layers, as taught by Kang into the display panel taught by Kim in order to prevent external moisture from penetrating into the organic light emitting diode to prevent damage to the organic light emitting diode (Kang: ¶0060).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the display panel of Claim 1 , wherein,
in a plan view [fig. 1], the plurality of first light-blocking lines divide each of the first emission area [each fig. 1 @R-SP into 3 areas], the second emission area [each fig. 1 @G-SP into 3 areas], and the third emission area [each fig. 1 @B-SP into 5 parts] in a same number of parts.
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the display panel of Claim 1, further comprising
an organic layer [fig. 5 @210, ¶0076, “The transparent resin layer 210 may be formed of a photo isotropic material having relatively high transmittance. The resin layer 210 may be formed of polyimide (PI)”, polymide is an organic polymer] on the encapsulation layer [fig. 5 @104], wherein the plurality of first light-blocking lines comprises
a plurality of lower light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @230] located between the encapsulation layer [fig. 5 @104] and the organic layer [fig. 5 @210], and
a plurality of upper light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @250] located on the organic layer [fig. 5 @210] and
overlapping the plurality of lower light-blocking lines [fig. 5 illustrates], respectively.
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the display panel of Claim 4, wherein
the first organic light-emitting diode comprises a pixel electrode [fig. 5 @111], an emission layer [fig. 5 @113], and an opposite electrode [fig. 5 @ 115],
wherein a vertical distance from an upper surface of the emission layer [fig. 5 @113] to one of the plurality of upper light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @250] is greater [fig. 5 illustrates the vertical distance from 113 to 250 is greater than fig. 4 @W2] than a horizontal distance between adjacent upper light-blocking lines [fig. 4 @W2].
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the display panel of Claim 1, wherein
the plurality of first light-blocking lines [fig. 3C @230] are a black matrix [fig. 3C @230 forms a matrix of black lines].
Regarding Claim 20 (Currently Amended), Kim teaches a vehicle [¶0034, “ … when driving at night, the image display on the display device 100 may be reflected at the windshield of the vehicle and may adversely affect the driver's safe driving”] comprising:
side window glasses facing each other [it is well known in the automobile art that side windows are formed essentially perpendicular to the vehicle windshield forming an opposing boundary of the vehicle interior in the vehicle width direction]; and
a display panel [fig. 2 @110] located between the side window glasses [¶0034 and information well known in the art teach display 100 is located inside the vehicle and therefore between the side window glasses]; wherein the display panel comprises:
a first sub-pixel [fig. 1 @R-SP],
a second sub-pixel [fig. 1 @G-SP], and
a third sub-pixel [fig. 1 @B-SP],
configured to emit different colors from each other [¶0024, “The three sub-pixels R-SP, G-SP and B-SP include a red sub-pixel R-SP, a green sub-pixel G-SP and a blue sub-pixel B-SP”], and spaced from each other [fig. 1 illustrates separation];
an encapsulation layer [fig. 2 @104, ¶0072] on the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel [fig. 2 illustrates side view of encapsulation layer 104 and the sub-pixels E],
the encapsulation layer [fig. 2 @104] covering the first to third sub-pixels [fig. 2 illustrates side view of encapsulation layer 104 and the sub-pixels E]; and
a plurality of first light-blocking lines [figs. 1, 2 and 3 @230] located on the encapsulation layer [fig. 2 @104] and extending in a first direction [fig. 3B @230 teaches the x or horizontal direction],
the plurality of first light-blocking lines [fig. 1 @230] overlapping the first sub-pixel [fig. 1 @R-SP], the second sub-pixel [fig. 1 @G-SP], and the third sub-pixel [fig. 1 @B-SP], wherein
the first direction [fig. 3B @ horizontal] is substantially parallel to an imaginary straight line [horizontal line], and wherein,
in a plan view [fig. 1], at least one of the plurality of first light-blocking lines [fig. 1 annotated @230-1] overlaps with a first edge [bottom edge R-SP] of at least one of the first emission area [fig. 1 @R-SP], the second emission area [alternate limitation not addressed], or the third emission area [alternate limitation not addressed] along a profile of the first edge [fig. 1 illustrates overlap of 230-1 and bottom edge of R-SP],
and at least another one of the plurality of first light-blocking lines [fig. 1 annotated 230-2] overlaps with a second edge [top edge R-SP] of the at least one of the first emission area [fig. 1 annotated R-SP], the second emission area [alternate limitation not addressed], or the third emission area [alternate limitation not addressed] along a profile of the second edge [top edge], the first edge [bottom edge] being opposite to the second edge in the second direction [annotated figure 1 above illustrated top edge is spaced opposite to bottom edge in the second direction]
Kim does not teach the encapsulation layer comprises a first inorganic encapsulation layer on an inorganic encapsulation layer located on a second inorganic encapsulation layer a horizontal line connects the side window glasses
Kang teaches an encapsulation layer comprises a first inorganic encapsulation layer on an organic encapsulation layer on a second inorganic encapsulation layer [¶0060, “The encapsulation layer 142 may be a face seal using a sealing material or may have a 44 structure in which several layers of an inorganic film / an organic film / an inorganic film are 45 laminated”]; and
a horizontal line connects [fig. 9 illustrates a horizontal line across the face of display 100 is parallel to a line connecting right and left side window glasses] the side window glasses [fig. 9 illustrates the position of display 100 in a vehicle with side window glasses perpendicular to windshield 196]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an encapsulation layer comprising an organic layer sandwiched by inorganic layers, as taught by Kang into the display panel taught by Kim in order to prevent external moisture from penetrating into the organic light emitting diode to prevent damage to the organic light emitting diode (Kang: ¶0060).
Regarding Claim 21 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the vehicle of Claim 20, further comprising
a front window glass [Kang: fig. 9 @196] located between the side window glasses facing each other [well known in the automobile art that right and left side windows are located perpendicular to the windshield extending in the vehicle front to back direction], wherein
the display panel [Kang: fig. 9 @100] is under the front window glass [Kang: fig. 9 @196].
Claims 10-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cao (US 2022/0140043). All reference is to Kim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 10 (Currently Amended) Kim teaches a display panel comprising:
a substrate [fig. 2 @101];
a first emission area located on the substrate and comprising a first display element that emits a first color [fig. 1 @R-SP];
a second emission area spaced from the first emission area and comprising a second display element that emits a second color different from the first color [fig. 1 @G-SP];
a third emission area spaced from the first and second emission areas and comprising a third display element that emits a third color different from the first and second colors [fig. 1 @B-SP];
a plurality of lower light-blocking lines [fig. 1 @230] located on the first to third emission areas and extending, in a first direction [fig. 1 @X (horizontal)] , the plurality of lower light-blocking lines overlapping the first emission area, the second emission area, and the third emission area [illustrated by fig. 1]; and
a plurality of upper light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @250] located on the plurality of lower light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @ 230] and overlapping the plurality of lower light-blocking lines [illustrated by fig. 5], respectively
Kim does not teach a plurality of upper light-blocking lines located on the plurality of lower light-blocking lines in a stack direction, spaced apart from the plurality of lower light-blocking lines in the stack direction, and overlapping the plurality of lower light-blocking lines, respectively
Cao teaches a plurality [fig. 12 @30] of upper light-blocking lines [figs. 24-25 @30 upper (on layer 57)] located on the plurality of lower light-blocking lines [figs. 24-25 @30 lower (on substrate)] in a stack direction [fig. 25 @Z], spaced apart from the plurality of lower light-blocking lines in the stack direction [figs 24-25 illustrate 30 upper is spaced apart from 30 lower], and overlapping the plurality of lower light-blocking lines [figs 24-25 illustrate 30 upper overlaps 30 lower], respectively
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the concept of placing an upper light blocking layer spaced apart from a lower light blocking layer, as taught by Cao into the display panel taught by Kim in order to form an enclosed protection for the oxide transistor, further enhancing the protection of the oxide transistor (Cao: ¶0086).
Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10, further comprising:
an encapsulation layer [fig. 5 @104] on the first emission area [fig. 5 @E], the second emission area [fig. 5 @E], and the third emission area [fig. 5 @ E]; and
an organic layer [fig. 5 @210, ¶0076, “The transparent resin layer 210 may be formed of a photo isotropic material having relatively high transmittance. The resin layer 210 may be formed of polyimide (PI)”, polymide is an organic polymer] on the encapsulation layer [fig. 5 @104], wherein
the plurality of lower light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @230] is located between the encapsulation layer [fig. 5 @104] and the organic layer [fig. 5 @210], and
wherein the plurality of upper light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @250] is located on the organic layer [fig. 5 @210].
Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10, wherein
the first display element comprises a first pixel electrode [fig. 5 @111], a first emission layer [fig. 5 @113], and an opposite electrode [fig. 5 @115], wherein
a vertical distance from an upper surface of the first emission layer [fig. 5 @113] to one of the plurality of upper light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @250] is greater [fig. 5 illustrates the vertical distance from 113 to 250 is greater than fig. 4 @W2] than a horizontal distance between adjacent upper light-blocking lines [fig. 4 @W2].
Regarding Claim 14 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10, wherein, in a plan view,
the plurality of upper light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @250] divide each of the first emission area [each fig. 1 @R-SP into 3 areas], the second emission area [each fig. 1 @G-SP into 3 areas], and the third emission area [each fig. 1 @B-SP into 5 parts] in a same number of parts [fig. 5 @230 are overlapped by fig. 5 @250].
Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10, wherein,
in a plan view [fig. 1], the plurality of lower light-blocking lines divide each of the first emission area [each fig. 1 @R-SP into 3 areas], the second emission area [each fig. 1 @G-SP into 3 areas], and the third emission area [each fig. 1 @B-SP into 5 parts] in a same number of parts.
Regarding Claim 16 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10, wherein,
in a plan view, at least one of the plurality of upper [fig. 5 @230] light-blocking lines [fig. 5 @230 are overlapped by fig. 5 @250] overlaps an edge of at least one of the first emission area, the second emission area, or the third emission area [fig. 1 illustrates fig. 1 @230 overlaps the first second and third emission areas].
Regarding Claim 17 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10, wherein,
one of the plurality of first light-blocking lines overlaps an edge of at least one of the first emission area, the second emission area, or the third emission area [fig. 1 illustrates fig. 1 @230 overlaps edge of the first second and third emission areas].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kang and Jongman (US 2021/0184144). All reference is to Kim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the display panel of Claim 4, wherein
the first organic light-emitting diode comprises a pixel electrode [fig. 5 @111], an emission layer [fig. 5 @113], and an opposite electrode [fig. 5 @ 115],
Kim in view of Kang does not teach a vertical distance from an upper surface of the emission layer to one of the plurality of upper light-blocking lines is greater than or equal to about 40 um
Jongman teaches a vertical distance from an upper surface of the emission layer to one of the plurality of upper light-blocking lines is greater than or equal to about 40 um [¶0008, “the light-absorbing layer is separated from the semiconductor layer by a distance (in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the support substrate) of no more than about 500 nm”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the emission layer and the light blocking layer by at least 40 microns, as taught by Jongman, into the display panel taught by Kim in view of Kang in order to selectively retain the light-absorbing layer in regions that are occupied by at least one of the resist mask and the conductor pattern (Jongman: Abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cao and Jongman (US 2021/0184144). All reference is to Kim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 12 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10, wherein
the first display element comprises a first pixel electrode [fig. 5 @111], a first emission layer [fig. 5 @113], and an opposite electrode [fig. 5 @ 115]
Kim in view of Cao does not teach a vertical distance from an upper surface of the first emission layer to one of the plurality of upper light-blocking lines is greater than or equal to about 40 pm
Jongman teaches a vertical distance from an upper surface of the emission layer to one of the plurality of upper light-blocking lines is greater than or equal to about 40 um [¶0008, “the light-absorbing layer is separated from the semiconductor layer by a distance (in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the support substrate) of no more than about 500 nm”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the emission layer and the light blocking layer by at least 40 microns, as taught by Jongman, into the display panel taught by Kim in view of Kang in order to selectively retain the light-absorbing layer in regions that are occupied by at least one of the resist mask and the conductor pattern (Jongman: Abstract).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kang and Kim (US 2017/0053972) hereinafter Kim ‘972. All reference is to Kim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the display panel of Claim 1
Kim in view of Kang does not teach an area of the first emission area is greater than an area of the second emission area and an area of the third emission area
Kim ‘972 teaches an area of a first emission area [fig. 2 @B1] is greater than an area of the second emission area [fig. 2 @G2] and an area of the third emission area [fig. 1 @G1]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of different sized emission areas, as taught by Kim ‘972, into the display panel taught by Kim in view of Kang in order to improve the life-span and the emission efficiency of the display device (Kim ‘972: ¶0068).
Regarding Claim 9 (Original), Kim in view of Kang and Kim ‘972 teaches the display panel of Claim 8, wherein
the area of the second emission area [fig. 1 @G-SP] is substantially the same as the area of the third emission area [fig. 1 @R-SP].
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cao and Kim ‘972. All reference is to Kim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 18 (Original), Kim in view of Cao teaches the display panel of Claim 10
Kim in view of Cao does not teach an area of the first emission area is greater than an area of the second emission area and an area of the third emission area
Kim ‘972 teaches an area of a first emission area [fig. 2 @B1] is greater than an area of the second emission area [fig. 2 @G2] and an area of the third emission area [fig. 1 @G1]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of different sized emission areas, as taught by Kim ‘972, into the display panel taught by Kim in view of Cao in order to improve the life-span and the emission efficiency of the display device (Kim ‘972: ¶0068).
Regarding Claim 19 (Original), Kim in view of Cao and Kim ‘972 teaches the display panel of Claim 18, wherein
the area of the second emission area [fig. 1 @G-SP] is substantially the same as the area of the third emission area [fig. 1 @R-SP].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kang and Ishisone (US 2015/0053958). All reference is to Kim unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 22 (Original), Kim in view of Kang teaches the vehicle of Claim 20, further comprising:
the display panel [Kang: fig. 9 @100] is in front of the driver
Kim in view of Kang does not teach a cluster; a center fascia; and a passenger seat dashboard spaced from the cluster by the center fascia therebetween, wherein at least one of the cluster, the center fascia, or the passenger seat dashboard is in front of the driver
Ishisone teaches a cluster [fig. 11 @5004]; a center fascia [fig. 11 @5005]; and a passenger seat dashboard [fig. 11 @5003] spaced from the cluster by the center fascia therebetween, wherein
at least one of the cluster, the center fascia, or the passenger seat dashboard is in front of the driver [fig. 11 illustrates fig. 11 @5004, 5005, and 5003 are in front of the driver]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position a display device in a vehicle comprising a cluster, a center fascia and a passenger dashboard, as taught by Ishisone, into the vehicle taught by Kim in view of Kang in order to position display devices at positions in a vehicle that are easily observable by the driver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The Examiner can normally be reached 1100-1800 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622