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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (JP 2019028434 A, see Espacenet Machine Translation) in view of Lee (US 20200183224 A1).
Re Claim 1, Kim discloses, on Fig. 1, and 4-5, an optical stack comprising:
one or more light converting layers (color conversion pattern 400) [Par 83 and 112] comprising a green emission spectrum comprising at least one green peak at a corresponding green peak wavelength (Green peak) [Par 62] and a red emission spectrum comprising at least one red peak at a corresponding red peak wavelength (Red peak) [Par 62], the one or more light converting layers configured to receive a blue light comprising a blue wavelength spectrum comprising at least one blue peak at a corresponding blue peak wavelength (source unit 50 emits light on panel 31 which contains color conversion patterns that filter blue light, thus unit 50 emits blue light) [Par 65] and convert portions of the received blue light to green and red lights within the respective green and red emission spectra (first and second color conversion patterns 410 and 420, for red and green light) [Par 62 and 94];
and a first optical film (fourth wavelength band filter 610) disposed on, and substantially co-extensive in length and width with, the one or more light converting layers (Fig. 4: 610 is on and matches pattern 400), the first layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (layer 610 has a thickness of approximately 500 nm) [Par 125], and that:
for an incident light, the first optical film transmits incident light for the blue wavelength and reflects light for each of the green and red peak wavelengths (filter 610 selectively transmits light in a third color, blue, and reflects light of longer wavelengths, red and green) [Par 124].
But Kim does not explicitly disclose:
the first optical film comprising a plurality of first layers numbering at least 4 in total, and for an incident light incident at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees, the first optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for the blue wavelength and reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for each of the green and red peak wavelengths; and for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees, the first optical film reflects greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches, on Fig. 7B, that it is desirable in displays devices to include, a first optical film (filter layer FL) [Par 112] comprising a plurality of first layers numbering at least 4 in total (insulating layers L10 and L20, and insulating films L10 and L20) [Par 109]
wherein for an incident light incident at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees (See 10 degree solid line on graph of Fig. 7A-7B), the first optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for the blue wavelength (about 430-470 nm has less than 50% reflectivity) and reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for each of the green (530-570 nm has more 60% reflectivity) and red peak wavelengths (610 nm-650 nm, has more than 50% reflectivity); and for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees ( dotted lines for 40-60 degrees in Fig. 7B), the first optical film reflects greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths (wavelengths from about 470 nm to 650 nm have a reflectivity of more than 50 %).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim with Lee in order to better selectively transmit or reflect color, as taught by Lee [Par 105-108].
Re Claim 2, Kim in view of Lee discloses, the optical stack of claim 1, and Lee further discloses on Fig. 7A, wherein the plurality of first layers (filter layer FL), comprises a plurality of first inorganic layers, and wherein the first inorganic layers comprise one or more of an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, and a metal (L20 is a metal oxide) [Par 110-111].
But Lee does not explicitly disclose, the plurality of first layers comprises alternating first organic layers, wherein the first organic layers comprise a polymer.
However, Lee does teach, on Fig. 5, organic layers comprising a polymer (polymers BS and LRL) [Par 87 and 119] that alternates with the first layer itself (FL, an inorganic layer). Thus, Lee teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention explicitly control the arrangement of organic and inorganic layers, within and adjacent to the first layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply including layers BS and LRL in the overall filter layer FL such that, the plurality of first layers comprise alternating first organic layers. Further, Lee teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide bases for the inorganic layers (FL) to be disposed on [Par 87].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee, such that the plurality of first layers comprise alternating first organic layers, in order to provide, bases for the inorganic layers (FL), as taught by Lee [Par 87].
Re Claim 9, Kim in view of Lee discloses, the optical stack of claim 1, and Kim further discloses on Fig. 1 and 4-5, wherein the one or more light converting layers (pattern 400) comprise at least first and second light converting layers (conversion pattern 410 and 420) [Par 62-65] comprising the respective green and red emission spectra (First and second color conversion patterns apply to first and second colors) [Par 62-65, the first and second light converting layers configured to receive the blue light and convert portions of the received blue light to the green and red lights within the respective green and red emission spectra [Par 62-65].
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umehara (US 20190103521 A1).
Re Claim 3, Kim in view of Lee discloses, the optical stack of claim 1, and Kim further discloses on Fig. 5, further comprising a second optical film (LCL) disposed on, and substantially co-extensive in length and width with, the one or more light converting layers (colored pattern 400) and the first optical film (wavelength band filter 610), and Lee discloses on Fig. 7B, plurality of second layers numbering at least 4 in total (insulating layers L10 and L20, and insulating films L10 and L20) [Par 109] for an incident light incident at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees, the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths (See 10 degree solid line on graph of Fig. 7A-7B).
But Kim in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose, the second optical film comprising, each of the second layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm such that for an ultraviolet (uv) wavelength range that includes only wavelengths less than the blue peak wavelength and is at least 10 nm wide: an average optical reflectance of greater than about 60% for the uv wavelength range; and for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees, the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and an average optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for the uv wavelength range.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optics, Umehara does teach, on Fig. 5, configuring the structure of a liquid crystal display (Fig. 5), such that the amount of ultraviolet light from a source (UV light source unit) [Par 239] that is absorbed and reflected is optimized (300 nm-410 nm has a UV reflectance transmittance of 50%, and for angles of
≥
10
°
the UV transmittance is >20%) [Par 239-245] for an optical film (laminated film 5) [Par 60]. Thus Umeahara teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention explicitly control and adjust the UV transmittance of optical films [Par 239-245]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply optimizing the second optical film such that, such that for an ultraviolet (uv) wavelength range that includes only wavelengths less than the blue peak wavelength and is at least 10 nm wide: for an incident light incident at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees, the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and an average optical reflectance of greater than about 60% for the uv wavelength range; and for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees, the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and an average optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for the uv wavelength range. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide, reduced deterioration of the color conversion film [Umehara Par 244].
Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee with Umehara, in order to provide reduced deterioration of the optical film.
But Kim in view of Lee and Umehara does not explicitly teach, each of the second layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm.
However, Kim does teach on Fig. 5, a first optical film (Film 610) with the first layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (layer 610 has a thickness of approximately 500 nm) [Par 125]. Thus, Kim shows that it is known in the art prior to the time of the invention to explicitly control the thickness of optical film layers such that they are ≤ 500 nm. Further one of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so in order to selectively transmit different color light [Par 124].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee and Umehara such that, each of the second layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm, in order to selectively transmit different color light [Par 124].
Re Claim 4, Kim in view of Lee and Umhera, disclose, the optical stack of claim 3, and Kim further discloses, on Fig. 1, a display system (display 31) comprising a display panel (panel SUB1 and LCL on Fig. 5) configured to form an image (forms an image) [Par 04].
Re Claim 5, Kim in view of Lee and Umehara discloses, the display system of claim 4, and Umehara further discloses, a UV light source that (UV light source unit) [Par 239] that emits blue wavelength light [Par 239].
But Kim in view of Lee and Umehara does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of discrete spaced apart light sources.
However, since Umehara does teach a UV light source that (UV light source unit) [Par 239] that emits blue wavelength light [Par 239], it is known in the art prior to the time of the invention to provide such sources for display systems. Note that the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee and Umehara, in order to provide reduced deterioration of the color conversion film [Umehara Par 244] with simultaneous transmittance [Par 239-245].
Re Claim 6, Kim in view of Lee and Umehara discloses, the display system of claim 5, and Kim further discloses comprising an optical diffuser (partition pattern 110 has pattern 112 which diffused light) [Par 264] disposed between the optical stack and the light sources (See Fig. 1 and 5: pattern 110 is below color pattern 400, and above source 50).
But Kim in view of Lee and Umhera does not explicitly disclose, the optical diffuser having a total optical transmittance of greater than about 50% for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and an average total optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for the uv wavelength range.
However, Lee teaches for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees (dotted lines for 40-60 degrees in Fig. 7B), the first optical film reflects greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths (wavelengths from about 470 nm to 650 nm have a reflectivity of more than 50 %), and Umehara does teach, on Fig. 5, configuring the structure of a liquid crystal display (Fig. 5), such that the amount of ultraviolet light from a source (UV light source unit) [Par 239] that is absorbed and reflected is optimized (300 nm-410 nm has a UV reflectance transmittance of 50%, and for angles of
≥
10
°
the UV transmittance is >20%) [Par 239-245] for an optical film (laminated film 5) [Par 60]. Thus Lee and Umeahara teach together that it was known in the art at the time of the invention explicitly control and adjust the red, green, blue, and UV transmittance of optical films [Par 239-245]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply optimizing the optical diffuser such that, such that the optical diffuser has a total optical transmittance of greater than about 50% for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and an average total optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for the uv wavelength range.. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide, reduced deterioration of the color conversion film [Umehara Par 244] with simultaneous transmittance [Umehara: Par 239-245]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee and Umehara, such that the optical diffuser having a total optical transmittance of greater than about 50% for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and an average total optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for the uv wavelength range, in order to provide reduced deterioration of the color conversion film [Umehara Par 244] with simultaneous transmittance [Umehara: Par 239-245].
Re claim 7, Kim in view of Lee and Umehara discloses, the display system of claim 5.
But Kim in view of Lee and Umehara does not explicitly disclose, wherein for at least the blue peak wavelength, the optical diffuser has a greater diffuse optical transmittance and a smaller specular optical transmittance, and wherein for the uv wavelength range, the optical diffuser has a greater total optical reflectance and a smaller total optical transmittance.
However, Kim teaches an optical diffuser (partition pattern 110 has pattern 112 which diffused light) [Par 264], Lee teaches for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees (dotted lines for 40-60 degrees in Fig. 7B), the first optical film reflects greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths (wavelengths from about 470 nm to 650 nm have a reflectivity of more than 50 %), and Umehara does teach, on Fig. 5, configuring the structure of a liquid crystal display (Fig. 5), such that the amount of ultraviolet light from a source (UV light source unit) [Par 239] that is absorbed and reflected is optimized (300 nm-410 nm has a UV reflectance transmittance of 50%, and for angles of
≥
10
°
the UV transmittance is >20%) [Par 239-245] for an optical film (laminated film 5) [Par 60]. Thus Lee and Umeahara teach together that it was known in the art at the time of the invention explicitly control and adjust the red, green, blue, and UV transmittance of optical films [Par 239-245]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply optimizing the optical diffuser such that, for at least the blue peak wavelength, the optical diffuser has a greater diffuse optical transmittance and a smaller specular optical transmittance, and wherein for the uv wavelength range, the optical diffuser has a greater total optical reflectance and a smaller total optical transmittance. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide, reduced deterioration of the color conversion film [Umehara Par 244] with simultaneous transmittance [Umehara: Par 239-245]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee and Umehara, such that for at least the blue peak wavelength, the optical diffuser has a greater diffuse optical transmittance and a smaller specular optical transmittance, and wherein for the uv wavelength range, the optical diffuser has a greater total optical reflectance and a smaller total optical transmittance, in order to provide reduced deterioration of the color conversion film [Umehara Par 244] with simultaneous transmittance [Umehara: Par 239-245].
Claim(s) 10 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee and Umehara (US 20190103521 A1).
Re Claim 10, Kim discloses, on Fig. 1, and 4-5 a display system comprising: at least one light source configured to emit a blue light comprising a blue wavelength spectrum comprising at least one blue peak at a corresponding blue peak wavelength (source unit 50 emits light on panel 31 which contains color conversion patterns that filter blue light, thus unit 50 emits blue light) [Par 65]; a display panel (display panel SUB1) disposed to receive light from the at least one light source and form an image;
a first optical film (Fig. 4 LCL) disposed between the display panel and a second optical film (SUB2); and one or more light converting layers (layers 310, 320, and 410) comprising a green emission spectrum comprising at least one green peak at a corresponding green peak wavelength and a red emission spectrum comprising at least one red peak at a corresponding red peak wavelength, the one or more light converting layers configured to receive the emitted blue light and convert portions of the received blue light to green and red lights within the respective green and red emission spectra (conversion patterns 410 and 420, for red and green light, and wavelength pixels for red, green, and blue light) [Par 62 and 94].
But Kim does not explicitly disclose, emitting an ultraviolet (uv) light having a uv wavelength less than the blue peak wavelength and that for an incident light incident at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees, the first optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for the blue wavelength and reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for each of the green and red peak wavelengths, and the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for the uv wavelength; and for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees, the first optical film reflects greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and transmits greater than about 60% of the incident light for the uv wavelength.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches, on Fig. 7B, that it is desirable in displays devices to include, wherein for an incident light incident at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees (See 10 degree solid line on graph of Fig. 7A-7B), the first optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for the blue wavelength (about 430-470 nm has less than 50% reflectivity) and reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for each of the green (530-570 nm has more 60% reflectivity) and red peak wavelengths (610 nm-650 nm, has more than 50% reflectivity); and for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees ( dotted lines for 40-60 degrees in Fig. 7B), the first optical film reflects greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths (wavelengths from about 470 nm to 650 nm have a reflectivity of more than 50 %). Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim with Lee in order to provide, the first optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for the blue wavelength and reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for each of the green and red peak wavelengths, and the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, for an incident light incident at an incident angle of greater than about 40 degrees, and the first optical film reflects greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, and the second optical film transmits greater than about 50% of the incident light for each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths better selectively transmit or reflect color, as taught by Lee [Par 105-108].
But Kim in view of Lee does not explicitly, disclose, emitting an ultraviolet (uv) light having a uv wavelength, at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees the second optical film reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for the uv wavelength, at an incident angle of greater than 40 degrees the second optical film transmits greater than about 60% of the incident light for the uv wavelength.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optics, Umehara does teach, on Fig. 5, configuring the structure of a liquid crystal display (Fig. 5), such that the amount of ultraviolet light from a source (UV light source unit) [Par 239] that is absorbed and reflected is optimized (300 nm-410 nm has a UV reflectance transmittance of 50%, and for angles of
≥
10
°
the UV transmittance is >20%) [Par 239-245] for an optical film (laminated film 5) [Par 60]. Thus Umeahara teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention explicitly control and adjust the UV transmittance of optical films [Par 239-245]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply optimizing the second optical film such that, at an incident angle of less than about 10 degrees the second optical film reflects greater than about 60% of the incident light for the uv wavelength, at an incident angle of greater than 40 degrees the second optical film transmits greater than about 60% of the incident light for the uv wavelength. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide, reduced deterioration of the color conversion film [Umehara Par 244].
Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee with Umehara, in order to provide reduced deterioration of the optical film.
Re Claim 11, Kim in view of Lee and Umehara, the display system of claim 10, and Umehara further discloses on Fig. 5,wherein each of the first and second optical films comprises a plurality of polymeric layers (laminated member 5 can be made of various copolymers) [Par 299-301] numbering at least 4 in total (Fig. 5: functional layer 33, laminated film 3, and conversion film 4 which contains multiple layers, and whole laminated film can be 11 thermoplastic resins)[Par 239 and 214].
But Kim in view of Lee and Umehara does not explicitly disclose, each of the polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm.
However, Umehara does teach the thickness of the polymeric layers (thermoplastic resin layers), should be less than 1,000 nm (1 μm), but can be adjusted as needed [Par 219] or other various sizes [Par 219]. Thus Umehara teaches that controlling the thickness of the polymeric layers is within the ability of one of ordinary skill before the time of the invention. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Lee and Umehara, in order to provide, more layers and thus reflection to a wider band of wavelengths, as taught by Umehara [Par 217].
Re Claim 12, Kim in view of Lee and Umehara, rhe display system of claim 10, and further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the one or more light converting layers (LCL and SUB2) comprise at least first and second light converting layers (color conversion patterns 310, 320, 410, and 420) comprising the respective green and red emission spectra (first and second color conversion patterns 410 and 420, for red and green light) [Par 62 and 94], the first and second light converting layers (LCL and SUB2) configured to receive the blue light and convert portions of the received blue light to the green and red lights within the respective green and red emission spectra (first and second color conversion patterns 410 and 420, for red and green light) [Par 62 and 94].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re claim 8, Kim in view of Lee and Umehara obviate the display system of claim 4, and Kim teaches a polarizer (POL), but do not explicitly disclose, the polarizer comprising a plurality of third polymeric layers numbering at least 10 in total, each of the third polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm, such that for a substantially normally incident light and each of the blue, green and red peak wavelengths, the plurality of third polymeric layers reflects more than about 60% of the incident light having an in-plane first polarization state and transmits more than about 60% of the incident light having an in-plane orthogonal second polarization state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada (US 20190027659 A1) teaches a color filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights