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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 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.
Lines 10-12 cite “a first plate comprising a first folding portion comprising a plurality of first openings overlapping the first folding portion and a second folding portion comprising a plurality of second openings overlapping the first folding portion and disposed under the display module”. It’s not understood if “a first folding portion” and “a second folding portion” belongs to the display module or the first plate, which leads to how the plurality of second openings overlap the first folding portion when said openings are disposed in the second folding portion. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret this limitation as “a first plate comprising a first folding region comprising a plurality of first openings overlapping the first folding portion and a second folding region comprising a plurality of second openings overlapping the second folding portion and disposed under the display module.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claim 11, line 11 cites “the first plate”. It’s not understood what this element is, since no definition has been provided to determine its structure and relationship to the electronic device. Furthermore, claims dependent on claim 11, do not provide any details to determine the structure of “the first plate”. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret this limitation as “the display module”.
Claim 11, lines 18-21 cites “wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are spaced apart from each other by a first space in the first folding portion, and the second substrate and the third substrate are spaced apart from each other by a second space larger than the first space in the second folding portion”. It’s not understood how the “first space” can be a two locations (first folding portion and second folding portion) at the same time. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret this limitation as “wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are spaced apart from each other by a first space corresponding to the first folding portion, and the second substrate and the third substrate are spaced apart from each other by a second space, larger than the first space, corresponding to the second folding portion”.
Claims 12-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, In view of Choi et al (US 20220199922; “Chen” hereinafter), and further in view of Kim et al (US 20200319672; “Kim” hereinafter) and Park et al (US 20210118337; “Park” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Chen teaches: an electronic device, comprising:
a display module (110, fig. 1) comprising a first non-folding portion (140R, figs. 4a-4b), a first folding portion (130R, figs. 4a-4b) configured to be folded and having a predetermined radius of curvature when folded (figs. 4a-4b), a second non-folding portion (140M, figs. 4a-4b), a second folding portion (130L, figs. 4a-4b) configured to be folded and having a radius of curvature different from the radius of curvature of the first folding portion when folded (figs. 4a-4b), and a third non-folding portion (140L, figs. 4a-4b),
wherein the first non-folding portion, the first folding portion, the second non-folding portion, the second folding portion, and the third non-folding portion are spaced apart from each other in a first direction (fig. 1 discloses this limitation); and
a second plate comprising a first substrate (120, see annotated fig. 1 below, 120R, figs. 3-4B), a second substrate (second instance of 120, see annotated fig. 1 below, 120M, figs. 3-4B), and a third substrate (third instance of 120, see annotated fig. 1 below, 120L, figs. 3-4B) and disposed under the display module,
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are spaced apart from each other by a first space (instance of ‘S’, fig. 1) in an area overlapping the first folding portion, the second substrate and the third substrate are spaced apart from each other by a second space in an area overlapping the second folding portion (second instance of ‘S’, fig. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
348
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not explicitly disclose:
a first plate comprising a first folding portion comprising a plurality of first openings overlapping the first folding portion and a second folding portion comprising a plurality of second openings overlapping the first folding portion and disposed under the display module; and the second plate disposed under the first plate, and
wherein a width of the first folding portion is larger than a width of the first space, and a width of the second folding portion is similar to a width of the second space.
However, Choi teaches:
a first plate (150, fig. 3) comprising a first folding region (FA1, fig. 3) comprising a plurality of first openings (151) overlapping the first folding portion and a second folding region (FA2, fig. 3) comprising a plurality of second openings (152) overlapping the first folding portion and disposed under a display module (110, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Choi’s first plate into Chen, such that the first plate comprising a first folding region comprising a plurality of first openings overlapping the first folding portion and a second folding region comprising a plurality of second openings overlapping the second folding portion and disposed under the display module; and the second plate disposed under the first plate, in order to prevent sagging of the display module (¶62).
Chen in view of Choi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a width of a first folding portion is larger than a width of a first space, and a width of the second folding portion is similar to a width of the second space.
However, Kim teaches:
wherein a width of a first folding portion (h3, fig. 20) is larger than a width (g, fig. 20) of a first space (space comprising ‘g’, fig. 20) of a support plate (510 and 520, fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s second plate, with Kim’s teaching, including blocking member 481, such that a width of a first folding portion is larger than a width of a first space, in order to prevent foreign matter from entering the plurality of first openings (¶[0166]). Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Chen in view of Choi and Kim does not explicitly disclose:
a width of the second folding portion is similar to a width of the second space
However, Park teaches:
a width of a second folding portion (FA2, fig. 11) is similar to a width of a second space (230, fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s second plate, with Park’s teaching, such that a width of the second folding portion is similar to a width of the second space, in order to prevent the second plate from interfering the bending process of the second folding portion module. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Choi, Kim and Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Choi further teaches:
wherein an area (substantially the same as FA1) in which the second openings (152, Choi) of the first plate are arranged is greater than an area (substantially the same as FA2) in which the first openings (151, Choi) of the first plate are arranged (¶68).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, In view of Choi et al (US 20220199922; “Chen” hereinafter), Kim et al (US 20200319672; “Kim” hereinafter) and Park et al (US 20210118337; “Park” hereinafter), and further in view of Shin et al (US 20200401275; “Shin” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Choi, Kim and Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
a plurality of sticks each of which extends along a second direction intersecting the first direction and is arranged along the first direction and disposed between the second substrate and the third substrate.
However, Shin teaches:
a plurality of sticks (JU, figs.7 and 10) each of which extends along a second direction (DR2) intersecting a first direction (DR1) and is arranged along the first direction and disposed between a second substrate (SP2, figs. 7 and 10) and the third substrate (SP1, figs. 7 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s bottom plate and include Shin’s sticks, such that a plurality of sticks each of which extends along a second direction intersecting the first direction and is arranged along the first direction and disposed between the second substrate and the third substrate, in order to provide support to the display module disposed on the second folding portion (130L, fig. 4A-4B), when the electronic device is folded. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Choi, Kim, Park, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 2, and the combination further teaches:
wherein each of the sticks has a width that gradually decreases in a direction from the first plate toward the second plate (see fig. 10, Shin).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, In view of Choi et al (US 20220199922; “Chen” hereinafter), Kim et al (US 20200319672; “Kim” hereinafter) and Park et al (US 20210118337; “Park” hereinafter), and further in view of Kim et al (US 20210068276; “Jun” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Choi, Kim and Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
an adhesive layer disposed between the first plate and the second plate and that does not overlap with the first openings.
However, Jun teaches:
an adhesive layer (123, fig. 6D) disposed between a first plate (122, fig. 6D) and the second plate (124, fig. 6D) and that does not overlap (¶67) with first openings (121, fig. 6D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the adhesive layer of Jun into Chen in view of Choi, Kim and Park, such that an adhesive layer disposed between the first plate and the second plate and that does not overlap with the first openings, in order to provide a fixing means between the first and second plate, that will not pull the second plate towards the first plate via the adhesive layer (¶67).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, In view of Choi et al (US 20220199922; “Chen” hereinafter), Kim et al (US 20200319672; “Kim” hereinafter), Park et al (US 20210118337; “Park” hereinafter), Shin et al (US 20200401275; “Shin” hereinafter), and further in view of Yun et al (US 20180192527; “Yun” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Choi, Kim, Park, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a hinge member disposed under the second plate and comprising first guide portions overlapping the first folding portion and second guide portions overlapping the second folding portion,
wherein the hinge member is configured to be folded with the display module.
However, Yun teaches:
a hinge member (203 and 2024b, fig. 3) comprising guide portions (2010c, fig. 3) overlapping a folding portion (F/A) disposed under a second plate (202, fig. 3); wherein the hinge member is configured to be folded with the display module (¶[98-99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Chen in view of Shin, and include the hinge member teaching from Yun, such that a hinge member disposed under the second plate and comprising first guide portions overlapping the first folding portion and second guide portions overlapping the second folding portion, wherein the hinge member is configured to be folded with the display module, in order to transfer an applied rotational movement of the electronic device to a folded or unfolded state, and bend the display module without damage or breakage. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claims 11, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, In view of Shin et al (US 20200401275; “Shin” hereinafter), and further in view of Yun et al (US 20180192527; “Yun” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Chen teaches: an electronic device, comprising:
a display module (110, fig. 1) comprising a first non-folding portion (140R, figs. 4a-4b), a first folding portion (130R, figs. 4a-4b) configured to be folded and having a predetermined radius of curvature when folded (figs. 4a-4b), a second non-folding portion (140M, figs. 4a-4b), a second folding portion (130L, figs. 4a-4b) configured to be folded and having a radius of curvature different from the radius of curvature of the first folding portion when folded (figs. 4a-4b), and a third non-folding portion (140L, figs. 4a-4b),
wherein the first non-folding portion, the first folding portion, the second non-folding portion, the second folding portion, and the third non-folding portion are spaced apart from each other in a first direction (fig. 1 discloses this limitation);
a bottom plate (120) comprising a first substrate (first instance of 120, see annotated fig. 1 below, 120R, figs. 3-4B), a second substrate (second instance of 120, see annotated fig. 1 below, 120M, figs. 3-4B), and a third substrate (third instance of 120, see annotated fig. 1 below, 120L, figs. 3-4B) and disposed under the first plate (interpreted as the display module, fig. 1);
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are spaced apart from each other by a first space (instance of ‘S’, fig. 1, see annotated fig. 1 below) in the first folding portion (130R, figs. 4a-4b), and the second substrate and the third substrate are spaced apart from each other by a second space (second instance of ‘S’, fig. 1, see annotated fig. 1 below) larger than the first space in the second folding portion (130L, figs. 4a-4b).
PNG
media_image2.png
297
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen does not explicitly teach:
a plurality of sticks each of which extends along a second direction intersecting the first direction and is arranged along the first direction and disposed between the second substrate and the third substrate;
a hinge member comprising guide portions overlapping the first folding portion and the second folding portion disposed under the bottom plate; and
an adhesive layer disposed between the bottom plate and the hinge member.
However, Shin teaches:
a plurality of sticks (JU, figs. 7 and 10) each of which extends along a second direction (DR2) intersecting a first direction (DR1) and is arranged along the first direction and disposed between a second substrate (SP2, figs. 7 and 10) and the third substrate (SP1, figs. 7 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s bottom plate and include Shin’s sticks, such that a plurality of sticks each of which extends along a second direction intersecting the first direction and is arranged along the first direction and disposed between the second substrate and the third substrate, in order to provide support to the display module disposed on the second folding portion (130L, fig. 4A-4B), when the electronic device is folded. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Chen in view of Shin does not explicitly disclose:
a hinge member comprising guide portions overlapping the first folding portion and the second folding portion disposed under the bottom plate; and
an adhesive layer disposed between the bottom plate and the hinge member.
However, Yun teaches:
a hinge member (203 and 2024b, fig. 3) comprising guide portions (2010c, fig. 3) overlapping a folding portion (F/A) disposed under a bottom plate (202, fig. 3); and
an adhesive layer (114) disposed between the bottom plate and the hinge member (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Chen in view of Shin, and include the hinge member teaching from Yun, such that a hinge member comprising guide portions overlapping the first folding portion and the second folding portion disposed under the bottom plate; and an adhesive layer disposed between the bottom plate and the hinge member, in order to transfer an applied rotational movement of the electronic device to a folded or unfolded state, and bend the display module without damage or breakage. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Shin and Yun teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Yun further teaches:
further comprising:
an adhesive layer (114) disposed between the bottom plate and the hinge member (fig. 3) and that does not overlap with the guide portions (fig. 3, ¶84).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Shin and Yun teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Shin further teaches:
wherein each of the sticks has a width that gradually decreases in a direction from the display module toward the hinge member (figs. 7 and 10 teaches this limitation).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, in view of Shin et al (US 20200401275; “Shin” hereinafter), and Yun et al (US 20180192527; “Yun” hereinafter), and further in view of Lee (US 20230080858; “Lee” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Shin and Yun teaches the limitations of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the bottom plate comprises one of a metal material and a plastic material.
However, Lee teaches:
a bottom plate (130, fig. 2) comprises one of a metal material and a plastic material (¶42).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom plate of Chen in view of Shin and Yun, with Lee’s teaching, such that the bottom plate comprises one of a metal material and a plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.07). The modification imparts rigidity to the non-folding portions of the display module, and provides cushions the impact from the outside (¶42).
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, in view of Shin et al (US 20200401275; “Shin” hereinafter), Yun et al (US 20180192527; “Yun” hereinafter), Lee (US 20230080858; “Lee” hereinafter), and further in view of Choi et al (US 20220199922; “Chen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Shin, Yun and Lee teaches the limitations of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
an upper plate comprising first openings overlapping the first folding portion and second openings overlapping the second folding portion, and is disposed between the display module and the bottom plate.
However, Choi teaches:
an upper plate (150, fig. 3) comprising a first folding portion (FA1, fig. 3) comprising a plurality of first openings (151) overlapping the first folding portion and a second folding portion (FA2, fig. 3) comprising a plurality of second openings (152) overlapping the first folding portion and disposed under a display module (110, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Choi’s first plate into Chen, such that an upper plate comprising first openings overlapping the first folding portion and second openings overlapping the second folding portion, and is disposed between the display module and the bottom plate, in order to prevent sagging of the display module (¶62).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Shin, Yun, Lee and Choi teaches the limitations of claim 18, and Choi further teaches:
wherein the upper plate comprises one of stainless steel (¶63), titanium, and a reinforced fiber composite material.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20090021666; “Chen” hereinafter, in view of Shin et al (US 20200401275; “Shin” hereinafter), Yun et al (US 20180192527; “Yun” hereinafter), Lee (US 20230080858; “Lee” hereinafter), Choi et al (US 20220199922; “Chen” hereinafter), and further in view of Han (US 20230087236; “Han” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Shin, Yun, Lee and Choi teaches the limitations of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose:
a window disposed on the display module;
a protective layer disposed between the upper plate and display module; and
a barrier layer disposed between the upper plate and protective layer.
However, Han teaches:
a window (103, fig. 4, ¶47-49) disposed on a display module (1021, fig. 3);
a protective layer (1023, fig. 4, ¶46) disposed below the display module; and
a barrier layer (1024, fig. 4, ¶46) disposed below the protective layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the display module of Chen in view of Shin, Yun, Lee and Choi, and include Han’s window, protective layer and barrier layer, such that a window disposed on the display module;
a protective layer disposed between the upper plate and display module; and a barrier layer disposed between the upper plate and protective layer, in order to improve scratch resistance of the electronic device (¶49), protect a backside of the display module (¶46). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Han. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9, 12, 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1-2, a combination of limitations that teaches: wherein each of the sticks has a thickness equal to or greater than about 80 micrometers and equal to or less than about 1000 micrometers. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1-2, a combination of limitations that teaches: wherein a pitch between adjacent sticks among the sticks is equal to or greater than about 100 micrometers and equal to or less than about 300 micrometers. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1-2, a combination of limitations that teaches: wherein each of the sticks has a width in the first direction that is about equal to or greater than two times and about equal to or less than three times of a width of a portion of the first plate, which is disposed between adjacent second openings among the second openings. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1-2, 8, a combination of limitations that teaches:
wherein at least one of the second guide portions is coupled to at least one of the sticks. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 11, a combination of limitations that teaches:
further comprising: a nut disposed under at least one of the sticks; and a bolt provided to one of the second guide portions and fastened to the nut, wherein the stick and the guide portion are joined by fastening the bolt and the nut. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 11, a combination of limitations that teaches:
wherein each of the sticks has a thickness equal to or greater than about 80 micrometers and equal to or less than about 1000 micrometers. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 11, a combination of limitations that teaches:
wherein a pitch between adjacent sticks among the sticks is equal to or greater than about 100 micrometers and equal to or less than about 300 micrometers. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is:
US 20210150944 A1 Display Device and Electronic Apparatus Having the Same. This invention relates generally to a display module including of a plurality of layers disposed above and below the display panel. The support plate is disposed on a rear surface of the display module.
US 20200356145 A1 Display Device. This invention generally relates to a panel support portion including a plurality of support portions rotatably connected to each other, a flexible display panel on a first surface of the panel support portion, and a first protection portion rotatably connected to a side of the panel support portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights