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 .
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claims 1-20 recite “a light emitter configured to emit light corresponding to image data … a polarization adjuster … a geometric phase lens configured to operate as a convex lens or a concave lens based on the polarization of light …” a generic term (emitter, adjuster, lens) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Specification supports these terms: Light emitter – “a light emitting unit ( or light emitter) 110 … the light source of the light emitting unit 110 may be implemented as a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs),” Specification, Paragraphs 65-66.
Polarization adjuster – “polarization adjustment unit ( or polarization adjuster) … The polarization adjustment unit 120 may include a linear polarizer 122 and an active quarter-wave plate (active QWP) 121 … The term 'active QWP 121' may also be referred to as 'Dynamically adjustable quarter-wave plate' . “ Specification, Paragraphs 65, 76-77.
Geometric phase lens - “The geometric phase lens 130 refers to a lens that may refract light by adjusting a phase of incident light. … any lens that may operate as the convex lens or concave lens depending on the polarization of the incident light may be used … Referring to FIG. 8, the geometric phase lens 130 may be manufactured based on liquid crystal using a polarization interferometer. … Light emitted through a light source may be incident on a polarizing beam splitter 810.” Specification, Paragraphs 79, 125-128.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions, and the structure for special purpose functions must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor, specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing these claimed functions. Williamson at 1351.
Claims 9, 10 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 10 and 20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “using a meta atom … that compensates for optical aberrations of the lenticular lens” a generic term [atom] modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure or material for the entirety of the claimed function.
Specification describes “The meta atom refers to a microscopic unit of a material with special optical, electrical, or magnetic properties. The properties of the meta atoms may be determined depending on the geometric pattern with the structure of the meta atoms, the arrangement and combination of materials, and the optical properties of the materials.” See Specification, Paragraph 130. This description is generic. All materials have “optical, electrical, or magnetic properties.” Specification does not support a specific meta atom material that compensates for optical aberrations of the lenticular lens as recited in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “a gradient-index (GRIN) lens configured to have a different refractive index depending on a position within a lens, wherein the different refractive index depending on the position within the lens is set to compensate for chromatic aberration of the geometric phase lens,” a generic term [lens] modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure or material for each claimed function. Specification Paragraph 17 similarly describes this lens by the function that it is configured to do, but does not provide a structure or material that accomplishes the entirety of the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170059876 to Kim (“Kim”) in view of US 20210263318 to Lee (“Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A display module comprising: (“a stereoscopic display device,” Kim, Paragraph 3.)
a light emitter configured to emit light corresponding to image data through a plurality of pixels; (“If the display panel 400 is an organic light emitting display panel, on the other hand, a thin film transistor array including a thin film transistor per pixel is provided on a substrate, an organic light emitting diode” Kim, Paragraphs 94 and similarly in 92.)
a polarization adjuster configured to, based on a request to provide an image in three dimensions or two dimensions, adjust a polarization of light incident from the light emitter to a first polarization or a second polarization different from the first polarization; (“a polarization control panel that is capable of performing two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) control through the application of voltage” Kim, Paragraph 3. See similarly in Lee, Paragraph 8.)
a geometric phase lens configured to operate as a convex lens or a concave lens based on the polarization of light incident from the polarization adjuster; and (Kim teaches “the curved surface of the lens layer may have a convex lens shape from the first electrode 110 to the adhesive layer 220 or a concave lens shape from the adhesive layer 220 to the first electrode 110.” Kim, Paragraph 40.
However, Kim does not teach a geometric phase lens as adjustable based on the polarization of incident light.
Lee teaches the above structure in the context of components that make up stereoscopic displays: “at least one geometric phase lens configured to operate as a concave lens or a convex lens based on a polarization state of a light incident thereon.” Lee, Paragraph 10.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Kim to use geometric phase lens as taught in Lee, in order to control the concave/convex shape of the lens based on the controlled polarization of the incident light. Lee, Paragraphs 8-10.)
a lenticular lens configured to output light incident from the geometric phase lens in a preset direction, (“In the non-glasses type stereoscopic display device, an optical device, such as a parallax barrier or a lenticular lens, for separating the optical axes of the left-eye and right-eye images is mounted at the front or rear of a display screen to realize a 3D image.” Kim, Paragraph 9.)
wherein, based on the light emitted from the light emitter being adjusted to the first polarization through the polarization adjuster, the geometric phase lens is configured to operate as the convex lens, and the light incident on the lenticular lens from the geometric phase lens operating as the convex lens is refracted by the lenticular lens and output in a first direction (“For example, the curved surface of the lens layer may have a convex lens shape from the first electrode 110 to the adhesive layer 220 or a concave lens shape from the adhesive layer 220 to the first electrode 110.” Kim, Paragraph 40. The shape of the lens can be adjusted based on the incident polarization using the geometric phase lens as noted in Lee, Paragraphs 8, 10. See statement of motivation above.)
[wherein, based on the light emitted from the light emitter being adjusted to the first polarization through the polarization adjuster] … to provide a three-dimensional (3D) image, (“a polarization control panel that is capable of performing two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) control through the application of voltage” Kim, Paragraph 3.)
wherein, based on the light emitted from the light emitter being adjusted to the second polarization through the polarization adjuster, the geometric phase lens is configured to operate as the concave lens, and the light incident on the lenticular lens from the geometric phase lens operating as the concave lens is transmitted through the lenticular lens and is output in a second direction (“For example, the curved surface of the lens layer may have a convex lens shape from the first electrode 110 to the adhesive layer 220 or a concave lens shape from the adhesive layer 220 to the first electrode 110.” Kim, Paragraph 40. The shape of the lens can be adjusted based on the incident polarization using the geometric phase lens as noted in Lee, Paragraphs 8, 10. See statement of motivation above.)
[wherein, based on the light emitted from the light emitter being adjusted to the second polarization through the polarization adjuster] … to provide a two-dimensional (2D) image, and (“a polarization control panel that is capable of performing two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) control through the application of voltage” Kim, Paragraph 3.)
wherein the second direction is different from the first direction.” (“an optical element group configured to display a first image having a first viewing angle and a second image having a second viewing angle [direction] that is greater than the first viewing angle [direction] based on the second polarization state of a light transmitted from the first ¼ wave plate. … The optical element group may include at least one geometric phase lens configured to operate as a concave lens or a convex lens based on a polarization state of a light incident thereon.” Lee, Paragraphs 8, 10. See statement of motivation above.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The display module of claim 1 , wherein the polarization adjuster is further configured to:
based on the request being the request to provide the image in three dimensions, adjust a polarization of the light incident from the light emitter to the first polarization, and (“to a polarization control panel that is capable of performing two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) control through the application of voltage” Kim, Paragraph 3.)
based on the request being the request to provide the image in two dimensions, adjust the polarization of the light incident from the light emitter to the second polarization.” (“to a polarization control panel that is capable of performing two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) control through the application of voltage” Kim, Paragraph 3.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The display module of claim 2 , wherein the polarization adjuster is provided between the light emitter and the geometric phase lens.” (“including a display panel configured to form an image, … a first polarization rotator configured to electrically control [adjust] a light emitted from the display panel to have a first polarization state, a first ¼ wave plate configured to convert [adjust] the first polarization state of a light transmitted from the first polarization rotator to second polarization state, … and an optical element group configured to display a first image having a first viewing angle and a second image having a second viewing angle that is greater than the first viewing angle based on the second polarization state of a light transmitted from the first ¼ wave plate. … The optical element group may include at least one geometric phase lens” Lee, Paragraphs 8, 10. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The display module of claim 1 , wherein the lenticular lens is a lens array comprising a plurality of sub-lenses arranged at preset intervals.” (“The lens layer 120 may have a curved surface, in which a parabola shape, an aspheric shape, or a portion of a spherical shape including a semicircular shape is periodically repeated in section.” Kim, Paragraph 40 and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The display module of claim 1 , wherein the polarization adjuster comprises
a linear polarizer configured to linearly transform a polarization of the light emitted through each of the plurality of pixels, and (“The first polarization rotator 120 may selectively convert the incident light into light of linear polarization.” Lee, Paragraph 50.)
an active quarter-wave plate (active QWP) configured to adjust the light incident through the linear polarizer to right circularly polarized or left circularly polarized.” (“The first ¼ wave plate 130 may convert the linear polarization into circular polarization.” Lee, Paragraph 51. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The display module of claim 1,
wherein a first focal length of the geometric phase lens and a second focal length of the lenticular lens are the same, (For example, both the lenticular lens as in Kim, Fig. 2 and the geometric phase lens (Lee, Paragraph 10) can be convex. “The first geometric phase lens set 140 and the second geometric phase lens set 180 may share the same focal position.” Lee, Paragraph 77 and Fig. 5. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and wherein based on the geometric phase lens operating as the convex lens, a third focal length of light passing through both the geometric phase lens and the lenticular lens is half of the first focal length and the second focal length.” (“the third geometric phase lens 181 may operate as the concave lens, and the fourth geometric phase lens 183 may operate as the convex lens. Therefore, as a result, by the optical offset action of the concave lens and the convex lens, the second geometric phase lens set 180 may operate as a transparent plate, and the left circular polarization LCP may pass through the second geometric phase lens set 180 as is,” indicating the averaging of the focal lengths. Lee, Paragraph 69 and Fig. 5. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The display module of claim 1, wherein the first direction is a direction for mapping directions of each light emitted through each of the plurality of pixels to one of a plurality of views for providing the 3D image.” (“a polarization control panel that is capable of performing two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) control through the application of voltage” which change the projection directions of the light between first and second, as noted in Claim 1. See Kim, Paragraph 3.)
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because the method steps of Claim 16 are implemented by the apparatus elements of Claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3 in view of the Claim 16 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 16 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6 in view of the Claim 16 rejection.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170059876 to Kim (“Kim”) in view of US 20210263318 to Lee (“Lee”) in view of US 20210311362 to Kobashi (“Kobashi”).
Regarding Claim8: “The display module of claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes
a plurality of sub-pixels, wherein the plurality of sub-pixels include a first sub-pixel configured to emit red light, a second sub-pixel configured to emit green light, and a third sub-pixel configured to emit blue light, and (“rear surface of the first and second substrates respectively. An array including a thin film transistor for controlling operation per pixel and a color filter per pixel is provided …” Kim, Paragraph 93.
Kim and Lee do not explicitly teach that display pixels have red, green, and blue colors, however note that this is a conventional color pixel structure.
Cumulatively, Kobashi teaches the above claim feature in the context of image displays: “a red color filter film 438R, a green color filter film 438G, a blue color filter film 438B,” Kobashi, Paragraphs 130-131 and Fig. 11.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Kim and Lee to use red green and blue sub-pixels as taught in Kobashi, in order to implement a color digital display. See Kobashi, Paragraphs 130-131 and Fig. 11.)
wherein the first direction is a direction for mapping directions of each light emitted through each of the plurality of sub-pixels to one of the plurality of views that compensate for chromatic aberration of the geometric phase lens while providing the 3D image.” (“a polarization control panel that is capable of performing two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) control through the application of voltage” which change the projection directions of the light between first and second, as noted in Claim 1. See Kim, Paragraph 3.)
Claims 9, 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170059876 to Kim (“Kim”) in view of US 20210263318 to Lee (“Lee”) in view of US 20230185095 to Waldern (“Waldern”).
Regarding Claim 9: “The display module of claim 1 , further comprising
Kim and Lee do not teach: “a gradient-index (GRIN) lens configured to have a different refractive index depending on a position within a lens, wherein the different refractive index depending on the position within the lens is set to compensate for chromatic aberration of the geometric phase lens.”
Waldern teaches the above claim feature in the context of display devices: “a GRIN lens can provide a single lens replacement for a multi element refractive design. … hybrid GRIN and diffractive solution are used, at least to provide a higher degree of monochromatic and chromatic correction.” Waldern, Paragraph 177.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Kim and Lee to use a gradient-index (GRIN) lens configured to have a different refractive index depending on a position within a lens, wherein the different refractive index depending on the position within the lens is set to compensate for chromatic aberration of the geometric phase lens, as taught in Waldern, in order “to provide a higher degree of monochromatic and chromatic correction”. Waldern, Paragraph 177.
Regarding Claim 10: “The display module of claim 1 , wherein
the geometric phase lens is formed using a meta atom, and wherein the meta atom is provided in the geometric phase lens based on a phase profile (“In certain examples, at least one of the metalens elements [meta atoms]: is configured as a conformal layer on a curved surface; … is a geometric phase metalens;” Waldern, Paragraph 13. See statement of motivation in Claim 9.)
that compensates for optical aberrations of the lenticular lens.” (“In some examples, the first and/or second metalens elements include a prescription such as for correcting aberrations,” Waldern, Paragraph 18. See statement of motivation in Claim 9.)
Claim 20 is rejected for reason stated for Claim 10 in view of the Claim 16 rejection.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170059876 to Kim (“Kim”) in view of US 20210263318 to Lee (“Lee”) in view of US 11237413 to Weber (“Weber”).
Claim 11 “An electronic device,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches:
Kim and Lee do not teach “at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to control the display module” however both references are directed to a digital display for operation with a computer.
Further, Weber teaches the above claim feature in the context of displays: “In accordance with some implementations, a device includes one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and one or more programs;” Weber, Column 2, lines 62-67 and Fig. 3.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Kim and Lee to use “at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to control the display module”, as taught in Weber, in order operate the claimed digital display with a computer. See Weber, Column 2, lines 62-67 and Fig. 3.
Claim 12 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2 in view of the Claim 11 rejection, and because prior art teaches:
“based on the request being the request to provide the image in three dimensions, control the light emitter to emit light corresponding to the 3D image … based on the request being the request to provide the image in two dimensions, control the light emitter to emiit light corresponding to the 2D image” (“The polarization control panel 1000 may be attached to the display panel 400 such that the polarization control panel 1000 functions as a transparent film in the 2D display mode. In the 3D display mode, the polarization control panel 1000 refracts an image emitted through the display panel 400 in different directions … in the 3D display mode.” Kim, Paragraph 88.)
Claim 13 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3 in view of the Claim 11 rejection.
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 11 rejection.
Claim 15 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6 in view of the Claim 11 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483